Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Partnership Initiatives In Companies That Support OSS? 89

Posted by Cliff from the keep-them-organizations-a-comin' dept.
reptyle asks: "Over Xmas dinner, a friend of the family told us she was considering launching a partnership between her employer FNMA (colloquially known as Fannie Mae; they are a semi-private company that guarantees mortgages) and Microsoft to provide training and eventually, surplus hardware to private individuals and non-profit outfits. I lamented this choice and she suggested that I e-mail her names and URLs of companies as alternative recommendations. So far I have come up with: Debian, Red Hat (distributions), VA Linux, Penguin (hardware companies), and maybe a few non-profit advocacy groups, but I think the list is still a bit too short. I can't think of any other entities that might be appropriate so I figured I'd ask Slashdot readers for help in providing other organizations that I may have missed. I don't care whether the organization uses Linux or BSD, just as long as it's not a proprietary model."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Partnership Initiatives Among Companies Who Support OSS? More

Partnership Initiatives Among Companies Who Support OSS?

Comments Filter:

  • Wrong (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I direct you to the posters last line...

    I don't care whether the organization uses Linux or BSD, just as long as it's not a proprietary model.

    That's not "opening up alternatives", that's in fact closing down alternatives. There's no hint of open-mindedness there at all.

  • Re:What's wrong with Microsoft? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Ya, I can see it already. Throw some NT on the machines an give it to them. Then they can pay ridiculous and oppressive license fees, fork over yet more money for "upgrades", and get charged exorbiant support prices for gems like this "Memory is like gasoline, of course ya get it all back when you reboot". After following the company line they toss a boatload of hardware at it to make it run correctly(futile) and in the end get dicked by MicroShafts lawyers cause they can't "prove" they own the software.

    I gotta laugh everytime I see some troll saying something along the lines of "I'm tired of you slashbots constantly bashing M$." My God, we must really be making Redmond nervous. Face it, people hate M$ for a reason. You know it, I know it, you'll feel better if you just admit it. We don't really expect you to change ya know...

  • Now that was funny.
  • what about suse? I switched from rh to suse and have been very happy with them. They have a good distro with good support for hardware. v7 even found my usb mouse with no problem during installation (windows me didn't support the usb mouse during setup).

  • Much of the knowledge of how to use a word processor transfer between programs. I think your argument stinks of close-mindedness and a desire for the world to not change from what you're comfortable with.

  • Wordprocessors are not very hard to learn to start with...
    Also the Microsoft Word they will be using when they enter the marketplace won't be the same Word they'll use when they enter the marketplace..
    Thats assuming Word remains populare that long...

    I rember in high school asking myself why they were teaching me Wordstar.. Sure it's populare but it won't be forever...

    By the time I was in the market for a wordprocessor myself Wordstar 2000 was pritty diffrent from the wordprocessor "I" learnned...
    Thankfully I also learnned sevral other wordprocessors that gave me a better understanding of the fundementals of wordprocessing....

    Maybe "Word" isn't the wrong answer... The wrong answer is.. one wordprocessor.... Teach Word and kword and.. and... and.. then when they sit infront of MsWord 2025 It'll all make sence...
    Or maybe they'll be sitting infront of AmigaWord 2025...
  • >Sun in particular, seems to want to be the Anit-Microsoft.

    They may want to be but they aren't.. (They certenly aren't PRO Microsoft but as far as Anti-MS they end up being all talk)

    Sun aims at the high end while attacking Linux and not taking Apple sereously...
    the Macintosh and Linux are the two systems best positioned to compeate with Microsoft...

    Suns fear of Linux has to do with Linux compeating on the high end. For a long time Linux relyed on Suns hardware for the high end. IBM probably wouldn't have put any risk into supporting Linux had Sun not come out so harshly against same..
  • I belive Sun is donating hardware to schools...
    (A good think IMHO) this should be the first place for non-proffits to turn given the quality of Sun hardware..
  • For what it's worth, I did ask and FNMA is a huge organization...how specific do you think your knowledge about this is?
  • thousands, large numbers? MS has a huge install base. I'm sure its over 100million. even if a 5 million people were 100% MS free (quite possible), thats 5%, i beleive anything over like 80% is a monopoly, there may be exact "government numbers" on this, but common sense says that 80% gives someone pretty much complete control, and the 90-95% which MS probably has gives it that much more

    - the more i think about it, i figure that number is probably higher than 100million, but who knows. Between all the companys, home users, and international stuff its gotta be insanely high.

    even just the install base of linux/bsd/etc couldn't possibly be 50million computers. I think numbers i saw said linux was on like 10-11million machines, and most of those i would bet arn't microsoft free. i'm sure linux doesn't account for half the "other-os" market, but probably does have 1/4 - 1/3

  • At last something besides the pro and anti-MS rants, which should all be "offtopic".

    In terms of hardware: HP, SGI, Sun, IBM. They all have resources devoted to charity work, and are pushing linux on their platforms.
  • BSDi, need I say more?
  • heres a mirror

    DOWNLOAD NOW - Linux Kernel 2.4.0 [209.233.130.20]

    enjoy... i'm really suprised the headline was scrolled off the site so fast.

  • 'nuff said.
  • I'm surprised that there's virtually no mention of the Mac. Seems to me it would be a very workable alternative to Microsoft, if that's the order of the day.

    As for the cost of Linux, *BSD, and other free OSes, it's worth considering support costs as well as initial investment. A not-for-profit might be able to afford to "buy" the latest version of a free OS, but installing and maintaining it is another matter. You can buy quite a bit of commercial software for the same as you'd pay a decent Unix sysadmin.
  • You are probably alluding to the relative amount of doze boxes in companies likely to hire people who were subject to a charity training programme. Most of what the prospective trainees lack, however, is not skills specific to doze-maimed machines, but rather generic skills needed for virtually all systems designed by people with a programmer state of mind (i.e. all systems). I would definitely not have them write TeX in vi or worse (EMACS), but an installation using StarOffice on Linux would hardly do any harm, while at the same time having several advantages over an M$ solution:
    • stability
    • less maintenance overhead once set up properly
    • an easy way to provide defined environments whenever necessary
    • when going beyond those first steps, all the possibilities you may want
    • a wealth of software at the best possible price (==free beer)
    • trainees get a chance to look "over the rim" into that great world of unknown possibilities
    • they get a new competitive advantage on the job market (exposure to "other OSs")
    • Linux encourages them (once they have been led the first steps into it) to learn much more than the bit of point-and-click most get stuck at in wonderdoze (an important reason for the present lack of really computer literates), possibly setting some of them on the way to computer wizardry and your own job (well, maybe Im getting a bit overenthusiastic here...)
    Kiwaiti
  • nautilus has made great strides towards a cool and easy-to-use desktop, and eazel strikes me as a good example of an open-source company which could be recommended along with the others mentioned.
  • Calling someone a communist seems to almost be an instinct to some Americans. They so fear and therefore hate any economic system that is not their own that these words have become a generic insult. In that world, the world revolves around the almighty buck, and it becomes hard to believe that anyone would willingly donate to charity if it didn't involve some kind of reimbursement by the government in the form of a tax break. From that perspective, anyone who would give away hours of work to everyone without demanding any kind of immediate reimbursement for their efforts seems abnormal. I'm sure there are people out there who truly believe that Linux and communism must be connected in some way. Just as I'm sure there are people who are convinced that corporations are just looking out for the public's best interest when they lobby government to pass stupid laws.

    Many people tend to cover their eyes, afraid they might see something they don't like, afraid they might know something they'd rather not know, afraid they might change and cease being the same person they were before...

  • It is not Fannie May's intention to provide their employees with marketable skills, but rather to be competent using the tools at hand to accomplish their jobs.

    Microsoft will not be making a charitable contribution to Fannie May. Microsoft will certainly not be making training available to Fannie May personnel for free either.

    Any of the large consulting houses such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers or Anderson Consulting (now called something else) would be happy to take Fannie May's money in return for technical training.

  • Ok at _this_moment_ Microsft might be the right option, _but_ the question is what you are supporting today might not be better tomorow.

    Giving away Microsoft Software will cetainly increase the number of computer users who are familiar with Windows and therefore do not want to try changing to a better (yet more complicated) SO

    In the other hand, making things difficult today may give this people oportunity to learn and deal with real quality software (not only the SO but all applications around it) and thus strenghtening the power of Open Source
  • This is exactly my thought too.

    I'm really getting sick of all the anti-microsoft crap here.

    I've been a serious Linux user (as well as other unices) since the early days (I remember when the networking code was still young and buggy). I have a few web servers and usually write my web based apps on Linux.

    But I use Win98 for my desktop because I don't want to dick around with all of the half baked (fifty-million 0.x versions of things that usually suck) open source/gpl desktop apps/software out there. While there is some good open source stuff out there, alot of it is still not production quality and isn't easy to use.

    Bias gets you nowhere. The most important thing is using the right tool for the right job. You can't expect a non-profit organization (or anyone else for that matter) to have the tech know how (or the time) to figure out most open source/gpl apps (or the Linux OS for that matter). Also, who's going to support their systems? There are alot more NT admins out there than Linux ones right now.

    I personally would rather see someone pay for a microsoft app and be able to use it productively than to have to spend time and more time dicking around with a non-production quality piece of freeware.

    -the hermit

  • Your typical not-for-profit isn't looking for a single workstation for the typist, it's looking for a local network and an Internet connection. Now, you could set this up on *nix or Windows, but the Windows setup will require a lot more sysadmin work to keep it going - at least if your servers are on Windows. If you got, say, VA Linux to provide an out-of-the-box charity server (say, Apache+PHP, MySQL, Sendmail, Samba, Proftpd, IPchains firewall, masquerading, print server), this could be set up and walked away from for 6 months at a time, and will keep running fine (I know, I've done it many times). Windows doesn't do that.

    You don't need charities to teach people to run Office. Temp agencies do that for free, just to get more workers. Why use charity money when the private sector covers this? What you need charities for is to teach people to organize, and what you need for that is good networking, in every sense of the word, and the OS of networking is *nix.
  • I have volunteered at several nonprofits, setting up and maintaining networks, machines and software. Most of them are far too embroiled in real-life issues to take even an extra moment to think about operating system issues -- and if they are already using MS they will not want to switch. Also many funding agencies will routinely send them forms in MS Word or Excel format, and may require the same from them.

    Nonprofits generally don't need technical training so much as knowledgable volunteer help. Their staff is overworked and far too busy to do the maintenance, even if they knew how. They routinely struggle with viruses and failing hardware.

    What could work is for LUGs and other organizations to "adopt" some nonprofits, and set them up with file/database servers and database applications. Nonprofits are fine candidates for web-based or intranet applications, because they simplify maintenance.

    As far as FNMA, I think the best you can do is discourage them from promoting the interests of a convicted monopoly. Go for the hardware donations, and try to drum up some action within the LUGs.

  • FannyMae is a huge organization. As is Microsoft. Assuming this project is going to be a large one, will all those free software organizations have the collective resources to handle the task? Microsoft definately does. If you want to help a non-prof, and at the same time advance the free software movement, go volunteer your time. Offer to teach classes, or support hardware and software, whatever it takes. At the moment, I think, resouces are best used on the smaller, and easily successful projects and not the large public failure.
  • I don't agree with this at all, because of 2 reasons: 1)Microsoft software "is" wanted because it's the only one the companies are familiar with, and if they'd get a user-friendly enough software they'd adjust as easily to it. 2)KDE 2 is user-friendly enough as mentioned above, though it's not very linux-spririted, but it's the truth, and it's actully a comfortable truth. Any company could adjust to such a platform. I agree that maybe BSD would be a little harder for an average secretary to adjust to, but a friendly X-Windows would be very easy, and much better than MS software...

  • No kidding!! As it turns out the "Bill and Melinda Gates" foundation is donating a computer system and software "worth $5000" to the library in my tiny rural home-town.

    Who want's to bet that Microsoft isn't writing off $4000 of 'donated software', getting a $1500 tax cut, and only donating a $800 (wholesale) piece of hardware.

    That's right. I'm saying they might be MAKING MONEY on this shit.


  • My Mom, whose cousin is the librarian, who would know. Oh, and I should have mentioned that it's CDN dollars.
  • Not a non-profit org but in a primary school. I set up a Linux server and 20 w/stations. All mounting home and usr from the server but running the rest locally. All these teachers (and pupils) had NOT used computers much before if at all.
    They now use staroffice (I know), for just about anything, e-mail, web, spreadsheets etc. They take the files home, use them on M$ stuff and bring them back - no worries.
    This system has been running for a year. I have been on site 3 times in that year and dialed in 2 times. Uptimes of over 150 days.
    2 of the teachers have purchased Linux computers for home as it was so easy to use. Bla bla bla etc etc.
    The point is, it can and is being done. BTW I do this for a job in New Zealand and it's only getting busier. I'm beating M$ based companies out of servers in most of the local schools.
  • Since most posts seem to be debating whether you've got the right idea rather than answering your question (I must've missed the memo, but that seems to be the de facto way of responding to Ask Slashdot queries):

    Some Additional Linux Distribution Suggestions

    Other Software/Hardware Providers Depending on the targets of the training, some of these might be useful...and if commercial vendors are willing to provide software/training for their tools that run on "free software" or "open source" operating systems, consider them! Book Publishers Many examples, but e.g.
  • It's quite complicated. If you donate services, well, then you have to declare some kind of income and it all washes out. But MS Windows is a product, an object, and a thing. It cost something to make and they're able to deduct what they would have made selling the product.

    What's the fair value? No one knows but the businesses have to guess. So they do. It's certainly fair for them to take of something. Then it's just a big argument and neither the government nor the business has time to do a complete and accurate job. If I was a tax lawyer, which I"m not, I would fudge as high as my conscience allowed. That's probably what many are doing in the business world.

  • If Microsoft wants to offer free software to charities, that's fine. But what's wrong with Red Hat, Caldera, (do Slackware & Debian count?) and others the option to also offer free software/training/whatever?

    Choice...you know, it's what people have been complaining about Microsoft since day one.

  • Don't flood her with a huge list of companies; pick up A Few Good Ones. She would not be able to tell the difference otherwise, and she would not care to call everybody. Four is already too much, IMHO.
  • oH I have to ask nicely? Is that supposed to be a gift? And then they shove it up the taxpayers ass by going after government agencies for not licensing enough copies of windows?

    So people who ask for things nicely get them for free and those organizations which have to pay $200 to run 1 copy of a $100 program get to turn around and pay taxes that will it one way or another get to microsoft. GREAT SYSTEM

    FU MICROSOFT
  • What's wrong with Microsoft is that they are a monopoly and have far too much tmarket share and influence. Here is an opportunity to get more market penetration for Open Source systems (Linux, *BSD, etc.), and more people trained in using these systems. Saying "employers are more likely to hire people with MS training so we'll just keep training people on MS" WILL NOT HELP!! We need to break this viscious cycle and get more people using the Open Source, non-MS, systems. I personally use RedHat with the Gnome desktop, and StarOffice for any word processing, and I have used various versions of Windows a lot - Windows is not significantly easier! I believe that half the current Windows users could move to Linux/*BSD without any real trouble (not counting installs, but most Windows users don't do installs anyway, and I could tell a few really nasty stories about Win2K installs).

    Don't give Microsoft any breaks, they don't deserve them. We should not be open-minded about Microsoft, we need to push for any advantage for OSS, any way to cut Microsoft down a notch. They are not fighting fair, why should we?
  • Speaking from experience, non-profits cannot keep qualified IT people, because they can't afford good people, and training people to administer results in those people being hired away. I don't like Microsoft, but it is the only company large enough to donate on a large scale whose products are simple enough, once installed, to require little administration knowledge. Cisco also donates networking hardware for non-profit small offices, incidentally, which makes them a pretty good pair.

  • What's wrong with using free, stable, open source software? I have yet to run across ANYTHING on Linux that is less stable than MS Office on Win98. Ease of use? KOffice is far easier to use than MS Office, and has a much shallower learning curve. I'm moving my wife over to Linux this weekend (at her request) because her computer is constantly crashing/needing the OS reinstalled/etc whereas my computer hasn't been down once since I built it 6 months ago except when I added a second hard drive. Explain to me how Microsoft is a better solution in terms of ROI and TCO.
  • I would try any of the bigger companies. Especially the ones that tout Linux initiatives like IBM or Compaq. IBM in particular is a service-oriented company - you may be able to scare up support from them.

    I dunno about Sun. I'd be wary of a non-OSS solution simply because of hidden proprietary hooks in the agreements.

    Apologies for our compatriots here turning thins into a M$-flame-fest.Good luck in providing an alternate solution - I hope you pull this off.

    Any solution provided outside the Micro$oft demesne is a good start.

    JB
  • Lets see their would be FreeBSD, and Sun just to name two.
  • Linux is a piece of dog shit

    Translation:
    Waaaah! I had a bad experience with Linux once, so that means that the entire operating system sucks.

    It (Windows) works.

    Translation:
    Sometimes.
  • Cost options? This equipment is being donated, so is the software... there is no cost, catch a clue. I wouldn't want to support those boxes when some idiot tries to recompile his kernel because his webpage won't load up.

    No Microsuck is by far the best solution for this issue. You stick idiots on idiot boxes, someone that doesn't have a computer is more than likely at the 'idiot level', let them learn something about the way shit works before they use *nix solutions... which are primarily in my opinion machines to serve, hack, code and generally show off with (just the way I like it)
  • I say let M$ give them the equipment, the recycle area at M$ is usually full of not bad hardware (133 - 300mhz). They can always run a different os. In fact, if a linux install was prepared for them (ie. a cd image), then take them hardware (which would all follow a set models)- it would work great. My 2 cents.
  • It sounds to me like you primarily hate Microsoft, and make that the basis for anything else in life.

    That's pretty pathetic, you know.
  • It's not about giving Microsoft a break, it's about giving PEOPLE a break by training them in skills that matter. I'm pro-Linux. I've been using UNIX at college and at work constantly for 13 years - so I like it when UNIX or its friends succeeds. But, I also use Microsoft operating systems and tools. For email, for office communications, documentation, planning, etc. Regardless of all the anti-MS hype, their stuff does work and work well. Blindly supporting Linux like you support a football team or a religion isn't going to make Linux what it isn't. It isn't going to make Linux the number one skill required by computer users in business. It isn't going to make all the productivity apps have a reasonalby common user-interface and cut-and-paste and document embedding and scripting ala Visual Basic. Microsoft training will get people past the resume pile and into the interview. That's what the big deal is. Linux is cool - I use it at home when I want to do work after-hours. But it's not "ready" yet. Saying it is, wishing it so, attacking nay-sayers and trying to convince people may make you personally feel better, but it doesn't make Linux what it isn't. Linux makes a good platform for UNIX developers and Web systems developers... but pretty much every version of UNIX that has ever tried to make it on the desktops of people outside these fields have gone away. Even CAD has moved away from UNIX and onto the Microsoft platform. Linux is good for many people, but not the majority. Support it, be proud of it, but don't oversell it... otherwise you'll be one of those people who speaks alot, but to whom no one listens. Regards, TheBritishGuy.
  • You've obviously not worked for your typical non-profit, because you give them a Linux or BSD machine and they'll ask how they get AOL running and their maillist to merge into Word.

    What the Linux community won't acknowledge is that for 95%+ of the computer users Microsoft software is what they want. They don't want some nifty complex OS that needs a propellerhead to operate successfully.

    Your hate of Microsoft clouds your judgement - let it go. Not everyone wants to fight the man. Some people just want to help the less fortunate. They don't have the time for your petty OS wars.
  • OK. Firstly, visit http://www.computerbank.org.au Secondly, it is no more difficult to train someone with no preconceptions to use GNU/Linux + gnome then any other operating system. Thirdly, the skills they learn can be applied to _any_ operating system. Computerbank centres across Australia are doing it as you sleep :)

  • My small Seattle area non-profit takes surplus computer gear from corporations and government agencies and gives it to schools and community centers. We also provide technical training. Some of our experiences may help others, so here goes:

    Problem: Schools don't have ~$99 per system to put Windows on donated gear.

    Solution: We have a Microsoft approved form for donors to sign, stating that the original software license is donated with the system. Schools can legally slap Win95 back on the gear.

    Problem: Schools need free application software to put on the systems that's easy for end users to use.

    Solution: StarOffice 5.2 for Windows. Very close to Microsoft Office 2000, and free.

    Am I allowed to plug my organization here? If you want to volunteer for us or donate gear (we're a 501c3 organization), in WA state, we're at http://www.wildtech.org.

  • Be? (Score:2)

    by Erich ( 151 )
    BeOS?

    If there is someone to support it, I think that Linux with either KDE or Gnome is at least as easy as learning your way around windows... I have experience to support this claim working at a company with 5000 people on SUN boxes using mainly MWM's root-menu to pick their applications. The interface isn't such a problem.

    The problem is applications... if they want to use MSWord then they should probably use Windows.

    The problem, however, of course is that it is immoral to support a company that uses unethical business practices. So MS and Apple would be out. Apple would probably be out anyway due to the higher cost and marginal and questionable benefit in the easy-to-learn category.

    Of course, if they just want to have a web browser, then any linux variant is probably fine.

  • They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.

    It's possible, but in my experience, many non-profits don't actually have a real computer support person, especially the smaller organizations, which is apparently who they are planning to deal with. They often have someone who can do basic computer tasks, but don't really have any experience setting up a network or anything like that. You could give them NT and they would probably do a worse job setting it up than they would with Linux, just because they could get NT up and running without much help, but it would be horribly insecure and probably quite unstable as well. Whereas with Linux, they know that they don't know what they're doing and will be likely to find some instructions for doing it right. Additionally, there is tons of free information out there to help you with Linux.

    In the end, it's really up to the organization to decide who to go with. If Linux meets their needs as well as Windows (with the positives and negatives of both considered), then there is no reason not to use it.

  • I'm not saying that Microsoft or anyone else is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone is suggesting it to them.

    I would be completely and utterly amazed if they weren't doing it. Microsoft is known for their creative bookkeeping.

  • The fly in the ointment is that in order for the value to be valid, it should correspond to an income that they are declaring for tax purposes.

    Thus: If they contribute software that they are claiming is worth $10,000, they will have the transaction:
    Sale of Software Credit $10,000
    Donation Expense Debit $10,000

    Which means that while they got a deduction of $10,000, it is irrelevant, as they had to correspondingly have an income of $10,000.

    Those are the critical additions to the financial records; the costs already having been borne and deducted.

    If they decided to value the software at $1M, then what happens is:
    Sale of Software Credit $1M
    Donation Expense Debit $1M

    Where the impact on taxation is again, nothing, because the $1M donation deduction is balanced by the $1M sale.

    In accounting, the debits and credits have to balance. They can play all sorts of games, pushing the incomes and expenses hither and thither, and they still have to have them balance, which means that if they declare the value of the donation to be "too high," some sort of income in that "too high" amount has to come in somewhere.

    Note that we could change the numbers again, valuing the donation at $1:
    Sale of Software Credit $1
    Donation Expense Debit $1
     and the impact for tax purposes, due to the balancing out of sale-versus-deduction, is again $0.

    In effect, the value they choose should be irrelevant from a tax perspective.

    The good reason to inflate the value is to get the potlatch [harvard.edu] ego boost of being able to claim to have given away gifts of Immense Value.

    Unless the IRS provides a way to "double-count" donations, in which case the bigger the number the better...

  • Private companies with a proprietary $$$ product to promote can do their own publicity and partnerships. Sure, Red Hat, VA, etc. are all private companies with $$$ products, but the free software community shouldn't rely on them for the promotion of free software products. If they will, though, what's wrong with helping them meet potential customers? I don't think it's wrong to be an open source advocate.
  • Especially as this is a public forum, and you seem to be revealing early stage business plans...

    The results of this post, if you're doing this without permission from her or her managers are likely to be that this won't happen now at all, thanks to your publishing it to several hundred thousand people around the world.

    I'm sure the non-profits will be really grateful not to get anything now..

    S.

  • So, I should buy gas from a company regularily pollutes and kills ecosystems and people because their products are more ubiquitous and has pay-at-the-pump service? There is nothing holy about Microsoft making a profit. I bet I'd be able to make a fat profit too if I got to commit felonies in the process.

    Microsoft is an organization that stands convicted of felony conduct. Why should some non-profit who presumably wishes to make moral choices choose to use their products and encourage their behavior? How are they a 'better' choice?

  • I agree with the above poster. Furthermore, Microsoft has more resources (and, since they are for-profit and like to get the mad tax deductions) lots of motivation to devote resources to 501.c(3) qualified charities.

  • Face it, 99% of users dont care about OS, dont care about versions or networking or training. All they want is to be able do their job. They couldnt care less about all the RMS-esque ballyhooing, or "breaking the cycle" crap, or anything else.

    That is the very reason that I think they should be trained on non-MS stuff. If the users don't care whose plan they are following, then let it be the geeks'.


    ---
  • The first batch of responses (of course, I'll check back in a few hours) has contained some useful ideas, not least being the outright negative responses. The points which really hit home with me are the following:
    <ul>
    <li>going for OSS for OSS' sake is no better than going for Microsoft, just because one is the alternative and the other the giant.
    <li>Companies with business clout also have the advantage of having the resources and the history of reliable follow-up -- making them better candidates, in some people's opinions
    <li>ironically, M$' antecedent on Antitrust Row, IBM, has turned out to be one of the Alternative's best allies in this effort.
    <li>a lesson I seem to have to relearn annually -- initial cost benefit does not guarantee long term cost benefit -- if a charity/501(c)3 gets something for free, but it sits on a shelf and no one uses it, who has gained a thing?
    <li>...and finally, if I want to do this as I feel it should be done, I need to invest my own time,know-how, and other resources.</ul>
    <p>
    As self-evident as these may sound, the fact they got aired by a number of people bodes well for my family's friend...it suggests that where ever she turns if she takes my counsel (which, at this time, will be a mixed bag), she can be assured of people with good sense lurking in every corner. I want to thank those who chimed in rationally and with substantive suggestions.

  • Futhermore, I am willing to bet that you are mostly or completely MS free. How could that be if they really were a monopoly? And even if you are not MS, they are dozens, hundreds, probably thousands of Slashdotters who are. If MS were a monopoly, then this would be impossbile in such large numbers.

    I think there is some misconception of the term "monopoly" here. You don't have to be the sole company in the market to be a monopoly. Being the by far biggest company is enough. Under certain circumstances this is a crime, but not always. Such circumstances can include using your existing monopoly position in one market to gain a monopoly position in another market. That's what the Microsoft trial is about.

    Your second comment makes no sense. What are thousands of Slashdot users against billions of software users world-wide? And don't forget, a majority of Slashdot users use Windows. This fact has proven itself on numerous occasions in polls, and CmdrTaco has mentioned it at least once.

  • I know precisely what communisim is. But i am telling you that the perception in the business world is that people who support a completely free software world is communist. Right or wrong, thats the perception.

    I agree with you here. I believe this perception is utterly lame and wrong, but I have to agree that it's common. At least in the US, it seems.

    About MS, what is there market they have a monopoly in? Tell me that. OS's you say, thats typical. Thats what everyone thinks But tell me, do they have a monopoly?

    Yes. Also in the web browser business nowadays.

    YOu say they are because they dont open docs, api's or whatnot. That is not a legal requirement.

    Well, it could have helped their case if they had done that. But now, this wasn't the situation, and hence they are accused of using monopoly tactics (not opening specs to the competition can be such a tactic, yes).

    Yes, they should, but no, they dont have to. Ever.

    I think it clearly shows that you don't understand laws against monopoly tactics. Yes, if you are in a monopoly position, you might very well be required to not further crush the competition by not providing for example specs or equal access in other ways.

    Besides that, you and I know that there are other OS's out there. Why dont they package ever Compaq with linux? Why not? Because no one wants linux.

    I guess the fact that you can indeed buy Compaqs with Linux on them directly from Compaq [compaq.com] shows how insanely wrong you are in your arguments.

    People think linux sucks, or is hard to use. Right or wrong, thats the perception. Compaq, and its customers, want the features that MS offers - compatibility, software support, ease of use, etc.

    The compability Microsoft provides is with other Microsoft products. Other types of compability has never been much of an interest to Microsoft.

    Like it or not, thats true. Compaq could package Linux or FreeBSD with its computers, but doesnt

    They do. Perhaps you should check your "facts"?

    because sales would take a hit.

    Gee, so providing more alternatives than just Windows preinstalled would make sales drop? What kind of "logic" is that? If you provide more alternatives, your number of sales either stays the same (in the worst case, because noone buys the new alternatives) or grows (because the new alternatives attract new customers). I think that the fact most famous computer vendors now happily ship computers with Linux proves that this segment is indeed also lucrative.

    In fact, everyone who sells computers with Windows does so because it guarantees a certain level of compatibility.

    Compatibility with other Microsoft products.

    You cite Apple, Netscape, etc as being proof they are monopolies. The fact is, Netscape's product was made useless by MS, by bundling. Bundling is mostly and should be legal.

    Gee, in this case maybe it isn't, because that might be considered an illegal monopoly tactic, given the situation. Once again, I think you show that you fail to understand anti-trust laws.

    This move helped consumers

    Reducing choice by surpressing the competition benefits consumers? How?

    Browsers are now standard issue for every major OS. All of them. Before, you had to pay for them. MS helped us all there.

    Yes, browsers are now standard issue. That does not mean that they have to be considered part of the OS (office software is standard issue, but also not a part of the OS), nor that we wouldn't have this situation anyway. The reason web browsers are now standard issue and popular apps is because the growth and popularity of the web. The reduction of web browser choice for the consumer on the major client platform is pretty irrelevant to the web explosion, I think.

    The fact is, that MS is not, by any reasonable defintion a monopoly in OS's. They cannot control the market place for OS's, they cannot force a standard down everyone's throats (despite best efforts).

    I think many people who have witnessed the home computer industry the last 15 years will disagree with you here. Microsoft has on numerous occasions tried to control their platform, and in many cases to reduce competition.

    Just because they dont use 'industry standard' protocols or api's doesnt mean that they are breaking the law. Thats their choice.

    Yes, it can indeed mean that they are breaking a law. That's what anti-trust laws are about. Some action that would otherwise not be illegal can be illegal if you are in a monopoly situation in your particular market. These regulations are to benefit the consumer by helping further healthy competition not to shrink below the low level that it already is in most monopoly situations.

  • I'd add that there's not much in the way of programming tools that directly address a charity's area (gnucash?), but there's only a few things that would stop you from starting a project right now:

    On the accounting end, we used to say that non-profits are just businesses with one less line on their balance sheet. This is not strictly true, actually the difference is less -- "owner's equity" becomes "retained earnings". What this means is in practice you have all the accounting, control, auditing, financial and management needs that a for-profit business of your size would have, except for tax preparation in most cases.

    For example, if I give you $100K for five cars, you can't book it as income -- it's a liability to me. If I don't get five cars, I've got money coming back from you. You get to call that cash "income" when you ship the cars. If I give you a grant of $100K to save five whales, it works just the same way. I may be able to recognize income in $20K chunks for every whale I save, depending on how the grant was written, but you have to track that liability.

    As mentioned above, you have to depreciate equipment. Depreciation is an accounting standard -- it's goverened by tax law, but it isn't there just for taxation purposes.

    If anything accounting for a non-profit may be a little more complicated. If you are getting to any kind of size you're going to need a team of specialists - somebody in payables, receivables and a comptroller, posssibly a VP of finance above him or her.

    Gnucash may be the personal finance system that makes geeks and accountants smile, but it is not an accounting system.

    It'd be great if there were open source accounting systems, but I don't think it will happen unless there is funding from somebody to create one. A real accounting system involves getting lots of extremely small, extremely boring details of accounting custom extremely right and is not most hackers' idea of fun.

    I actually know one geek who is a CPA whose idea of fun is getting accounting stuff right; if anybody knows of any funding for developing and OSS accounting package, let me know and I can put you in touch.

  • Damn, me too. If Microsoft wants to spend its time and money training and giving away surplus hardware and software, by all means, LET it. Better to get free hardware and software of the proprietary kind, rather than get none at all (which is my guess what OSS companies will be able to provide - they're still trying to figure out how to make a profit in the first place). Don't cut off the nose to spite the face.
  • I'd also like to add that in some cases you'll only want open source tools on the server side. In this way, you don't need to worry about training, since operators will be using any client software they want, but the database will be open source, as would whatever other backend tools they might need (office network, web server, email, etc).

    I'd suggest for example, getting the nice hardware and maybe some copies of windows from microsoft, but saving the concerns of tying yourself to a proprietary company's products, by using open source, standards compliant software for the back end of the office.

    The result may be an investment rather than a straight success. If you back the use of open source in your application area, you end up debugging it: you're helping that software to mature.

    I'd add that there's not much in the way of programming tools that directly address a charity's area (gnucash?), but there's only a few things that would stop you from starting a project right now:

    * open source has traditionally been made by and for programmers: you might need a more traditional form of requirements elicitation.
    * Documentation may not be good enough for generic IT staff, or volunteer staff. Hopefully this will improve as OSS is more widely adopted outside the hacker community.
    * user interfaces may be less user friendly, but you can solve this by separating client from server.

    So I'd encourage charities to adopt open source for all their backend software, and to actively initiate projects to create the software they need.

    Ale - http://barnton.gcal.ac.uk/
  • What benefit will be realised by going with open source software in this case? Where will the company save money/time/effort, or otherwise profit from it?

    This is a serious question. Not Microsoft doesn't mean Linux/BSD/OSS. There are commercial Unixes out there (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, SCO), there's BeOS, Mac, and even VMS.

    For that matter, why NOT Microsoft??? I wouldn't go with them for most things, but you'd better be prepared to come up with some good reasons to not use the biggest, best-known, most consistently supported product on the planet, or no one will listen to you.

  • If memory serves, wasn't FNMA (And other large lenders) having a very public spat with HUD and the FTC because they wouldn't disclose to the gov't exactly how they determined credit scores?
  • I think the idea was to partner so that MS would donate the software, and FannieMae would donate the extra hardware.
  • Not really true. I do a bit of consulting on the side (setting up and running networks for SOHOs between about 5-20 users). The really cool thing is if you have someone who knows what they are doing setting up a solid backend with Linux and *BSD is not really that hard and can be made to be almost unbreakable. In a pretty small/static network it does not take alot to admin it. I'm thinking most of the not-for-profits who would benefit most from this type of program could easily find someone willing to donate the couple of hours a week it would take to maintain such a system in particular since most of it could be done with SSH :). Maintaing the front end would not be that much harder if you were able to do it right from the start. I think for the backend there is no choice anyone not using *BSD and/or Linux needs to have the facts explained to them and in many situations it could work just as well on the front end.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Slashdot is a perfect example of how MS isnt a monopoly.
    reality check. People like you, spouting OSS zealotry and Linux fanaticism *hurt* the movement, not promote it. People who are deeply invested in MS look at people like you as fringe, or wacko, or *communist*, or just plain unrealistic

    You take the definition of monopoly way to strict and literal. Because MS can build products that use proprietary formats/data, they dont publish API's or complete docs, they can bundle products without losing money -- this defines them as monopoly. Because they can force vendors into these bundle/pay deals, they dont follow industry standards/protocols, they can dispatch all attempts at their markets (Netscape, Corel, Apple) this defines them as a monopoly. The fact that you can run other software if you choose dosnt make a market free of monopoly -- the fact that Microsoft can behave in this way and not instantly get told by the marketplace to pi$$ off proves they are a monopoly. If there was a viable competitive marketplace Microsoft would have died when running their business this way. You should really stop to understand what a monopoly is -- M$ dosnt have to be the only Software Company on the planet to be a monopoly...

    *Nice choice of words - what do you think you _really_ know about 'communists' or 'communism'? Ill tell you now: Its probably a product of the Cold War, Capitalist Indoctrination, Consumerism and McCarthyism... mostly propaganda from American Business (Government) who were(are) intent on brainwashing the American Public to preserve(further) their Imperialistic goals. It's a little obvious that you've included the major opposing economic theory of the last 150 years with people you also describe as "wacko's, fringe and unrealistic". Communism deserves to be analyzed on its own merit - not treated as the plague based on years of brainwashing. What do you really know about Communism?

  • If you teach them what a word processor is and the concepts - how to acutally use the application it dosnt matter if its done w/ KOffice, AbiWord or WordPerfect. Teaching users concepts is much better than teaching them an implementation.

    Would it be better to teach a young driver how to drive the most popular car if it was different from all other cars just for the sake of being different? In the long term this is a very unhealthy approach - that user will be forever at the whim of the car manufacturer for no other reason than not really understanding how to drive.

    What is the difference between using cp *.* ~/ and using explorer to drag-drop to c:\mydocu~1? Simply teaching them how to do the latter has prevented people from understanding WHAT THE HELL they are actually doing.

    Basically - M$ products should be avoided like the plague when teaching new users.

    As for "gainful employment' - who gives a damn, why does it matter? I thought greater understanding of the universe was the purpose of existance - not making more money.. what is your point here?


  • And yes, it suprised me to learn that the BMGF [gatesfoundation.org] would be donating stuff to Canadian libraries. In fact seeing as how useful it will be in giving my Mom net access, it feels kind of strange. I hate BG because his companies software causes me such frustration and wasted time, and yet this happens... Lawyer, nice car, cliff, you know the story.

    (ck goes away to do a bit of searching, comes back 10 seconds later)

    Hey!, here is the word direct from the horse's mouth! [gatesfoundation.org] Hmmm, from the numbers there it sounds like $3600 per libarary. Although that reference doesn's say whether they are USD or CDN dollars. I presume USD since it's on the BMFG site, which does translate to just over $5000 CDN.

    Ah hah! And there it is right in this release [gatesfoundation.org], a "half million dollars worth" of software from Microsoft! With 215 computers that works out to "$2,000 worth of software" from Microsoft, which may mean what, $500-$800 in tax breaks?

  • You'll have to wait a few hours to get an answer to your post. In my experience, there is a family tree of the relationship between the time one gets up and what OS they choose to use. In general, Mac-users get up first, then NT, then Win98, then Linux (why do you think Think Geek [thinkgeek.com] sells this stuff [thinkgeek.com]. Seeing as it is 10am EST, you might have some time before work starts on the eastside and you can get a decent answer (except from the Euro's, they are just now arriving).

    As for me, I have no idea. Personally, I don't see why forcing additionaly training on people who consist of volunteers and some full-timers is a good thing in the long run. Considering that M$ has such a large control over the market, why would one want to put a company through the process of training monkeys to use harpoons to get bannans? Dunno, and considering that there is plenty of write-offs for the (under)taxed M$ to have and that FM is a really really really really big group, why not just go ahead and use M$? Don't get me wrong, the heads of M$ are money-grubbing bastards, but I would prefer them to make money off of giving away their OS, a stacked software compilation, training, and other periferial items than I would for them to charge for it.

  • After all, they're marketing the iMac to all the other Fannie Maes and Ellie Maes and Tammy Fays. They're losing their "catering to the yokels" edge.
  • That's an adept analysis, but there is a problem with merely utilizing "the right tool for the right job" in a non-profit situation.

    I work at a non-profit organization and they are very resisitant to (what they call) "alternate" operating systems, like the Mac or Linux. I have been begging for both since I got here, and there is a huge resistance to anything that's not Microsoft. (my machine crashes constantly, it's a piece of shit, and they won't replace it, because they suck.) These people consider Wired to be esoteric, so there's a problem, but even our systems people are somewhat. . .well, let me not get fired here. (We run Solaris, not Linux, not BSD, etc.)

    "Of course you have to BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it's crap!" There's a misconception for you, eh?

    MacOS is a better gui, I really believe that. And better GUIs would be better for librarians, don't you think? So why nothing but Windoze in the building? Um. . .two words.

    Gates Grant.

    But when I come along and say "hey fellas, I'm designing web pages here. I'm no librarian. can I have an old 486 so I can run the Gimp, and they freak out, well, that deserves a little analysis. It's a problem.

    And when they tell me they want me to start dealing with video, I want a 450 g4 dp if I can have it, not the fscking pentium pro they've left me with. Know what'I mean, Vern? But no, because Macs on the Novell network? Horror of horrors!

    Any time that somebody is suggesting that non-profit orgs get a little into the open-source/free software movement, I believe they're doing both a favor. But you're right, it's a risky desktop solution for folks who work with charities, non-prof orgs, etc, whose skills may (probably aren't we have to deal with it) at the level that would allow them to really utilize something like X.

    That said, why they have to go straight to Microsoft for *all* their solutions is beyond me.

    On some level it's that Gates Grant. They look at Microsoft as a big, good benevolent thing. They know the word "technology" which they say alot, and they know "Microsoft" and they use the two interchangeably.

    Pretty effective marketing strategy he's got going, that Bill.

  • I can't blame anyone for wanting to be an advocate for Open Source. I too am tired of Microsoft and their high overhead/poorly made software, but there are some realities that we all must face in the business world (ewwwww there is the gross word business, which translates into politics).

    Here is the reality. In business companies like to use what everyone knows. This saves on training time, and new hardware expenses (for those programs that require more resources). If you place Linux, BSD, or even BeOS in front of your everyday user, which doesn't include our wonderful world of geekdom, they become like deer caught in headlights. They don't know what to do, or in some cases don't want to waste their time to learn something new when they can just go right to work on a platform with which they are familiar.

    On a personal note, we use NT and 98 here at my place of employment. Granted I would much rather use FreeBSD (shameful plug), but the reality is that we have enough problems supporting Microsoft products that it can frustrate Users (that is with a silent L).

  • here in portland, oregon, US there is an organization similar to the one described (in main post). they accept donated (thrown out!) hardware and put linux on it, then give these boxes away to volunteers and non-profits. (unfortunately, they are not [yet?] partnered with any kind hardware vendor willing to donate new boxes.) they also will be offering classes on using the things. they are called freegeek [freegeek.org].

    a couple notes:

    1. yes, they use linux; i have been told they would consider MS, but (as has been pointed out) it would just cost too much (i.e. > $0) to be feasible. they understand that "users" would often be more happy with familiar MS stuff, but simply cant do it for legal/licensing reasons and just plain cash.
    2. a second reason linux (arguably?) is a better choice for them is that they are often working with old (early pentium) machines with low ram. in theory(!) these are more likely to be usable with linux than MS. (this is often questionable in practice, i guess; but point #1 makes it a moot argument.)

    anyway, its nice that these machines (and they get a lot of them!) arent going into landfills, what with the toxicity of all the junk in computers and current (growing) rate of turnover due to obsolescence/envy.

  • This really gets me... (Score:3)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @09:52AM (#528532)

    This guy is probably one of the same people that defends Microsoft whenever they do something wrong by saying, "If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their product!" Then when someone actually tries to avoid buying Microsoft's product (and thereby make an attempt to vote with their dollars, or in this case, recommend that a non-profit organization do so), this guy attacks that idea as well.

    Sure, Linux isn't the answer to every problem, but it's up to the organization to decide. If Linux will suit their needs as well as Windows would, then it probably makes more sense to use it instead of Windows. It may even be worth making a small sacrifice or two, just to avoid having problems in the future and to help open source software to grow and mature so that it becomes a better solution over time, whereas Windows will always be quite expensive to maintain.

  • ... But don't they need to declare the income from the "sale" before they give the product away?

    I'm not real familiar with IRS rulings; I'm more in tune with the Canadian Income Tax Act. There, the accounting for such a "gift" would have to involve:

    • Declaring the donation "in kind;"
    • Declaring an equal and opposite INCOME .
    The net result is that no matter how much the donation was, there had to be a corresponding sale that got treated as a donation.

    There are still nice opportunities for "benefits" via:

    • Giving away something where the costs are minimal to nothing, as with giving away last year's version of something where the boxes, docs, and media got expensed last year and where the alternative was likely to "dumpster" it;
    • Getting the "goodwill" from seeming to do something nice;
    • Giving away a gift that will keep giving back.

      As with software where the charity will have to buy a bunch of licenses two years from now, or risk SPA attacks...

    But the point is that "writing off more than the cost of making the contribution" seems unlikely to wash well unless they're actually going to lie to the tax authorities. I expect that the three "secondary benefits" are quite enough to encourage the contributions of software, mind you...

  • Re:What's wrong with Microsoft? (Score:3)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Friday January 05, 2001 @05:33AM (#528534) Journal
    There's a big difference between "Microsoft is suitable" and "Microsoft is the only option". The poster is just trying to open up alternative, and potentially lower-cost, options.

  • Re:What's wrong with Microsoft? (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @06:41AM (#528535) Homepage Journal

    Sure, you may not like their software/business practices/leader or whatever, but for training people up to be able to use a computer for running charities or getting a job you'd be far better off teaching them how to use Windows/Word/Excel than some open source solution which is more difficult and less well supported.

    The only reason that Microsoft products are a "better choice" is due to network effects. People use MS Word because it can read/write other peoples' existing MS Word documents.

    Training new users is a form of indoctrination. And you're not just teaching them to conform to the real world environment; you're creating that real world environment, so that the next generation will have even more reason to use Microsoft products regardless of their lack of merit. To think otherwise, is to admit that individual actions do not matter and that no one can make the world a better place. That's too fatalistic and unromantic for Slashdot. ;-)

    A good place to break the destructive cycle is at the point where new users are trained.


    ---

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @06:31AM (#528536)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:What's wrong with Microsoft? (Score:3)

    by Corgha ( 60478 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @06:32AM (#528537)
    for training people up to be able to use a computer for running charities or getting a job you'd be far better off teaching them how to use Windows/Word/Excel than some open source solution which is more difficult and less well supported

    For running charities, perhaps, but for getting a job? Take a look at the SANS 2000 Salary Survey Summary [sans.org]:
    "The average for UNIX folks was $70,080, while the average for Windows folks was $61,233."

    Granted, this only applies to SysAdmins (so I probably would agree with you in general), but given the currently high demand for "UNIX folks" (and despite the fact that Linux is not technically UNIX), it seems that training people in Linux is not such a bad idea. Speaking more anecdotally: I was able to get my current job as a UNIX admin because I got so sick of working in retail that I decided to train myself with Linux (plus it was interesting, fun, and free). I know of several other people who have done similar things, and I even have friends involved in hiring that say that Microsoft certifications actually make a resume look worse (one said that he threw away a resume as soon as he saw the letters "MCSE").

    I should also add that Linux is an excellent platform on which to learn programming, which opens up yet another career.

    Augh...wait a minute; what am I saying? Train no one in Linux! The fewer people there are who know how to use it, the more in-demand those of who do know will be. (Now you know the real reason why people report that Linux is hard to use ;)

  • Microsoft sucks, but learning costs are less? (Score:3)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @05:54AM (#528538) Homepage
    With all due respect, I think non-profit groups would prefer having any equipment at all.

    They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.

    Isn't this a little akin to advocating a friend not to give KraftDinner and Chicken Noodle soup to a food bank .. that she should wait until she can give Duck a l'Orange and Yorkshire Pudding?
    If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.

  • Here is the Problem with M$ in this Situation..... (Score:3)

    by LtFiend ( 232003 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @05:59AM (#528539)
    This company is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization! why would you partner with a comapny that is going to charge you insane amounts of money for there own personal gain while your company isn't making a dime while trying to help other people.

    I used to work for another NFP org. that dealt with Fannie Mae alot. They subscribed to the M$ way of life and in 1999 2 months before Y2k they still had over half of the organization on 486's with win3.1 because they couldn't afford to continue to upgrade.

    That is exactly why NFP companys should be embracing linux above all else. It's going to decrease your It budgret by at least 2-300 dollars per computer. Think of the enhancment that would give to the rest of the business.

    And don't reply saying there are incompatibilities. this NFP org I'm referring to used a AS400 for all banking/accounting/whatever and used the systems for nothing more that Term sessions, Word Processors and Chart. all of which can be done under linux with as much productivity as they need.

  • It's the licensing and accounting hassles. (Score:4)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @06:44AM (#528540) Homepage Journal
    It all depends. Yes, for employment training your argument holds. But there are lots of other kinds of non-profit enterprises that need IT.

    I know, I used to be IT director for a medium sized non-profit.

    Commercial software creates a number of problems for underfunded non-profits. If you only have a few copies, then you have support and compatability issues with the old software.

    If you get enough licenses to cover everyone, then you have to worry about depreciating the gift -- a process that has no financial benefits to the non-profit but is nonetheless required. We once got a in kind grant from Oracle that was going to, on the books, be worth 3/4 of a million. Great this year's statement, but a huge paper expense for several years following. We had to do a lot of creative accounting (and trimming of the gift) to make it work. Of course, this is all smoke and miirors, but it can affect your ability to raise funds. Snooty brahmin donors like charities that look fiscally sound (thus the rich charities get richer).

    Then there's downstream upgrading costs. If I'm Microsoft and I give you a million dollars of software but don't let you upgrade free in perpetuity, I'm not being very charitable, am I? For a marginal cost of zero I guarantee a nice future annuity.

    So how do you handle this with commercial software if you are a charity?

    A fairly common practice in the charity sector is, I believe, to ignore licensing and EULAs and hope MS and SPA doesn't want the bad publiciity (I personally never counted on this -- there is no such thing as bad publicity for the SPA).

    Free software eliminates legal risks, financial complications, and licensing hassles.

  • What's wrong with Microsoft? (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05, 2001 @05:20AM (#528541)

    Sure, you may not like their software/business practices/leader or whatever, but for training people up to be able to use a computer for running charities or getting a job you'd be far better off teaching them how to use Windows/Word/Excel than some open source solution which is more difficult and less well supported.

    It's sad to see that despite all the talk of using the right tool for the job when /bots talk about programming languages when it comes to operating systems they want to use open source wishware despite the fact that there are plenty of cases where using a Microsoft solution would be a better choice. Don't let your prejudice make these people's lives more difficult. And since Microsoft already do stuff like this [king5.com], your case looks even more like open source ego stroking.

  • Zeal aside, Microsoft is the correct choice (Score:5)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Friday January 05, 2001 @05:34AM (#528542) Homepage
    Saying that Microsoft isn't an appropriate choice stinks of zealousy rather than a valid argument. This may be shocking but trying to teach somebody word processing using MS Word on MS Windows is many times more likely to get them gainful employment then teaching them how to use AbiWord on Debian. The same goes for any other package.

    When you walk in for one of these jobs they will (hopefully) test your familiarity with the applications they use. Do you know the applications well enough to get the job done with enough efficiency to justify some multiple of minimum wage.

    There is no on the job training for word processing or image manipulation etc. You'll get 10 minutes of training on their filing system and thats it.

  • I devoted one entire chapter in my book to the confluence of charity and open source software because it is so different from the way things are normally given away. Open source gives the software to everyone whether or not they fit some definition of charity. In the past, many businesses charge one price to one group and charge a different price to charities.

    In theory, the business isn't really supposed to gain anything from the gift. They're only allowed to deduct the value of the gift. That means you can't give away a clunker automobile and take off the full price when it was new.

    But determining the true value of intellectual property like software is impossible to do. All the costs lie in the creation and it costs almost nothing to give away a free copy.

    So what amount does Microsoft take off its taxes when it gives away a copy of Windows to a non-profit? I don't know, but it could be larger than its real cost. I talked to a few tax lawyers in producing the book and they said there was no firm guidance from the government in the matter. It was possible that software companies were taking off the full list price for the product.

    So, the point is that businesses can generate cash by giving away software to non-profits by writing off more than the cost of making the contribution. I'm not saying that Microsoft or anyone else is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone is suggesting it to them.

    Unfortunately, the open source community loses in this structure. Of course, donations to Stallman's FSF seem to be tax deductable so maybe it all washes out in some strange way.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close