Guy Vs. Guy: The Real Price of Open-Source Software

Welcome to Guy Vs. Guy! In this recurring feature, Rick and Dave square off on the business and technology issues of the day. This week's topic: open-source software. Can a business run effectively on the cheap/free stuff, or do issues like training, compatibility, and support negate the initial savings?
Rick: I admit it: I'm cheap. (Seriously, I have a whole blog that says so.) And, let's face it, times are tough. So why should I, or any business owner, spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on commercial software when there are perfectly cromulent open-source alternatives?

Dave: Likewise, I'm a photographer. (And I have a blog about that, too, so there.) And as a photographer, I have very little spare cash for other things. Nonetheless, I am, what's the word... hang on, it's coming to me... rational. So I recognize that anyone who thinks they can run a real-life, professional, non-make-believe business on nothing but free software has put too much crazy-salsa on their insanity tacos. Open-source and other free applications have a (small) role in business, but mostly, it's all about retail.

Rick: Retail? What is this, the 80s? Let's at least get our terms straight. Boxed software is so dead, it barely even exists in stores anymore. In fact, the stores themselves now sit emptier than a plate of Twinkies on your desk. (Exhibit A: CompUSA. Exhibit B: Circuit City. Need I go on?) Anyway, let's start with office suites. Are you telling me that a business can't operate with OpenOffice in place of Microsoft Office? Surely you jest. The former has 95 percent of the features most businesses need.

Dave: Using OpenOffice is like being the uncle everyone has who buys generic coffee cakes instead of Drakes. They're cheap, sure. They also smell kinda weird and have a nasty aftertaste. But you eat them because he offers them and you try to pretend they taste just the same, but they really don't. Free alternatives to Office offer similar features, but tax your productivity every time someone new joins the team and has to learn your stupid FreeCheapOffice. Because despite your protestations, all those free and open-source alternatives work rather differently than Office. And as you know, the real expense is training and productivity -- not the up-front cost of software, which can be trivial in comparison.

Rick: I don't know what kind of crazy uncles you have in your family, but mine are smart, practical guys who don't eat unhealthy coffee cakes. Anyway, there's nothing trivial about spending hundreds of dollars per seat on the latest version of Office. Which, let's not forget, would almost certainly require training because of its heavily overhauled interface. But an organization can deploy unlimited copies of OpenOffice for the whopping price of zero dollars. And because its interface closely resembles earlier versions of Microsoft Office, where's the learning curve? Oh, right, there isn't one. Face it: In these cash-strapped times, SMBs would be nuts not to consider open-source alternatives.

Dave: Sure, roll out your penny-wise-pound-foolish copy of OpenOffice. How's that e-mail working out for ya? Oh, that's right... there's no mail client in OpenOffice. Well, don't worry, because you can use... err... um... wait a minute... oh, that's right. How silly of me; there's no open source equivalent to Outlook. Say what you will about Office, Outlook has no equal. Paired with Exchange Server, you've got perhaps the best communications platform ever devised. But, um, Eudora is good too.

Rick: News flash, stumpy: Outlook is "also sold separately." Businesses can buy it without buying the full, budget-smashing Office suite. That said, I agree there's no open-source alternative to Outlook -- but there are free alternatives, as you yourself wrote about just a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, you mentioned photography: Are you really willing to spend $700 on Photoshop when GIMP and Paint.NET offer most of the same features for $0? Don't expect government bailout money just because you bought pricey software you couldn't afford.

Dave: Are you really trying to pitch GIMP as a replacement for Photoshop? Really? Clearly, you don't understand the subtleties of professional photo editing, since this is a great example of why you can't find a free program that kinda looks like it sorta does the same thing as a commercial product and consider it good enough. I don't know a single professional photographer who would use GIMP instead of Photoshop; there's simply no comparison between the two for a pro. On the other hand, GIMP and Paint.NET are awesome tools for photo enthusiasts who don't have to worry about satisfying demanding clients, meeting deadlines, and managing a digital workflow. And the the same holds true for business apps. OpenOffice is great if you don't have millions of dollars riding on issues like utterly seamless compatibility, 100% uptime, and client satisfaction. The expression "no one has ever been fired for buying Microsoft/Adobe/Oracle" still applies when faced with this customer reaction: "Err... you don't use PowerPoint?"

Rick: Just yesterday I spoke with a small-business owner who told me he was preparing to roll out Linux and OpenOffice in his shop. Why? Because he "simply can't afford" commercial software licenses any longer. In today's economy, I'll wager that countless SMBs are at least evaluating open-source software for the very same reason. And if you think there are no professional photographers who use GIMP, you really need to change your medication. As for "utterly seamless compatibility," I do hope you're joking. Need I remind you that older versions of Office can't open Office 2007 files without a converter? You seem to think that all open-source software requires major compromises, but that's just not true.

Dave: There's no question that some businesses are moving to open-source, but anecdotal examples don't mean it's the right move for the majority of companies or home businesses. Personally, I worry that training and support for open-source is more costly than commercial products. I am also somewhat alarmed by studies that show open-source is slower to patch and potentially more vulnerable than commercial alternatives. Don't get me wrong: apps like OpenOffice are not bad choices. But anyone going down that road needs to have their eyes wide open and be aware of the total cost of ownership, not just the cost of entry.

Okay, who won the debate? Hit the Talkback to declare a winner and share your open-source arguments. When that's done, check out the previous Guy Vs. Guy entries, which are just as entertaining and enlightening.