Open-Source Software: Bad For Non-Profit Organizations?

[eydee]

I'm not sure in which exotic country this Gretchen Barry lives. In most countries there are 10000 people for a single job, so these non-profit organizations could just select the tech savy ones and use linux. Of course (as everywhere) they'll employ friends and relatives and talk about spending money to save money and about being efficient. This is all about hiding corruption, nothing more. I suggest everyone read the press release by Transparency International to get an idea of how much this thing matters. Only no one dares to talk about it.

[Michael]

Why would Micheal post such biased one sided fud. As others have said I hope he was paid for this exposure.

Since Micheal chose to post such an unbalance article (likely only as click bait as he knew it would cause an outrage) I will be choosing not to renew my premium subscrition and making sure adblock is enabled in future.

No money was paid for the article.

As said at the start of the article, I accept pretty much any freelance contributions that are on topic to Linux/open-source/PC-hardware, even if I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed. When I'm working my ass off everyday, I appreciate any extra articles I get to lighten my load a bit. I posted this article knowing it would cause a lively discussion / colorful views about the post.

[mendieta]

No money was paid for the article.

As said at the start of the article, I accept pretty much any freelance contributions that are on topic to Linux/open-source/PC-hardware, even if I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed. When I'm working my ass off everyday, I appreciate any extra articles I get to lighten my load a bit. I posted this article knowing it would cause a lively discussion / colorful views about the post.

I respectfully disagree, Michael. This is just a trolling "contribution", from someone selling a product, and looking for controversy. It doesn't feel like an honest contribution, but rather FUD and sales pitch. In order to keep editorial integrity, you are entitled to reject contributions that are actually shameless plugs ... cheers!

[tarceri]

No money was paid for the article.

As said at the start of the article, I accept pretty much any freelance contributions that are on topic to Linux/open-source/PC-hardware, even if I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed. When I'm working my ass off everyday, I appreciate any extra articles I get to lighten my load a bit. I posted this article knowing it would cause a lively discussion / colorful views about the post.

I understand you wanting to lighten the load but this article is poorly written, completely biased toward the companies interests and provides no facts or references just made up assumptions that help the company push its services.

I really think you have been taken for a ride here this was clearly written for one reason SEO (search engine optimisation). You really should have asked for a SEO fee. This Gretchen Barry [1] doesn't even have a background in IT at all. I stick by my previous comment, all you have done by posting this is spreading poorly written fud and helped out this unethical Director of Marketing increase her comapnies google rank.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/gretchenbarry

[alazar]

I'm starting to lose faith in Phoronix. Some time ago it was a source of relevant and important software news about opensource/linux. Now it's a mess of tiny articles pointing to changelog files with little-zero value, boring benchmarks with no difference between results and now this propaganda crap, all this bought to you by a website full of annoying and badly integrated ads.

From now on, I'm turning adblock on until I see an improvement in the phoronix content quality.

[Luke_Wolf]

I respectfully disagree, Michael. This is just a trolling "contribution", from someone selling a product, and looking for controversy. It doesn't feel like an honest contribution, but rather FUD and sales pitch. In order to keep editorial integrity, you are entitled to reject contributions that are actually shameless plugs ... cheers!

This ^, I don't think most of us have a problem with you putting up articles with controversial opinions from random people, as long as they're clearly marked. This however... was just stupid and you being taken for a ride, which should have been rejected.

[darkskyabove]

Welcome to the 21st century!!?

As has been chronicled, it is quite disingenuous to claim that "free" software has hidden costs, while charging potential customers with all the potential "hidden" costs that entails.

asdfblah touched on an issue, but didn't pursue the thought: "free" software is not the same as "open-source".

In the Linux universe closed-source is rarely free, whereas open-source is free, almost by definition. In the Apple continuum nothing worthwhile is free. Then there's the Microsoft dimensional shambler.

This is probably Barry's audience. If one uses Windows, there are limitless opportunities to use some "free" software. Caveat Emptor!

The real issue I see is how this organization is allowed to even exist. If one starts a business, has no plan for its computer requirements, and has no one tech-savy enough to figure it out, how do they plan to succeed?

Nonetheless, Michael, ignore all the anti-troll trolling.

The best way to combat illogical ideas is to expose them to the light of better minds. If one only exposes oneself to ideas that are already embraced, one is a sycophant.

True liberty includes the freedom to be wrong.

[curaga]

Aww, it's been pulled. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

[araxth]

Welcome to the 21st century!!?

....

The best way to combat illogical ideas is to expose them to the light of better minds. If one only exposes oneself to ideas that are already embraced, one is a sycophant.

True liberty includes the freedom to be wrong.

and the risk of getting trolled.

unfortunately, I guess, Michael had enough backfire to endure and posts to moderate from the militant folks out there (not to label them worst) so he removed the article. Too bad. I like so called internet pundits rantings on various topics but above that i like people with logical statements pointing towards these rantings. Militant folks, i don't really like and if their contribution towards Linux / OSS does not at least reach RMS's level, they should moderate themselves. Given RMSs contribution to the world, i accept anything from him

[tarceri]

and the risk of getting trolled.

unfortunately, I guess, Michael had enough backfire to endure and posts to moderate from the militant folks out there (not to label them worst) so he removed the article. Too bad. I like so called internet pundits rantings on various topics but above that i like people with logical statements pointing towards these rantings. Militant folks, i don't really like and if their contribution towards Linux / OSS does not at least reach RMS's level, they should moderate themselves. Given RMSs contribution to the world, i accept anything from him

Michael removed it because it was a bullshit, poorly written, SEO attempt it had nothing to do with "militant folks". A quick google shows Phoronix wasnt the only place it was submitted making it a poor attempt at SEO: http://betanews.com/2014/07/08/buyer...or-nonprofits/

There is nothing wrong with the view that open source software costs money to implement and maintain, the very good tech republic article [1] about Munich moving to Linux explains that in fact you should be aware that it will cost you money, but so does closed source software. That article Michael removed however was pure crap written by someone with no background in IT purely to market a companies services and improve the companies google rank by providing link backs.

[1] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/...t-of-the-city/