Or rather, they’re not.

The BBC is running a story about the fact that Christian Aid has chosen not to run open source software. It’s actually a short piece based on an audio interview in their Digital World program, also available for download.

I thought about just linking it in the recent links menu over on the sidebar, but as I listened, I became quite upset at a number of sweeping statements that were made, and even some downright inaccuracies. So I thought I’d blog them:

• It sounds to me (meaning I could be wrong) that the CA didn’t even look at Open Source software, but merely decided to respond to the BBC’s interview with Mark Shuttleworth.
• The implication was that, although Linux is free, you have to pay for support. The problem is that you have to pay for support for Windows too….. _if_ you want support. If you don’t, then you don’t need to pay for support on either Windows or Linux. There are, of course, Linux companies that sell distros which come with support contracts by default (like RedHat), but just as many that don’t (like Ubuntu).
• The CA guy seemed to be under the impression that if you use open source software, then you have to open up your own systems to inspection by the community, which is, of course, ludicrous. Either that, or he has completely confused the difference between code and data.
• Just because charities get Windows much cheaper than normal businesses, it doesn’t make the software any better. Nor does it make the long-term support costs any cheaper.
• People seem very willing to state that Linux boxes sold in developing nations are most likely used to install pirate copies of Windows, and yet never consider either that they might be used as Linux boxes, or that people in non-developing nations might be buying Windows boxes, but installing Linux on them.
• If we live in a world where ‘unskilled’ (ie non-technical) workers are tied to particular pieces of software or operating systems, then I think it’s sad. (To an extent, we do, and I am). People learn different technologies and systems all the time - different ATMs, different mobile phones - because the principles remain the same. Computers should be no different, for the unskilled worker. And, in my experience, people who struggle with OpenOffice.org (as an example) are people who _already_ struggle with MS Office. People who are competent in MS Office are generally equally competent in OO.o
• For some reason they then move on to talk about MS Sharepoint. Where this fitted in with talking about Linux, I’m not entirely sure, as they made no attempt to mention any open source software that could replace Sharepoint. In fact, for me, it made the whole thing sound more like an MS Marketting campaign!

Following on from the CA interview, they had a brief chat with Bill Thompson, BBCs open source guru, and speaker at LRL 2005, and then they talked about some emails they’d had from listeners who’d used Linux. Personally, I didn’t think they handled this very well. There were 3 issues:

1. Dependency problems. Maybe this was a big issue 3-4 years ago in Linux, but package management under Linux has advanced massively, and dependency problems are mostly a thing on the past on the current Linux desktop distributions. I’m sure they do still happen, but not any more than with Windows software. (Ever had to install the latest copy of DirectX?)
2. Hardware problems. They did manage to mention nicely that hardware manufacturers exacerbate this problem by not shipping Linux drivers. But I think that Linux, by default, ships more drivers than Windows out of the box. Certainly my printer (they were talking about printers initially) works out of the box on Linux, but required me to install drivers under Windows. And I daren’t ask about MacOS.
3. Software compatibility. I’m hoping this one goes away now than all 3 major operating systems run on the same basic hardware. Linux is not Windows. Neither is Mac OS. And the software for each is very separate. The sooner people realise this, the better. And the happier they’ll be when they discover than WINE can actually work miracles in some cases.

OK - rant over. Head on over to the forums at The Freely Project if you want to chat about Christian organisations using Linux/open source.

mrBen

A concise reposte to the article Mr Ben. I only wish the BBC would be more careful in their anaylsis of such studies. I always feel as if the reporter is writting an article in some begrudging half hearted fashion with little interest in evaluating the story as it stands. Its certainly not the first time that the Click online has covered a story with not a little bias towards one group.

Agreed my dear Mr Ben, for us Linux users it appears very one (Microsoft)-sided. Perhaps Unix gave Mr Buckley’s mother a fright when she was carrying him?
That said the BBC give Mr Shuttleworth a platform on an earlier programme and the BBC love balance
Cheers for pointing this out though,
Jack

Thanks for blogging this - I’m the CA guy you refer to. We do take an increasingly pro-MSoft stance at Christian Aid which I will try to explain, but that doesn’t mean we are anti-open source. I think too often the argument is presented as a binary yes / no approach - you are either for OSS and against M$… or on the dark side

* Ease of recruitment and cost of employment
This is a genuine issue for an organisation such as Christian Aid. The argument holds for the UK, but is especially important when you need IT staff in developing countries. OSS skilled staff are more expensive and less available, for us.

* Cost of purchase
This point was made in order to be clear that Christian Aid is not paying full commercial license fees.

* Access to CAid Systems
I made the point that to run open source at an enterprise level (600+ pc’s / however many servers) then you need to work with a support organisation such as Red Hat (or now Oracle). My sole contention was that OSS is not free at an enterprise level. You either need a support contract or more staff.

The interviewer then said that he thought the whole point of open source was that you could your code out to the community. The throwaway response from me was that we would not open up our systems to the outside world as that introduces an element of risk - as indeed it would if we were allowing people to review an application for bugs. The response to that from some in the OSS community is along the lines of ‘yeah right, like private companies are honest…’ - for us, dealing with private enterprise means that we have enforceable non-disclosure in place and the ability to vet and track who is doing what with our data. But as I said, this really isn’t what we set out to talk about on Digital Planet.

I don’t think I made any statement saying that Windows is more secure than Linux. As a Mac user I really don’t believe Windows is more secure for individual users! I wouldn’t / and won’t risk opening another can of worms regards security.

* Linux vs Windows
I was actually talking about the desktop rather than our server environment. We currently run Linux for our web servers (though hands up, that is about to change). The interview on Digital Planet followed what Mark Shuttleworth had said about Ubuntu and OpenOffice on the desktop. What he is doing is fine, worthy and will encourage big software companies to think long and hard about their stance in the developing world. But it does not mean an organisation like Christian Aid should adopt it right now and it does not mean we should stay quiet when some of the things he says aren’t true. OSS is not a panacea for the developing world, or the agencies that seek to serve that area.

* Should we be in the business of boycotting MS?
No. Christian Aid exists to eliminate the scandal of poverty and we need to do that in the most cost effective way using the tools that suit our ‘business’ best. Wherever we have tried OSS (a small Plone deployment for instance) the time required for the project has been significantly higher than had we followed a packaged solution. Moreover, our staff overseas have MS skills and are familiar with the software - we’re simply not in the business of needing to spend supporter funds on the cultural change, training and interoperability burdens of trying to take OSS to the desktop and information worker level. There are genuine interoperability issues between open office and MS office and we haven’t seen anything yet that is a viable alternative to SharePoint.

I hope this is of some help. We are genuinely excited about the potential for technology for how it can help us to do what we do better and that was the reason for participating in the programme. Key to all of this is helping Christian Aid staff to have decision support systems that make a tangible difference to their work. In the event of a major disaster, we’re able to have a team site (a collaboration area for all involved in responding to that emergency) live, configured and populated with all
the necessary information within 1 hour of the disaster being called. For me, that’s more interesting that what platform we’ve used to do that.

Finally, know too that we’re not MS clones. I use Mac at home and will be putting a trial of Ubuntu and Open Office in place soon.

Wow - I’m amazed that you found our little corner of the internet! Thanks so much for taking the time to reply - hope I haven’t said anything offensive

A couple of follow-up points:
* Ease of recruitment - I 100% agree with you, and don’t blame you for this, but I do think it is a problem.

* The cost - my problem here is not that you say that you require support contracts for OSS software, but rather that your comparison is unequal. Both Windows and Linux require support contracts, and these are available from multiple sources at different costs. By all means make this point, but not as a counteraction to the ‘Linux is free’ statement, because support for both operating systems costs money.

* Code vs Data - I still find your statements with regard to open source code and access to data confusing, but, as you say, it was not a major point, so I will take it no further.

* MS Boycott? I take your point that software freedom is not something that Christian Aid sees as a goal. I do, however, know people who are genuinely concerned about the actions of Microsoft as a company, and whether they trade fairly in the marketplace, both in America and overseas. Richard Stallman (not that I necessarily agree with him on everything) as a confirmed atheist, states that he feels that Christians especially have a moral/ethical obligation to be using Free software. But, again, this is not your fight to fight

Anyway - thanks again for taking the time to reply - I hope that you haven’t spent too much time fighting fires over this particular interview; I know how vociferous the open source community can be!

“We’re simply not in the business of needing to spend supporter funds on the cultural change, training and interoperability burdens of trying to take OSS to the desktop and information worker level”. But you are in the business of being an ill-informed Marketing spiv who’s happy to spread Microsoft FUD for free.
Christian Aid and many other charities should be ashamed of themselves for using Microsoft projects when, it seems, they are aware of their appalling business ethics.
Yes, Bill and Melinda give a portion of their vast income to charity. But it is naive to think that this is motivated by altruism alone. It is equally an excellent means of fumigating Microsoft’s fortune.