Open Options | Users & migration

Users are perhaps the most controversial aspect of total cost of ownership. User skill or discomfort is difficult to quantify. Money spent on training may not actually significantly increase comfort, skill, or use. Migration and retraining can be difficult and stressful for any new solution (regardless of whether it's open source). However, teachers and students must able and willing to use technology, so issues like mindshare and integration are important.

Migration costs
Mindshare & comfort
Integration

Migration costs

Migration is too expensive.

Migration from any existing solution to any new solution can be very expensive. The cost in dollars may be quantifiable, but the time and stress of staff can be uncertain. There may be unforeseen problems, as when existing hardware isn't actually sufficient (despite the alleged system requirements) or when data isn't easy to migrate. With open source, migration will almost always mean moving from a proprietary solution to an open source solution. Few educators talk about going back, which may reflect the advantages of open source or merely its relatively-recent widespread adoption.

While the price of open source software may be negligible, migration can still be costly. For example, to migrate from Microsoft Windows to Linux thin clients may require new servers and network infrastructure. Current users profess a belief that migration costs may be more than current costs, but the long-term savings are significant. This is especially plausible on the backend, where open source reduces or eliminates license fees.

Table: Cost savings through migration. According to open source proponents, the cost of migration is worthwhile.

[back to top]

Mindshare & comfort

K-12 users are more familiar & comfortable with proprietary software.

Some open source software is just as easy to learn how to use.

Software always includes a learning curve. People want computers to work like appliances. Most teachers want to focus on students not on configuration settings or software bugs. Neither the proprietary nor the open source model have produced many solutions as reliable and user friendly as toasters. For better or worse, most users are more familiar and more comfortable with proprietary software, especially Microsoft Windows. They may view open source solutions with uncertainty or fear. However, many open source solutions are overtly cloning proprietary interfaces and environments. For example, anyone familiar with Microsoft Office will probably find it easy to use OpenOffice.org for simple productivity. Operating systems like Red Hat Linux can create desktops with the look and feel of Microsoft Windows or Apple Macintosh.

As barriers to using open source software, mindshare and comfort are perhaps most influential among staff using frontend solutions. In contrast, backend users (e.g. server technicians) may already be familiar with open source solutions or may adjust more readily. On the frontend, students may be more adaptive to change than staff, according to current users. There are compelling reasons to teach students technology literacy independent of any specific program or brand. Even proprietary software may change from version to version, causing mindshare dissonance and user discomfort.

Staff using frontend solutions may have very legitimate reasons to resist migration to open source. They may have curricula dependent on specific proprietary software. They may not have the time or energy to learn new software. Some current users report that their stakeholders were willing to work through their unfamiliarity when they understood the pragmatism of migration: the schools couldn't afford anything else. Instead of money, a school could spend time and patience helping users adjust.

Notably, some advanced users prefer the freedom of open source since they feel proprietary software "caters to the lowest common denominator." As users grow more comfortable with open source solutions they may be pleasantly surprised, especially if they're only ever used a single proprietary solution.

[back to top]

Integration

It's difficult to integrate open source & proprietary solutions.

Integrating any two programs is often challenging. It may be difficult to integrate some open source and proprietary solutions. This is usually because proprietary companies prefer their customers to use their brand for most or all of a solution. In contrast, the TMTOWTDI philosophy of open source promotes integration. In many cases open source is a minority solution, so it's designed to integrate as smoothly as possible with proprietary solutions. For example, a Linux lab can be nested in a Microsoft network using Samba. However, integration may be too unreliable for practical use. For example, OpenOffice.org tries to use Microsoft Office file formats. Ideally, this allows an OpenOffice user to collaborate with Microsoft Office users. In practice, some files may not open cleanly in one program or the other. However, this problem also occurs when opening files from newer versions of Microsoft Office in older versions of the same program. For more implications, see: "Examples in word processing"

[back to top]

Open Options is a product of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. These materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. The following acknowledgment is requested on materials which are reproduced: Developed by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon.

This Web site was developed and maintained by the Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. The federal funding for the regional technology consortia program ended on September 30, 2005, and no further updates are planned unless additional funding becomes available. However, much of the content is still useful and NWREL will continue to provide access to this site to support educators and to meet its own technical assistance needs.