[kwlug disc.] "people don't respect what they don't pay for"

[unsolicited]

Oksana Goertzen wrote, On 9/20/2007 1:43 PM:
> 
> On 9/20/07, *Robert P. J. Day* <rpjday at mindspring.com
> <mailto:rpjday at mindspring.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Oksana Goertzen wrote:
> 
>     > If this is a good friend then I would look at it as an excellent
>     > opportunity to illustrate everything you believe is wonderful about
>     > open source. ...
> 
>     well, this is not quite the direction i was going.  let me clarify and
>     perhaps redefine what i was wondering.
> 
>     > So, in this vein - I would illustrate what I find compelling about
>     open
>     > source (and your list is probably much more robust than mine):
>     >
>     > (1)  You know what's in the code - you can fix or modify it yourself
>     > or hire someone to do so.
> 
>     ... big snip of many perfectly valid reasons ...

Valid technical reasons, which in large part neither joe user nor I.T.
Manager cares about. Therefore it's just noise. Not that they're not
valid, I just never seem to be able to convince such so that they
acquire the same passion as I.

Except: Security, bug fixes, and open doc. formats. Those they get.

> 
>     imagine, if you would, that you're chatting with a fairly high-level
>     manager who controls the IT purse strings, and the subject of open
>     source comes up, and you off-handedly suggest that OSS is something he
>     should consider.  and, being a busy man and not prone to wasting time,
>     he says, "what's the business case?  give me some numbers."
>
>     could you do that?  off the top of your head?  i don't think *i*

Take all your current or expected costs, subtract the actual software
licensing cost, and you'll be in the ballpark. But, if not already
using the software, add costs for:

Re-educating all your users, particularly your I.T. support staff.

>     could.  in fact, i think that most of us who are linux-heads are so
>     comfortable in our belief of the superiority of OSS that we just take
>     it for granted that our arguments should sway others.  but i don't
>     think many of us are actually prepared with persuasive, snappy
>     arguments if the situation arises. 

Probably all too commonly true.

And unless you're John (Net Direct) or one of probably many others,
one doesn't 'speak the language'. People costs, time to implement,
adapt, integrations costs, and other such vaporous hard to estimate /
get a handle on costs, are all easier to just bear with what you
already have, than change.

I would guess, a real answer, if you can get the recipient to do it,
is to really cost out what something costs them. Particularly against
what they want to do / value received. e.g. Support, deployment,
learning curve (which, I don't care what you say, each new version of
any product puts you through, witness Windows -> XP -> Vista.)

If you can get them to give you that, then you have something tangible
you can show them.

> The business case completely depends on what they're trying to do.  I would
> suggest the business case here might be (a) you'll save money (b) you'll
> have
> more flexibility (c) your data will likely be in a form that's
> accessible.. therefore

Which is all too vaporous.

> you will be more competitive.  The business case however will depend on
> what
> the problem is and what solutions exist that are OSS and/or whether you have
> time/energy/interest to develop something if nothing exists.
> 
>     busy managers generally aren't prepared to invest time listening to
>     abstract arguments.  a lot of them are simply, "what's my dollar
>     bottom line?"  and if you don't have a ready answer, the
>     conversation's pretty much over.
> 
>     (i'm betting that those people on this list who make a *living*
>     selling and supporting OSS solutions have those answers ready, but i'm
>     fairly sure the rest of us don't, as much as we might like to think we
>     do.)
> 
>     i'll go further and bet that i (and lots of others) could play devil's
>     advocate and argue *against* OSS and make your life difficult if you
>     were trying to sell me:
> 
>     you:  "well, first, it's free ..."
>     me:  "nothing free is worth anything.  you get what you pay for."
>     you:  "if anything goes wrong, you can look at the source."
>     me:  "hell, i don't even look at *our* company's source, why would i
>     want to look at someone else's?  and who do i call if something goes
>     wrong?  where's this "linux" company?"
>     you:  "well, there's not really a 'company' ..."
>     me:  "no company!?  who do i complain to, then?"

That presumes anyone complains. Most people just live with whatever
they get. If it doesn't work and they can't quickly Google a solution,
they just live with it.

UNLESS, they already pay for SOFTWARE support, in which case it
shouldn't be too hard to come up with equivalents, and probably
cheaper. Particularly if on a case by case basis.

Even better ... you can contract with a local company to find out
answers for you, and then you really have a person you can look in the
eyes and b*tch too. THAT has value that you won't ever get with MS.
Unless you're already doing this for MS support with a local company.

> 
>     ... and on and on and on.  i'm sure we all have good logical and
>     philosophical reasons for why OSS is the superior choice; i'm just
>     saying that a lot of those reasons might not mean anything to someone
>     who just wants to hear a solid business case, or he's not interested.
> 
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here too -
>   - Do you get what you pay for?  Microsoft anyone??  Anyone had a support
> contract that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on?  Getting tied
> into a
> proprietary solution more often than not, means you're at the vendor's
> mercy.

No different than OSS. But there you're at the mercy of some group of
remote schmoe's who may not even be around tomorrow.

>  Anyone tried to get decent M$ support after hours?
>   - Who do you call?  Any shop that supports OSS - NetDirect or Novell
> or Red Hat and so on.  Likely any large products/services that rely on code
> have internal people supporting it.  HP & IBM support hardware that runs
> Linux solutions.

I have called MS, and been satisfied. Never called OSS. I doubt they'd
be much different - except, if you're a solid MS shop, they get you
wherever you need to go. Any mixed environment and the finger pointing
starts.

Which is more to say ... the cost / time / effort required to resolve
a problem, should it get far enough to even be willing to call
someone, is usually so irritating / aggravating / long that you just
stop calling and live with it.

> 
> I think some of the reasons I detailed earlier do support a solid business
> case i.e.  no vendor tie in, you're not stuck with a solution years

I largely don't buy vendor tie in. Unless you're already there. With
MS, it's one stop shopping. Anything else, the finger pointing starts.
It's EXCRUCIATING to try and get two vendors to talk to each other to
sort a problem out. Usually it's "not our problem, sorry for you luck.
Bye now."

> later that
> doesn't work for you anymore because all your data is in "X" format.
> 
>     > And lastly I would let them play with Linux - loan them a laptop to
>     > show them how cool, capable, robust, fun and sleek Linux really is!
> 
>     i'm sure that that argument would have absolutely no value in making a
>     business case.  why would someone offer to invest any time playing
>     with something new and unfamiliar when they already have something
>     they understand?

Bingo. And the I.T. Manager ... why would they do an evaluation of an
AutoCad equivalent? They don't have the expertise to judge. So they
farm out the evaluation to their technical people, which has a cost,
and ...

> 
> Because of all the features described earlier...  (it is more secure, more

Security doesn't appear to be the selling point we might wish. Unless
they've been bitten in the past. "Hasn't happened to us, probably
won't, and we'll deal with it should it happen. After all, we have
backups." [Good answer to the last - when's the last time you tested
your backup recovery processes?]

> capable, more fun, more customizable, more robust).  And besides, most
> people who work in Tech  *like*  new and cool and unfamiliar.  If they're

That presumes that they have time to do so. Time for future planning
and the necessary pre-investigation, has to be one of the rarest
commodities around. I can't think of anyone who isn't going at road
runner speeds always, with more to do than there are hours in the day.

And any place that is, is large enough where they want a corporate
entity they can bring suit against should bad things happen.

> not prepared to look at something else because they're comfortable with

Right. Status quo. They know the $$$ costs, the processes are already
in place to deal with things, and they have too many things to do that
move them forward, rather than save a few $$$ reinventing the wheel.

> what they have.. I think there is another issue here..   being competitive
> means knowing what else is out there and being innovative means searching
> out creative solutions for problems.  Even busy IT Managers can recognize
> an opportunity when it's presented.  Why are IBM and others investing
> heavily
> in making sure Linux works on their hardware platforms and providing
> software
> solutions that run on Linux?

To keep them buying IBM hardware by being cheaper than they were
because software licensing costs are out of the equation. Besides,
essentially, IBM is a support company.

>     in any event, i may have wandered a bit far afield here, but here's a
>     challenge.  let's say you have one chance to make an impression with
>     an IT manager or someone fairly high up that controls the IT budget.
>     you have exactly one sentence to get this person's attention regarding
>     the value of OSS so that he's willing to listen further.
> 
>     what's that one sentence going to be?
> 
> It _will_ save you money.

Which isn't credible. And may be less than one would like, if the only
cost is licensing costs. Unfortunately, they can save further costs by
doing the cost comparison, then presenting it to MS, who will then cut
the licensing costs.

There is a transition cost, and then we're back to the vaporous nature
of accurately quantifying costs so it can come back to a dollars and
sense no brainer decision.

> 
> :)  Oksana
> 
>     rday

It really comes down to this: unless a business is willing to enter a
process re-engineering investigation, wherein they really look at what
brings in revenue, how they can cut acquisition costs for things that
bring in that revenue, and how they can make the revenue generation
process more efficient and thus cheaper, it's hard to sell.

If they're already in the mindset, and accepting, of change, then
there's a chance. Otherwise, this is all just a distraction to them.


Going back to Bob's original question, convincing the techie ...

What he's really asking is, what can I tell this guy to arm him to go
back to his boss to say they should do this. And getting (budget)
approval to investigate / proceed.

At which point everyone's excellent thoughts comes into play.