22 Aug
2008
22 Aug
'08
10:16 a.m.
On Monday 18 Aug 2008 22:23, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On 18-Aug-08, at 1:14 PM, Erach wrote:
>> Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software project of
>> say one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows
>> v/s LINUX for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s
>> which tool set to use of LINUX".
>
> in my experience it is more expensive to develop in FOSS, for the
> simple reason that the developers hired have to actually know
> what they are doing, so cost much more. In the long run, though,
> once the software is developed and deployed, the software is far
> cheaper to maintain. If I am not mistaken, when Munich opted for
> FOSS, the FOSS bid was much higher than the proprietary software
> bids.
True. What was not included in the closed quote was all the costs
incurred over the life of the data. Standard accounting practice
would budget over 3 yrs. This is a distinct disadvantage to FOSS
where a program tends to have an indefinite life.
Further for a given industry the requirements will be 95% same. With
FOSS the costs for using the software in another city would be 10 to
15% of the first time costs, not 100%, as the case would be with a
closed solution.
The general opinion of people in the software industry
(programmers
and potential clients) is that Windows programmers are cheaper and
available in large quantities whereas FOSS programmers are few and
quote astronomical rates for their work.
shows that the costing exercise is crappy and / or that the clients
data is not important.
Having said the above, NEVER focus on cost as a USP - this goes for
any product - but on the strengths that you have and is missing from
the competition.
--
Rgds
JTD