Delaware
Computer Software
Aware
Electronics Corp.
1135 E. 7th St, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801
ACDC
Enterprise
We
can troubleshoot your
computer hardware, software
or server issues.
We do custom web sites,
Access databases and online
databases.
19 Annes Way, Landenberg,
PA
Blair
Computing Systems, Inc.
Your
source for professional
technical programming
services
160 E. Main St, Newark,
Delaware 19711
CIM
Concepts Inc.
200 Continental Dr, #112,
Newark, DE 19713
Decision
Support Associates Inc.
29 Hill Rd, Wilmington,
DE 19806
ECHIP
Inc.
724 Yorklyn Rd, #350,
Hockessin, Delaware 19707
Healex
Systems Ltd.
11 Middleton Dr, Wilmington,
Delaware 19808
Hoover
Computer Service
313 Dakota Ave, Wilmington,
DE 19803
 
Illuminova
Technical Services
Computer
Support for Businesses
117
Bent Lane, Newark, Delaware
19711
Inno
Link System Inc.
New Castle Corporate Commons,
New Castle, DE 19720
International
Micro Systems
5341 Limestone Rd, Suite
202, Wilmington, DE 19808
Lab
Ware Ltd.
Providing
a total information solution
for laboratories
3 Mill Rd, #102, Wilmington,
Delaware 19806
Laurel
Bridge Software, Inc.
Providing
DICOM connectivity tools
to the medical community
160 E. Main St, Newark,
Delaware 19711
PC
Supplies
Computers,
Printers, Sales, Service,
Plotters, Networking,
Consulting
13 Garfield Way, Newark,
DE 19713
Software
Services of Delaware
91 Lukens Dr, #D, New
Castle, Delaware 19720
Smart
Button Assoc.
Database
solution systems for the
sports, entertainment
and leisure industries
325 E. Main St, Newark,
Delaware 19711
T3
Technologies
--›
Quick Tips
Computer
networking, security,
support, and programming
services
PO Box 7902, Newark, Delaware
19714
TechSolutions,
Inc.
PO Box 727, Wilmington,
Delaware 19899
Vel
Micro Works Inc.
724 Yorklyn Rd, #210,
Hockessin, DE 19707
Writers
Inc.
2751 Centerville Rd, #109,
Wilmington, Delaware 19808
Sussex
County
Coluzzi
Consulting
Provides
Expert Consulting to Increase
Productivity in Your Business
41 Sussex St, Rehoboth
Beach, Delaware 19971
Software
Advice from the Experts
Cost
Benefits of Open Source
Software
Open
Source Software is software
for which the underlying
source code is provided
with the software or is
otherwise available at no
extra charge. By and large,
the 'community' that creates
OSS releases such software
under a GPL or similar license
and offer that software
for no charge. While the
GPL license, for example,
does allow a fee to be charged
for distribution of software
covered by it's license,
it is considered a free
software license ("free"
as in "free speech,"
not as in "free beer.)
and the vast majority of
such software is made available
free of charge. Many OSS
developers receive payment
for their work on a donation
basis, while the majority
make no little or no money
directly from their work
contributed to projects
in the open source community.
This paradigm is covered
in more detail by Eric S.
Raymond's The Cathedral
and the Bazaar.
One
major difference in OSS
vs commercial proprietary
software is the availability
of the source code. With
the source code available,
user specific custom modifications
of the software are possible,
any bugs can be fixed by
the end user (assuming that
the end user has the programming
knowledge to do so), and
the security integrity of
the software can be
clearly audited through
review of the code. Granted
these things require particular
programming skills to accomplish,
which not every end-user
or company workforce has.
However, generally speaking,
OSS bugs and security holes
are typically discovered
and fixed much faster than
they are with closed-source
commercial software. Under
the most common circumstances,
proprietary commercial software
users are at the mercy of
the vendor for any fixes
and, if even available,
customization or additional
features. My definition
of an Open Source based
system or solution would
be completely, or at least
mostly, OSS which would
include Linux as the Operating
System.
Linux
Arguably, the most popular
and commonly known OSS is
the Linux Operating System.
There are hundreds of different
'versions' known as distributions
(or distros for short).
While the development of
the official core of Linux
is rather tightly controlled,
the rest of the system has
countless variations and
contributors which make
up the components of the
differing distributions.
The fact that the kernel
source is available and
can be modified provides
one notable benefit among
many. The kernel can be
custom configured and compiled
for the specific machine
on which it runs. The typical
Linux distributions, like
other Operating Systems
such as Windows, use a generic
kernel that includes support
for various possible hardware
combinations that may be
found in a consumer computer.
Removing support for things
that will never be used
and only including parts
of the kernel that are required
for the particular machine
can result in a smaller
kernel and increased performance.
Such an option is not available
with an Operating System
like Windows. While to the
average user this may make
no difference, the option
can be important to those
looking to get the most
performance possible out
of their hardware. While
Linux generally allows a
company to use much older
hardware and get a longer
useful life out of new hardware,
this ability to customize
the kernel allows even more
flexibility. Quite often,
a PC that no longer meets
the minimum requirements
of the latest Microsoft
release can still be used
by installing Linux on it
with roughly the same, if
not better, performance
in many cases.
Personal
Experience
I started using Linux about
ten years ago. Over the
past five years, I've used
several distributions of
Linux and other open source
software exclusively on
my own systems. I've also
used every version of Windows
since 3.1, with the exceptions
of 2003 Server and Vista,
as well as performed troubleshooting
or other technical support
on hundreds of Windows-based
machines. As far as I'm
concerned, just the reliability
and security of a machine
running Linux having yet
to be matched by any Windows
run machine I've ever come
across, makes Linux worth
far greater than any possible
benefit that Windows may
provide. Quite simply I
see no compelling reason
to use Windows as an operating
system. Granted there may
still be some good reasons
to use Windows, but there
are less of them everyday.
The Ubuntu distribution
of Linux is quite user-friendly
and is fast becoming a suitable
replacement for Windows
as a desktop OS. In my humble
opinion, Linux has been
superior to Windows as a
desktop OS for years. It
seems that some people have
trouble with the fact that
there are several desktop
front-ends for the X user
interface making it infinitely
customizable and therefore
it isn't standard among
different distributions
of Linux. There are many
other arguments as to the
desktop suitability of Linux
on both sides. It really
boils down to personal preferences
more than anything and with
Linux there's a lot more
room for the interface to
match that preference.
A
digression on uptimes
I've seen a Novell Netware
server that had been up
and running for a little
over a year before I had
to restart it as part of
the maintenance I was doing
to it. I have never seen
a Windows server, much less
a workstation, with an uptime
of much more than about
a month. I have seen data
on Windows web servers with
uptimes measured in years.
However, a relatively static
web server differs quite
a bit from a network server
in a business environment.
Since there is very rarely
any reason for me to restart
my own machines (I could
count on one hand the times
I can recall a total system
crash or software install
that required a reboot),
their uptimes are at the
mercy of the local power
company since I currently
don't have any backup power
systems.
Total
Cost of Ownership
TCO studies are relatively
subjective and, just like
any other report or statistic,
can be slanted to favor
particular outcomes. They
only have real meaning within
the particular parameters
in which they were conducted.
Any evaluation of the sort
should be done within the
environment where it matters
in order to be considered
to have any accuracy. One
thing rarely, if ever, considered
in TCO studies is the value
of the software. If the
software does exactly what
is required of it and does
it reliably, it's value
can be immeasurable. Software
that experiences frequent
downtime due to crashes,
maintenance and the like,
would have a relatively
low value. Even lower in
value would be software
which has plenty of nifty
features
that are useless to the
needs of the organization,
but doesn't include particular
features which would be
beneficial. The usefulness
of the software or suitability
to task(s) is most important
in determining reliable
or accurate TCO figures
since it looks! at the bigger
picture of overall productivity
(and if applicable, profit)
of the organization.
Nonetheless,
consideration of existing
TCO studies can prove useful
in preliminary decision-making.
The
conclusions of the Cybersource
TCO study, based on a 3
year period, show a 18-36%
cost savings in using Linux
and Open Source software
versus using the Microsoft
platform. The original full
report can be found at this
URL: http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf
Initial
Cost Savings
Obviously, with OSS typically
being freely available the
initial cost can represent
a significant savings. Software
licensing fees can easily
run into thousands of dollars
for even a small business.
Commercial software licenses
normally allow only a very
restricted use of the program.
Typically if you want to
install it on several machines
or have multiple client
connections you must pay
for additional licenses
to cover this. With almost
all commercial software,
the user is simply leasing
the program. Since OSS licensing
provides very little restriction
on the use and modification
of the software, the initial
cost savings could add up
to the salary of an employee
for the year in the case
of a medium sized business.
Support
Costs
Maintenance and support
of Open Source solutions
can be roughly the same
as for an equivalent Windows
based solution, though on
average it will be less
costly for those using Open
Source/Linux. Many TCO reports,
such as the one by Cybersource,
base the cost of technical
support higher for Open
Source since a technical
support professional or
consultant that specializes
in this field typically
does cost more. Meanwhile,
the cost difference for
in-house support is usually
negligible. The disparity
in external support costs
is made up for in the amount
of time such support is
required. One point worth
mention concerning the Cybersource
report is that they exclude
the costs associated with
viruses, spyware, and related
malware which affect Windows
based systems. The costs
related to such problems
(prevention, support, damage
control, downtime, etc.)
is significant. Such maladies
are a practical non-issue
with Linux based systems
and can represent a considerable
savings. Windows based systems
on average require considerably
more attention from tech
support (internal or external),
while Open Source tends
to be more reliable or stable
and overall places less
of a burden on support resources.
Thus it is possible for
a relatively small company
using Open Source to have
no in-house tech staff and
still save on support costs
using only external tech
support.
Training
Issues
Training costs can be a
factor in deciding what
software to use. The costs
of training associated with
implementing an entirely
different system would certainly
be higher than sticking
with software that is already
known. However, when comparing
a significant upgrade of
existing software versus
implementing Open Source
software to replace the
existing, the difference
in cost becomes less significant
and could even be equal.
With implementing entirely
new software, whether it's
proprietary or Open Source,
the costs of training could
be considered equal. The
time required for someone
to learn a new replacement
software as opposed to getting
familiar with an upgraded
version is debatable. There
are several factors which
could affect this and assessing
them all is rather pointless
simply for the sake of argument
or example. It is quite
possible it may take someone
less time to learn a new
software program than it
would to become familiar
with an upgraded version
of the software! that they
are used to. Ultimately
the issue of training costs,
as well as all other costs
of software, comes down
to end-user productivity.
If the software does not
meet the needs of the user
and/or is difficult and
cumbersome to operate, the
time and money spent on
training, even the software
itself, is relatively worthless.
The
Bottom Line
The primary goal in implementing
software is productivity,
making tasks easier and
keeping expenses as low
as possible to increase
profit margins. Numerous
studies have shown that
Open Source software is
well suited to accomplishing
this. Additionally, OSS
has the ability to meet
changing business needs
and keep up with the growth
of a company with minimal
additional cost compared
to proprietary software.
Still there are cases where
a commercial proprietary
program meets a company's
needs quite well. Unfortunately,
this sometimes locks them
into a particular OS which
may be more demanding of
support and costly to maintain.
Thus, careful consideration
of such issues becomes critical.
Failure to consider all
the implications of a particular
software package can be
a very costly mistake. It
is this balancing act of
such factors that can make
technology related decisions
like software selection
so difficult. It is hoped
that the information provided
herein proves helpful in
evaluating software and
making informed decisions
in the selection process.
About
the Author: Tom
Johnson is the Principal
Consultant of T3 Technologies,
and has over 15 years of
computer experience, primarily
in networking, security,
and general support. For
more information and suggested
alternative Open Source
Software programs, visit
http://www.t3technet.com
Computer
Hardware
Computer
Networking
Computer
Training & Consulting
Internet
Services
|
