OStatic

If you ask a hundred different people why they use open source software, you're likely to receive at least fifty very different reasons. The responses might range from the ethical and philosophical to stark bottom line financial reasons. If you tell a hundred different people that don't use open source software why they should, using the responses given by the first group, it's likely that most won't immediately, aggressively, start seeking out open source alternatives to the software they use on a daily basis. There might be an interest, but not a pressing one. There's likely to be a healthy percentage of that second group who are just outright puzzled by the reasons given. It's not simply the philosophical ideas that puzzle them -- I've found that those who don't use open source software, or who haven't yet explored the ways free as in speech interacts and relates with free as in beer, the financial reasons are just as ambiguous.

A good number of people (and organizations) using open source software are quite happy with the price tag (or lack thereof) but find the idea of open code inconsequential ( We don't have programmers, we'll never modify this ). The money saved comes from the low cost of the software, and if it should no longer meet the company's criteria, it's time to choose another application.

This perception is selling open source software short. Matt Asay at CNet has a good write up about this idea, and one I think can be taken even one step further.

There was an interesting write up on Forbes.com this week discussing who contributes most to open source projects -- and why. Even though many open source projects have a commercial or institutional component that contributes some degree of direction (or funding) to software development, and even though many businesses and institutions use open source software regularly, the vast majority of contributions to these projects come from individuals.

Forbes' Dan Woods, after hearing Alfresco's Matt Asay and Eclipse's Ian Skerrett speak of this contributor gap, concluded that there must be something very different about how institutions contribute.

I'm not above admitting that I wish I'd thought of this before Dave Neary. This week, Neary called for input from businesses that have migrated from Windows and closed software to open alternatives.

Neary intends on assembling the responses as a series of case studies, with each study addressing a different stage in the migration process. Neary's request isn't industry-specific, and from the description of topics he'd like to cover, businesses with some degree of hybridization are invited to share their experiences.

Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, and the analysts at RedMonk presented the results of a recent survey conducted on Ubuntu's use in server deployments. Nearly 7,000 people (representing the same number of organizations) participated in the survey, which was promoted on Ubuntu's web site and several Linux server-specific forums.

Canonical's marketing head, Gerry Carr, says that the survey is essential reading for any organization using (or considering using) Ubuntu's Server Edition. After taking a closer look at the survey, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in current server technologies, or where the server market is headed -- even if Ubuntu Server isn't part of the equation.