SA’s free software dream turns into telecoms nightmare

[Paul_S]

Still don't see why Telcoms are to blame as Telkom is in a completely different business

Telkom aren't in the telecoms business?

 

[LCBXX]

Telkom aren't in the telecoms business?

Telkom isn't in the free software development business. They are in distribution medium provider for free software development (amongst other things) business.

 

[ic]

I've said it before - Free software can only stay free because of the small user-base it serves. The moment you want to expand into a vast commercial space, it is financially impractical to keep it free.

Don't go and blame expensive Telecoms as the only culprit. You're going to sound like the Health Department who individually blames education/employment/housing/the Rand/etc for the AIDS epidemic.

You're right..whenever demand for anything increases so do costs and nobody is going to foot the extra costs just to give the sofware away for free.

Actually no, have you ever heard of [searchforum]"Economies of Scale"[/searchforum]? - usually when demand increases, and the supply matches or exceeds increased demand, the cost decreases, of course that also relies on competition being present, and there is some competition in the software market although sadly lacking in SA's Telecommunistications market which is why Telkodemonopolies' prices are so high and as a result the reason why Telkodemonopolies does not compete on an economies of scale basis - it doesn't have any wired fixed line competitors...

Now, about Open Source Software being free, yes the software is supplied free of charge, but there is money to be made from OSS since the support required for any software - including OSS - is not free, so OSS support is a sustainable business given an increasing demand for OSS.

Just check out this quote from the article:

One of SA’s largest open source projects is the R10bn,

10-year Integrated Financial Management System to unite the government’s financial, human resources, asset management and logistics software.

Anyone here reckon R10bn is a saving?? Why reinvent the wheel?

You obviously missed the following from the exact same article:

The government spends about R12bn a year on technology, much of it on software for about 400000 PCs.

According to my rudimentary mathematics, OSS means an annual spend of ZAR1bn [ZAR10bn over 10 years], compared with ZAR12bn for closed source proprietary s/w in a single year, and since ZAR1bn < ZAR12bn, it seems reasonable to conclude that OSS is likely to be the better solution.

 

[antowan]

Allright. Done the reading. Still don't see why Telcoms are to blame as Telkom is in a completely different business, like Teazers for example.

Some individuals want to see people without clothes as they want to see it all.
Some people want software without patents or closed source for reasons stated in the article

Teazers offers you the opportunity to see people without clothes.
Telkom offers you the opportunity to communicate, collaborate, download and exchange your free software

Teazers charges you an amount of money to fulfill you need to see people without clothes.
Telkom charges you an excruciating (I'll admit) amount of money to fulfill your need to communicate, collaborate, download and exchange your free software.

Some people complain that Telkom/Teazers are making insane amounts of money from the needs of people, resulting in the discussed article and this discussion thread.

What was this thread about again?

Dude. 2 words.

Cause
Effect

 

[fskmh]

Why should I, since free isn't exactly free anyway?

Be realistic guys. As McSack said, there is no free lunch, especially in IT. Firefox is in bed with their competitor Internet Explorer, even if it is "only" for discussions around web standards.

You got a reference for that last bit?

Not worth my time replying to the other posts, except to say you need to go and get a clue. F/OSS doesn't mean Linux BTW. An association like that can only be based on ignorance.

 

[LCBXX]

Seems like some people are as passionate/fanatic about Free Software as others are about religion?

 

[Roo!]

Why should I, since free isn't exactly free anyway?

Be realistic guys. As McSack said, there is no free lunch, especially in IT. Firefox is in bed with their competitor Internet Explorer, even if it is "only" for discussions around web standards.

I believe what you meant to say is that all the standards compliant browsers (which IE has never been) actually comply to the W3C standards.

 

[McSack]

.You obviously missed the following from the exact same articleQuote:

The government spends about R12bn a year on technology, much of it on software for about 400000 PCs.

According to my rudAccording to my rudimentary mathematics, OSS means an annual spend of ZAR1bn [ZAR10bn over 10 years], compared with ZAR12bn for closed source proprietary s/w in a single year, and since ZAR1bn < ZAR12bn, it seems reasonable to conclude that OSS is likely to be the better solution.

Firstly you're assuming that the 10bn project is going to be the magic bullet for all their software needs

Secondly, you're assuming the project is going to come in on budget and is even going to be relevant in 10 years time. In my experience I have yet to come across an open source project that comes in anywhere close to budget.

Thirdly, by "much of it" are we talking half... three quarters ??? If half their spend is on software that means they're spending 15k a year per machine on software licencing ???? Doesn't sound reasonable to me... someone should be fired or go to jail if that's the case.

Now I reckon open source is often a good solution, but not always ... often it works out to be the more expensive option.

 

[ic]

Firstly you're assuming that the 10bn project is going to be the magic bullet for all their software needs

Secondly, you're assuming the project is going to come in on budget and is even going to be relevant in 10 years time. In my experience I have yet to come across an open source project that comes in anywhere close to budget.

I'm not making any assumptions, I read the article, and responded to posts in this thread.

When the 10 year period is over, in 2013, one can come back to this thread and debate whether the guavamental OSS project was a success or not - unless you're able to travel forward in time to 2013|2014 and bring back evidence that OSS was not the correct way to go...

Thirdly, by "much of it" are we talking half... three quarters ??? If half their spend is on software that means they're spending 15k a year per machine on software licencing ???? Doesn't sound reasonable to me... someone should be fired or go to jail if that's the case.

By definition, "much of it" would logically mean more than 50%, otherwise the words 'half of it' or 'less than half of it' would have been used.

Also keep in mind that every time Microsoft releases a new version of Windoze, that new version seems to require about double the memory of the previous Windoze version, this tends to result in a complete PC hardware replacement. Now we know that one of the OSS components that the guavamental OSS project involves, is Linux on desktops and servers, and Linux is not the memory guzzler that Windoze is, so switching to Linux will also mean that PCs don't have to be upgraded all the time and old PCs will have a longer lifetime. So assuming that 50% or less of that ZAR12bn is directly related to hardware upgrades, switching to Linux can save money on the hardware side as well as eliminating Windoze OS licence fees. Not forgetting that the project involves other OSS s/w other than Linux, e.g. Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc etc etc.

Now I reckon open source is often a good solution, but not always ... often it works out to be the more expensive option.

That's a very simplistic viewpoint IMO. It depends on the number of experienced s/w engineers that are available - if an organisation employs too few experienced people or people that are inexperienced then the result is predictable - it will take longer and potentially have a knock-on cost effect.

 

[nk1]

Secondly, you're assuming the project is going to come in on budget and is even going to be relevant in 10 years time. In my experience I have yet to come across an open source project that comes in anywhere close to budget.

Well in my experience many I.T. Projects fail not due software but rather poor project management or lack of key skills within the project teams. Numerous SAP projects I've seen have overshot budget and timelines. Also not sure how many high profile OS projects are on the go for you to justify that comment.

Now I reckon open source is often a good solution, but not always ... often it works out to be the more expensive option.

That comment reminds me of a certain 'Get the Facts' campaign by a certain big Monopoly. They have given up on it and so should you.

 

[icyrus]

Seems like some people are as passionate/fanatic about Free Software as others are about religion?

Or maybe you just displayed stunning ignorance and were corrected by people who actually have a clue?

Now I reckon open source is often a good solution, but not always ... often it works out to be the more expensive option.

I'm sure you have some sort of study to back that up? I mean, you wouldn't just be making stuff up to go with your arm waving would you?

 

[MickZA]

Getting back on track - Telkom limits OSS takeup because it is cheaper and more practical to get new Linux, Open Office etc releases on CD or DVD from one of the local distributors than to download them.

How I envy those guys overseas with their "Ive downloaded the latest xx linux DVD iso twice now and still can't burn it so that it boots" threads on the linux forums.

 

[TheREV]

For those who do not know:

OSS (Open Source Software) is free.

Not as in "free beer".

As in "free as a bird".

Geddit?

 

[alma-tadema]

I've said it before - Free software can only stay free because of the small user-base it serves. The moment you want to expand into a vast commercial space, it is financially impractical to keep it free.

Don't go and blame expensive Telecoms as the only culprit. You're going to sound like the Health Department who individually blames education/employment/housing/the Rand/etc for the AIDS epidemic.

This does not make sense... production costs on any software is essentially zero, your costs are the design. Secondly all Open Source has Totally Free, Totally No support clauses so no "demand" changes if it is 1 or a 100 million users...Third parties like IBM make a pretty penny through support and services and that definitely isn't free. Still mass adoption of Open Source like Linux has resulted in billions of revenues, which has enabled many more developers to meet "demand" like drivers and bug fixes.

 

[NoADSLyet]

I'm just going to ask you to mark your words.

If basic living necessities needed by the masses aren't free, how of earth would software utilised by the same number of people be? No brainier, huh?

All your so called parallels makes no sense. You do not no the first thing about open source software. My original comments remain standing and marking my words will not change it at all. Shame!