On Monday 18 Aug 2008 22:23, Rony wrote: > Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > > On 18-Aug-08, at 1:14 PM, Erach wrote: > >> Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software project of > >> say one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows > >> v/s LINUX for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s > >> which tool set to use of LINUX". > > > > in my experience it is more expensive to develop in FOSS, for the > > simple reason that the developers hired have to actually know > > what they are doing, so cost much more. In the long run, though, > > once the software is developed and deployed, the software is far > > cheaper to maintain. If I am not mistaken, when Munich opted for > > FOSS, the FOSS bid was much higher than the proprietary software > > bids.
True. What was not included in the closed quote was all the costs incurred over the life of the data. Standard accounting practice would budget over 3 yrs. This is a distinct disadvantage to FOSS where a program tends to have an indefinite life. Further for a given industry the requirements will be 95% same. With FOSS the costs for using the software in another city would be 10 to 15% of the first time costs, not 100%, as the case would be with a closed solution. > The general opinion of people in the software industry (programmers > and potential clients) is that Windows programmers are cheaper and > available in large quantities whereas FOSS programmers are few and > quote astronomical rates for their work. shows that the costing exercise is crappy and / or that the clients data is not important. Having said the above, NEVER focus on cost as a USP - this goes for any product - but on the strengths that you have and is missing from the competition. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
