Large companies and analysts that work with open source are fond of talking about vendor "sensitivity" when they are explaining why some customers are reluctant to go public about migrations away from proprietary software.
Speaking at an OASIS conference in London, Erwin Tenhumberg, a product marketing manager at Sun's Client Systems Group said that organisations are reluctant to talk about migrations to open source because they "do not want to jeopardise their relationship with larger vendors."
Andrea DiMaio, a research vice-president for Gartner, agrees: "Users try to keep quiet not [due to] the sensitivity of commercial vendors," he says.
For more, read part one of our special report on open source migrations: Why open source projects are not publicised.
Companies may also choose to keep a low profile about projects to avoid a time-consuming sales visit from proprietary vendors such as Microsoft, according to Aaron Seigo, who works as a consultant with projects deploying the desktop environment KDE.
"I've seen it happen first hand," says Seigo. "Microsoft sees it as a lost sale, so you'll get a phone call and they'll try to send in one of their regional sales people. He'll ask 'why are you running Linux? How many machines are you running?' and so on. From a sales intelligence perspective it makes sense, but most companies find that invasive."
Won't take no for an answer
It can be difficult to avoid such a visit, according to Seigo. "They will keep calling. Microsoft usually has very good sales people so they will be persistent — they won't take the first 'no' for an answer," he says.
Microsoft is also likely to get involved if a company goes public about an open source pilot project. Mark Taylor, the chief executive of UK open source consultancy Sirius Corporation, says that if Microsoft finds out that a public sector organisation is evaluating open source, it will use "every trick in the book" to get involved. He claims that almost every partner in the Open Source Academy, a UK government initiative to accelerate the adoption of open source software in the public sector, has been approached by Microsoft.
The licence fee conundrum
[? /*CMS poll(20004067) */ ?]Some organisations are taking advantage of Microsoft's interest in open source migrations, by carrying out public evaluations in the hope of getting a licence fee reduction. This strategy is often termed 'doing a Newham' after accusations that Newham Council used a Linux trial purely to force a better contract from Microsoft. A number of organisations that are willing to publicise a Linux pilot project are following this strategy, according to Gartner's DiMaio.
"A lot of the organisations that are doing public migration studies want to have a discount from proprietary vendors," says DiMaio.
Microsoft routinely denies that it will cut licence fees for those who threaten a move to open source, preferring instead the line that it can help customers cut...
For more, click here...
Talkback
The real reason:
Teams are using open source becuase it;s fast, cheap, and it works. But, how do you explain why your software budget, which was $500,000 last year, is now only $250,000 this year.
People are quiet because they don't want the bean counters in accounting to accuse them of wasting money last year.
This is a very real phenomenon inside corporations. Many inferior products are used simply because someone had to spend money on them. Newer, better products should cost more or at least as much, but not free or 10% as much.
That's why companies don't talk about open source. They are embarrassed that they spent more to get less in the past.
I am agree with you.. but for me .. yet could not understand Open Source.....
One side people say it is free.... what kind of free? If it is completely free then how can a developer earn money?
If we says that you suppose to deliver your source with your software ... so what I have been doing ... having separate rates for same piece of software....
Still... I believe it is only alliance against MS.
P.S. sorry for my bad english
Your reference to Ballmer's visit to Munich doesn't actually support your argument - ironically, if Ballmer hadn't come, maybe Munich would have decided against Linux.
Maybe you didn't know: Before Ballmer's visit, the "Stadtrat" (city council?) was fairly undecided; the pros and cons of a Linux migration were discussed at the technical level, and I _think_ that while many members of the council generally liked the Linux idea, the risk of such a big migration was too high for many people's tastes.
Enter Ballmer in conqueror mode... He turned the discussion into a much more political thing. For example, should a German city depend on American software? Shouldn't the Stadtrat also think about the long-term strategical goals, and not just about cutting down IT costs? It appears that the members of the Stadtrat also weren't impressed by Ballmer's overall behaviour -- I didn't read anything definite about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if he conveyed a rather misplaced attitude, e.g. "I'm an important businessman and I'll explain to you what to do with your computers"...
FYI, I was not involved in any of this, but I live in Munich and I've followed the discussion and associated press coverage with interest.
"One side people say it is free.... what kind of free? If it is completely free then how can a developer earn money?"
The phrase among the Open Source supporters is, "Free as in beer, free as in speech".
Open Source software is free as in beer, in that you can get the program without paying for a licence.
It is free as in speech, in that you are free to modify the program to better meet your needs, as you get the source code.
Developers who are in it to make money are going to try to earn that money on support, rather than licencing. You need the Open Source accounting program to handle credit cards in its Accounts Payable module? Hire a programmer, and donate the code he/she writes back to the project. You don't have the in-house skills to handle user application support? Outsource it.
Some development teams may include programmers hired by users, hobby programmers, and those seeking to earn their money in the support market - a mixture of corporate representation and individuals. In all cases, they use the "ten programmers go to the table, each contributes one hour of work and leaves with 10 hours of work" model.
I recently project-managed a rollout of Linux to over 8000 desktops at an international finance corporation, replacing numerous commercial packages. To all of the Free Software community, I'd like to say this- Thanks a million!
In fact, thanks 13.3 million, because that's how much we saved! This year alone!
I say "we", I mean the shareholders. So a big thank you from the shareholders, for the extra 13.3 million on the bottom line this year (minus my hefty bonus payment, of course!) you can be assured the extra cash will be put to good use in the international financial markets.
Thank you for all your hard work. We know how hard it can be, slaving away into the early hours, on a caffeine-fuelled desperate search to catch that last bug. We know, because our vendors used to tell us each year when we renewed our license and support contracts. But now, you guys do this for us! Thanks, guys! You can be sure that the champagne will be flowing freely at our profits announcement pre-briefing meetings (open to all senior managers at Associate-Director level and above), thanks to your hard work!
I personally will be thinking of you this summer, on board my new luxury yacht, during my extended vacation in the Mediterranean this year. The world truly is a different place, due to the power of the internet and collaborative free-software projects. Without them, I couldn't even afford a yacht! Thanks guys!
The open-source revolution is just beginning. I've learned a lot from free software, and I'm grateful for that. I've learned I have the freedom to not pay anything for our for our software! That's right, nothing! Not a dollar, not a euro, not a pound! The great thing about ZERO is it's the same not matter what currency it's in! I can assure you that'll be a hot topic at our post-implementation party in the Cayman islands next week!
Of course, I can't disclose the actual company I work for, because, you know, it's "commercially sensitive" and all that stuff. But just remember, next time you make an interest payment on your mortgage (Ha! I remember when I used to have one of them!) that it could just be, that because of YOUR work, a little bit more of the money YOU pay ends up with OUR shareholders! (and me, of course!)
If that seems a little harsh, I say this: think of the children. No, not your children, MY children! They'll be attending a much more exclusive public school, thanks to your hard work! Now isn't that thought enough to warm the heart of even the most ardent critic of free software?
What's strange ?
In russia, if traveller agency sells tickets to air companies biut Aeroflot, in several months the price of Aeroflot tickets strangely jumps to 200-300% of usual price. And agancy have to choose - even stop selling Aeroflot tickets (~90% of market) or to avoid non-Aeroflot contracts.
[QUOTE]I recently project-managed a rollout of Linux to over 8000.. blah blah blah...[/QUOTE]
too big... you're not a very skilled troll... a real CEO wouldn't believe in a zero cost migration :-D
and 13 millions saved for your shareholders would have made the great title in every economic newspaper... so afaict bullsh*t inside ;)
free software in a whole strategy can save money and bring a good IT independance... but a CEO speaking of a zero cost migration : lol
Since 1997 I have deployed Linux in the workplace at two medium sized organizations.
At first Linux ( and for a while FreeBSD ) was used a replacement for dedicated NT fileservers, then in 2001 replacing the remaining NT Domain and print servers. Only one of the servers has Windows 2000 server installed and it is kept inactive a backup server ready to dual boot Linux.
Since late 2000 we also undertook a internal pilot program evaluating Linux as a desktop. The result is that since 2002 one organisation has deployed Redhat 9 based desktops in increasing numbers. Currently over 100 desktops, around 65% of the overall numbers of desktops, run Linux with remaining desktops run a mixture of Windows98se and Windows 2000 professional. All of the desktops now have the latest versions of Openoffice.org and Mozilla installed, with the Windows based desktops running Microsoft Office 2000.
In late 1998, after word got around that we were deploying Linux and SAMBA as a Fileserver, we had a visit from one of Microsoft sales reps demanding entry to our server room. The CIO ask why and even phoned the reps superior to check the reps identity. We were quite open back then and demonstrated by showing the log files how even back then that Linux + Samba has better performance and stability than NT. At the time the latter NT server required rebooting every morning, and was lucky if it made it though the week without crashing bringing the whole organization to a holt.
At each step the organisations have adopted alternatives to Microsoft's products ONLY when it provides them with a better solution.
Since that first visit, each of the CIO of the organization has had began to dread each contact by representatives of Microsoft. Firstly the CIO and then the CEOs where approached with everything from cajoling, promises of discounts, FUD with outright lies. and lastly carefully worded veiled threats. The latter threats motivated one organization in 1999 to preemptivly undertake a time consuming licence audit, not only counting the number of licenses overall, but also matching individual license ID to each machine, with purchase documentation when available. When the next Microsoft sales rep to visit raised the issue of licensing, the CIO picked up the large manila folder, dropping hard down on the desk in front of the rep and opened it. The rep left red faced very shortly afterwards.
Since 2000, I personally have been advocating the use of Linux and open source technology and publicly berating Microsoft for the lack of security in its applications. Under pressure from the management , I have had to agree to keep the identity of my current and past employers secret. I have had people, at least two of whom were phoning from inside Microsoft buildings, contact former employers ( who I worked for before the two organisations ) "demanding" everything from employment and personal information to my immediate dismissal ( even after they were informed that I do not work there anymore ).
Whether actions of the Microsoft reps were endorsed by Microsoft upper management is uncertain, but complaints to the local management has only ever resulted in a short term cessation to the same type of behavior from the local Microsoft reps. Evitably the same or similar shoddy tactics are used again in a few months time.
For many companies the cost of Microsoft licences isn't so high that it warrants the pain of moving to Open Source. The real costs are in the ERP system, and so are the real opportunities. Those organisations currently moving to Open Source are the ones who have thousands of users whose main needs are in office productivity suites, or those with enough network staff to make the move without too much pain. If as a result the Open Source solutions, and the migration process, then improve to the point that other organisations can move to them without major effort, then the rest of us will follow.