Lars Noodén wrote:
FYI: The US DoD policy for open source software says (I'm paraphrasing, but this is the gist of it):On 3/1/13 9:41 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:Munich in 2003 and Freiburg in 2007. Comment: OpenOffice's Tale of Two Cities http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Comment-OpenOffice-s-Tale-of-Two-Cities-1760502.html Munich's program was successful and expanded. Freiburg's failed and they reverted to Microsoft. Why? I will let you read the article for that author's observations. BobThe Freiburg case makes it all the more clear that the total cost of ownership should also include the exit cost and the cost of vendor lock-in.
1. For the purposes of make/buy decisions, open source software = COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) - e.g., if you're looking at operating systems, Windows, Solaris, AIM, Debian, Ubuntu, ... - whether it's open source or not is immaterial (or put another way, you can't ignore open source; or more affirmatively, open source is on a level playing field when it comes to functionality and performance)
2. If you select an open source package, you HAVE to define/provide a support plan - i.e., you can't just download and install a FOSS package and be done with it. In practice this means you either go with something like Redhat, and purchase a support plan, or allocate/hire support staff.
This pretty much forces that lifecycle cost be considered.It's a very interesting read, by the way, and there are a few people who deserve a lot of credit fr making it happen.
http://mil-oss.org/resources/us-dod_policy-memo_clarifying-guidance-regarding-oss_16oct2009.pdf Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra