Hello Ray -

	As you know, I am proponent of Open Source solutions for schools so  
I am quite interested in your well presented discussion below.  I do  
have some questions and thoughts:

Bryant
On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Ray Ballou wrote:

> Dear List:
>
> We lost 1/2 our power, so I had a minute to run some numbers.  
> Figuring 150
> productive school days over a 5 year cycle, and cost of office at  
> $50 that
> figures out to less than .07 cents per machine per day.
> I use OOo at home, and it works VERY well, but even 1 file  
> compatibility issue
> can eat up more than the full cost of office.

Since you are using OO at home and as you say 'it works VERY well',  
let's skip the OO vs MS Office debate and cut to the support chase.

Cost aside for a second (does MS Office really have a 5 year life?),  
your point here seems to be that support costs for dealing with file  
incompatibility overwhelm use costs.  Is the assumption that if all  
students are using MS Office, there are no incompatibility issues?   
If that is not true, then shouldn't those costs be added to the $50  
fee?  If students are using non- MS office at home (OO, MS works,   
appleworks, text editors), isn't OO slightly better on this front  
than MS office since OO can read MS but not the other way around?  
Also, if the 'public institutions need to use open formats' debate  
that Massachusetts started moves to schools, might this argument  
swing around and place the incompatibility costs on MS office?

I guess I am saying that this is not an inherent problem with OO (or  
other Open Source software).  If OO were to become the installed base  
(perhaps for other reasons), then MS Office would have the  
compatibility problems and cost.  In fact, if schools were starting  
from a blank slate, it could be argued that OO is more accepting of  
other formats (ODF and PDF) than MS Office.
>
> So in essence when using OOo you are better on having ZERO  
> compatibility
> issues with each machine over the 5 years, seems like long odds to me.
>

Once again, it doesn't need to be perfect, just better.  And might  
there be a huge issue with Vista and Office 2007 regarding  
compatibility?  Again, I doubt that a fully MS office school has zero  
compatibility issues. And this argument will change as more options  
are added to the mix (google docs, OO home installs, etc).
>
> In terms of the license lifecycle,  break even would be about 30  
> file issues per
> year school wide. When I tested out Abiword a few years back we had  
> issues
> (people would save in one format and then need another) and I think  
> that 30
> number would be easily be met.

Open Office can be set to default save to .doc format, if that is the  
preferred option.  Not sure about Abiword.  Isn't this is also the  
perpetual training issue that people (read 95% adults, 5% kids) don't  
understand file formats.  So staying with MS Office to avoid this  
seem to be attacking a symptom.   But I am interested in  
understanding how much of a problem is this for students vs. faculty  
and admin people.
>
> OOo is a resource hog.
>
I find the two systems now have very similar load times on windows,  
and OO (NeoOffice) loads faster on my mac (and linux machines :-) But  
both are probably overkill for the type of tools needed in schools.   
But at least there are some other options with FOSS solutions (like  
Abiword).
>
> However because MSFT office is THE category leader it is a target  
> for viruses,
> and that update time has to be taken into account. Office XP and  
> '03 seem to
> be MUCH better at taking updates than 2k was.

Again, Vista is a bit of an unknown but I guess we will find out as  
it pushes its camel-nose into the tent.
>
> OOo, last I checked did not have an elegant way of dealing with  
> updates. I
> would love to know that it does now.
>
This is an excellent question and one I should look into. I assume  
you are talking about a school-wide upgrade ability.
>
> I present this email based upon my experience, it is really off- 
> topic b/c I can't
> help with the original request, but I thought others might find it  
> useful.

Well, even as a hard core FOSS advocate, I think nothing trumps  
direct experience so thanks for bringing this up.
> In our SU when open source has been discussed with those in charge  
> of the
> money, they have said that packaged software capitol costs PALE in
> comparison to the amount we spend per pupil.

This sort of thinking actually does get under my skin.  Just because  
it is a small percentage of a large figure, doesn't mean we shouldn't  
be efficient with tech dollars.  Also, for many schools, tech is a  
separate line item and is often on the chopping block is school  
budgets are tight.  If FOSS solutions provide equal or better value  
(to be determined), then not using them is a waste of money.  $10,000  
here, $5000 there, year after year it adds up across the state after  
a while.  And then there is the issue of equity for all students to  
at least have the option of home use.

But it is all about choice and this kind of debate is invaluable for  
informing that choice.

Bryant Patten
White Nitro, LLC