On mySimon: Three Colors Trilogy
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 2 of 4:
Next »
« Previous
"Open source" isn't "free"
Open source software may be "free" on a monetary level, but the moment you start giving back to the community, it has a very real cost. If you were a manager of IT, ask yourself this simple question: would it be cheaper to pay $1,300 for a Microsoft Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition, or to have a sys admin or programmer (at $65,000 per year, plus benefits, plus the support costs) spend an hour a day at the workplace involved with the open source community? Unless that person is contributing to the bottom line like this (like maybe making eneded extensions to software, then kicking it back to the community), it is hard to see how this is justifiable. I am not down on OSS; I use it regularly and try to contribute where I can. But to make this a "requirement" is absured, it takes away one of the crucial reasons to go with OSS in the first place.

J.Ja
Posted by: Justin James   Posted on: 04/02/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

consulting  refux | 04/02/06
"Open source" isn't "free"  Justin James | 04/02/06
Contributing reduces the cost  Ed Burnette ZDNet Moderator | 04/03/06
I have to disagree. It costs a lot more to work around than to fix.  CobraA1 | 05/01/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here