Take note of total cost of ownership when comparing proprietary
with open source software
On 14 October Computer Weekly ran a story on Newham Borough
Council's decision to review software procurement . This involves
running Office of Government Commerce-sponsored open source trials
on desktops and servers.
Simultaneously, Microsoft, Newham's incumbent software supplier, is
externally auditing the entire IT system in conjunction with Cap
Gemini Ernst & Young.
In the past year the OGC and the National Audit Office have
published their verdicts on the government's software procurement
model and provided guidelines for the future. Their advice to
purchasing departments is that they should buy on a value-for-money
basis - something we all agree with.
For many the concern is that the debate has become polarised,
pitching open source software against the proprietary model without
constructive dialogue. Along the way, arguments have become emotive
and somewhat ideological, making it difficult for public sector IT
managers and consumers to make rational, fact-based choices.
As the public sector and suppliers work together to improve IT
services and keep costs down, the relationship between the two
sides comes under frequent and intense scrutiny. There are many
reasons why such scrutiny is both inevitable and justified.
Principally, it is imperative that the taxpayers' money being spent
on IT is distributed wisely and that maximum value is
extracted.
Equally important is that services and products bought by public
sector bodies are instrumental in helping IT environments to
improve rapidly, and that they show intrinsic qualities such as
security, reliability, interoperability and ease-of-use. In other
words, any rational purchasing decision should be made by looking
at the value of the whole IT platform, rather than the individual
technologies.
Early comparisons between Microsoft and Linux desktop and server
products tended to suggest high functionality, familiarity and
ease-of-use on the one hand against low-cost, secure performance on
the other.
Our research, both internal and external, shows that Microsoft puts
forward convincing cost and security arguments as well. For the
public sector these two factors are of paramount importance. It is
up to us to provide compelling evidence that Microsoft software can
be chosen on both counts.
Analysis of the costs of IT systems is an extremely complicated
process. It can also, unavoidably, appear somewhat arbitrary. This
is borne out by the fact that total cost of ownership studies
struggle to agree with one another.
What is clear, though, is that introducing open source software
instead of proprietary software is by no means a certain way of
lowering costs. Indeed, both IDC and Gartner found that increased
service and management costs for open source more than negate any
up-front savings from obviating software licensing costs (which
typically amount to about 5% of the total IT cost).
What is more, the industry now accepts that Linux is commercial
software: it carries a significant acquisition cost and is
typically bundled with suppliers' proprietary software and
services.
In the past, it has been said that open source products are more
secure than their commercial counterparts. However, industry
watchers and analysts are divided on this point. Security is an
industry-wide concern so it is in the interests of all parties to
make security issues a priority.
Microsoft has taken a number of steps to demonstrate its commitment
to secure computing. For example, the UK government participates in
Microsoft's Government Security Programme, which gives all
appropriate agencies controlled access to the Windows source code.
This allows inspection of the code line by line and simulation of
vulnerabilities and threats.
Windows has received the highest common criteria certification
(CCC) yet awarded. This is a globally-accepted standard for
evaluating the security of IT products and systems. By providing a
common set of requirements for comparing the security functions of
IT products and systems, CCC allows objective evaluation.
It would be fair to conclude that open source and proprietary
software, while able to coexist in many environments, can be seen
by industry and the public sector as alternative and
closely-competing products in certain roles. The arrival of open
source as a competitor will ultimately benefit customers and the IT
industry alike, and head-to-head evaluations will inevitably become
regular occurrences.
Every company wants to hold on to its customers when faced with
competition and Microsoft is no different. The external audit of
Newham's IT environment is one of several projects we have
undertaken to highlight our commitment to analysing our customers'
needs and testing the depth and quality of our products and
services. We will continue to listen to customers, evaluate their
needs and improve in response to what we learn.
Matt Lambert is director of government affairs
at Microsoft