Response to a CEO’s brief email regarding adoption of open source software.
Open source software enables users access to the underlying programming code and, typically, the ability to modify programs and even contribute improvements back to the project. Similar to proprietary software, open source software is still licensed and copyright protected but is characteristically free (monetarily) to use.
There are many indirect potential costs associated with any software or when migrating to another system. These will include any productivity downtime for end users, time required for installation, time associated with end user training, support costs and any costs incurred if the software fails to perform.
Although there may be a perceived cost-saving by using Open Office, it is due to these reasons that I would not recommend replacing Microsoft Office. A time-consuming ‘gap analysis’ will have to be performed for all end users to ensure that no technical challengers are presented e.g. a highly customised spreadsheet that may not convert well. Although superficially similar, the products are different and not all end users may be confident with small changes so costs will be incurred through training provision.
Microsoft Office is regarded as a commercial standard and Open Ooffice’s interoperability with other products may be challenging. Other software products often only support MS Office interoperability e.g. a CRM system providing data extracts for use in mail-merges. Commercial grade support agreements can be had with Microsoft but we would have to rely on third-party or community support options with Open Office that may not be as reactive when time-critical.
As users are not typically aware of the operating system of a computer but just interact with a GUI and applications running, it is those applications that determine an operating system’s success. Many vendors develop software (vertical market and niche products especially) for compatibility with Microsoft Windows and do not provide an option for other OS’s nor official support. Microsoft Windows is again, a standard users are familiar with both in and out of the workplace.
A viable option could be the migration of servers from Microsoft to UNIX-like systems – the majority of servers globally run linux. Non-technical users would not need to interact with the OS (just services provided e.g. web/email) so this would negate some challenges. Much evidence suggests linux is a secure, cost-effective option for servers and it is more important to avoid vendor-lock-in on infrastructure than client systems.
Hope this helps.
Kind Regards,
James Hatton