Computing, GIS and Archaeology in the UK

I’ve been meaning to post for a while on Oxford Archaeology‘s Open Archaeology Project, also known as our “Open Ethos”, then what do you know, Joseph posts about it and says it so well that I might just as well repeat his post verbatim. I won’t though- then you might go and read the other blog, and wander around on the internet for a while finding out interesting new things . Pop back here when you’re done, if you like!

In short, “Open Archaeology” comprises three strands: open standards, open access, and open source. We see this  as the only logical way of fulfilling our remit as a commercial archaeological organisation, and an educational charity. Our job is to record the cultural remains that are damaged or destroyed by development. Our remit is to make those records available in perpetuity, to anyone who wants to see them. At the end of the day, pretty objects in museums are of little use without the background information that gives them context and fires the imagination.

While the three strands are not the same thing (as they are often made out to be), open data is useless without open standards and open software. Open software is useless without open data and open standards. You get the idea.

I’ve recently been asked if our commitment to open source software was a financial decision, or an ethical one. It’s both, I suppose, but our Open Archaeology project should show you that it’s part of a bigger thing than simply saving money on licenses.

From the O’Reilly Radar blog comes this great presentation from Dave Gray, which as Tim O’Reilly says himself

is a must-read, must-share for anyone who cares about either science or open access.

It’s also one of the most engaging “powerpoints” you’ll see in a while, showing that it’s possible to have something with lots of text, yet still be interesting and attractive. Give it a go and tell your friends!

Back in December, I wrote a post about Microsoft Case Studies “proving” that moving from open source to Microsoft would have massive cost savings. When you looked into the actual case study, rather than the fluffy press release that they put out, the story was rather different. A few comments that I got suggested that other people didn’t necessarily see the case study in the same light, so  I was pleased to see a repeat performance.

I should be clear here, since I wasn’t before, that I don’t have a problem with TCO, and there is considerably more to take into account when advocating either an open source or proprietary solution than simple software costs. In fact, as the article makes clear, the previous switch to linux from Windows NT 3.51 (yes, that’s how old their previous setup was) was done as a straight cost-cutting exercise with no proper planning or architectural changes. Clearly, choosing the software is a minor part of the problem compared to not maintaining or updating your system, or running it on completely unsuitable hardware.

However, the end result is another Microsoft “case study” which implies that a straight switch from linux to Microsoft has resulted in massive savings and efficiency increases. There’s no indication (of course) of what would have happened if they had properly maintained and updated their linux system or hardware.

So, let’s be very clear here: I’m not trying to say that everyone should switch to linux because it’s cheaper- this is about companies producing accurate and honest comparions rather than white-wash.

I attended a seminar on ”Business and Sustainability Models around Free and Open Source Software” a couple of weeks ago run by OSS watch, who are an advisory service on open source and free software to the UK higher and further education establishment.

It was targeted mainly at academics (not unsurprisingly), who had ideas of creating software and were trying to decide the best way of releasing it- closed or open source.  It started with a really useful run-down of the various open source licenses, followed by an explanation of some of the legal issues. The afternoon was given up to case studies of open source software, ranging from a one-man band with a product that addresses a niche within his particular discipline, to a representative from Symbian about their foundation and it’s plans to open source development for that mobile phone platform.

Then, last week as I was preparing my talk to the British Computing Society, Paul Ramsey posted a really thoughtful (and incredibly useful) piece on the Open Source business support model, particularly relating to open source geospatial software.

I found both the workshop and Paul’s post really useful. They provided examples of the different types of business models for open source that are out there, and evidence to demonstrate that such a crazy thing as a business model based on something free really does work, and that lots of people are thinking about it. When I stood up at the BCS and talked about these things, this was all very reassuring!