Comments on: You pays yer money and takes yer chance? http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/ Archaeology in a Digital World Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:26:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: admin http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/comment-page-1/#comment-51152 admin Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:13:11 +0000 http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/?p=281#comment-51152 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 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

]]> By: Brunhilde http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/comment-page-1/#comment-50764 Brunhilde Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:38:23 +0000 http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/?p=281#comment-50764 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! 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!

]]> By: admin http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/comment-page-1/#comment-50285 admin Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:53:11 +0000 http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/?p=281#comment-50285 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 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

]]> By: Neil MacGaffey http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/comment-page-1/#comment-50062 Neil MacGaffey Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:11:05 +0000 http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/?p=281#comment-50062 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 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

]]> By: ChrisW http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/2008/12/10/you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-chance/comment-page-1/#comment-50061 ChrisW Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:57:56 +0000 http://www.archaeogeek.com/blog/?p=281#comment-50061 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... 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…

]]>