HB1011, Free Open Source (FOSS) Act of 2010 is in committee stage. It’s stated purpose is that “The government shall apply only FOSS or Foss solutions in all ICT projects except under exceptional cirumstances”. There is strong opposition, for example, from the Minister of Education who claims FLOSS costs more… Of course using “7” and databases costs less than using paper but they did not give GNU/Linux a fair shake in trials. M$ now uses the Minister of Education as a poster-child for non-free software: “We received feedback from the school IT administrators that the computers running OpenOffice.org had more technical issues, to the point that some computers were unusable….For us, the cost to deploy and support computers with OpenOffice.org and Linux is about 33 percent more than the cost for Office 2010 with Windows 7.” That sounds like EDGI got in there and paid people to use M$’s stuff. I don’t see any other way that FLOSS could be more expensive. Other surveys find productivity increases with use of FLOSS: “The 6-year costs for a full Microsoft Office migration would amount to a total of 9.8 M€, for the OpenOffice.org option to 4.2 M€ and for the Lotus SmartSuite option to 2.9 M€. Approximately 44 % of the migration costs of the OpenOffice.org option would be caused by training and support as well as conversion of documents and applications. “. The cost of labour being lower in Philippines compared to Finland, one has to wonder if the Minister can do maths.
Advertisements for GNU/Linux positions, mostly for servers, are plentiful. Ads for jobs with that other OS are less than twice as many as Linux, so the Minister must not be listening to all businesses when he states that business are happy with that other OS.