You pays yer money and takes yer chance?
Comments(5) I love it when two mutually contradictory posts land in my reader. To be fair, you can argue that they are not, but then where would be the fun in that?
Number One: Speedy Hire (UK equipment hire company) saved 1 million pounds by moving to Microsoft Everything from linux-based pcs running open office etc.
Number Two: Massachusetts Geographic Information services have gone over to open source GIS to cut costs (amongst other benefits).
The first article is a fantastic piece of fluff, and it’s worth reading considerably deeper (ie the whole case study) rather than just relying on the press release. To put it briefly, Speedy Hire went from antiquated end-of-life pcs, with a non-gui order system that couldn’t be integrated with anything else, and a custom-built email system. They didn’t have any decent internal IT support. Not only that, but they had recently acquired a bunch of other companies, and non of their systems were fully integrated either. So, they replaced all their pcs, put in the same software across all the depots/offices etc, and upgraded their order system. I would certainly hope for a decent return on that kind of investment, whether they chose Microsoft Everything or an open source solution. However, the article concetrates entirely on the lack of performance they had with their old system (blaming this on open source rather than because the pcs were antiquated), and the difficulty of opening documents in open office (we all know exactly how difficult that is).
On the other hand, MassGIS are finding that they prefer the flexibility and capacity that going open source brings them, along with the enterprise-support they are getting from OpenGEO. Simply moving over to linux-based virtualisation products has allowed them to save considerable amounts of money, without taking (the lack of) licensing costs into account.
I’m not naive, I know microsoft do this all the time, and the two case studies are not all that comparable, but it does make me mad to see this kind of whitewash going on, when it would better if we could see some genuine like-for-like comparisons.
What a weird case study. I’m having trouble believing that this company really had to pay more for PCs that would run Linux than for ones that would run Windows XP, even in 2007 (when this study was apparently put online). Maybe they shopped at Dixon’s.
Still, I guess it’s significant that the only system Microsoft can find that’s slower than the MS-implemented Windows equivalent is an ancient, inefficient, home-made, open-source system running on equally ancient and inefficient hardware.
Anyway, good luck to this company if they really are so “impressed with the new interface and functionality of Windows Vista” that they want to base their business systems on Vista in future. That’ll pour some glue in the works…
The statement that MassGIS has “gone over to open source GIS” does not correctly represent what is going on at MassGIS. We have been using open source products in our web mapping services software stack for many years. In the past couple of years we have added Geoserver to that stack and, most recently, we were pleased to add support services from OpenGeo to replace what we used to do internally. Certainly our use of Geoserver has allowed us to improve performance and expand capacity without increasing costs. However, MassGIS also continues to use proprietary software in delivering our web mapping services. Our choice of software takes into account a variety of factors. The first and most important factor is what best meets our needs while also, of course, factoring in cost. Second is what level of disruption and cost is involved in shifting away from an existing software choice. A seemingly obvious choice of a lower-cost equally functional alternatives can look less attractive after you factor in the “cost” of disruptions and added stress on limited staff resources.
Neil MacGaffey, Assistant Director
MassGIS
Hi Neil,
Many thanks for the clarification- it’s clear that the original article that I was referring to can be misinterpreted. I know exactly what you mean about the additional costs and complexities in costing up a transition to another software package, be that open source or proprietary, as I have been involved in that process for several years at Oxford Archaeology.
However, I feel that the Microsoft article is exceedingly misleading and disingenuous in the way that it suggests that the cost savings came from ditching open source and going over to microsoft, rather than upgrading antiquated systems, and fully integrating their different companies. As I said, I would hope to see a return on that kind of investment regardless of what package you went over to!
Thanks for stopping by,
Jo
Neil,
I thought your comments made for very interesting reading. You haven’t blindly adopted one method with MassGIS, but have looked at all the costs and implications of each system, then chosen accordingly.
I agree, open source does not always make the best business sense, and should be looked at carefully in terms of it’s wider costs, and then used if it is the best option. It’s a shame that not all companies behave this way. Some shun open source as inherantly bad for the software industry, while others embrace it with rose-tinted spectacles, oblivious to the wider implications.
Interesting that both case studies advocate the use of propriety software!
Hi Brunhilde,
Thanks for stopping by. If my post implied that I was coming down blindly on the side of open source, it wasn’t supposed to. It wasn’t even about advocating one or other type of software. The point that I was trying to make, is that TCO only works if you are being fair about your comparisons. I don’t believe that Microsoft were fair, because so many parameters were changed in the upgrade, yet they focussed on just one of them. In the case of MassGIS, they found that FOSS worked for them AS A SINGLE COMPONENT in their system, and it was cheaper for that one component. That’s a much better TCO comparison, in my opinion.
Jo