A BBC news article got me thinking, what is it that really keeps people from moving to open source solutions.? In
Open Source Questions for Schools , Andrew Miller looks at the British government recent efforts to introduce open source as a procurement option for schools, and illuminates some interesting pros and cons.
The article quotes John Spencer from Sirius, a company involved in installing open source solutions in schools, as saying "...Good teachers will always be looking to move forward but they are so busy that they are often conservative." While Open Source may indeed suffer from various image issues (no support, low quality, not compatible, etc), perhaps most simply it is major systems change that continues to drive people to go with what they know.
Strong planning along with decisive execution are key requirements for succeeding in major system changes. Many resource starved groups among NGOs and education organizations would understandably become more conservative in the face of of the software unknown. I have found this approach both prudent, and exasperating, when working on technology planning projects.
It can be especially prudent, when you have some open source representatives claiming "liberation" from lock-in, or from costs associated with "enforced" upgrades. Getting into a complicated software tool is plenty of lock-in, and we are not liberated from costs associated with upgrades, at least if the open source tool has a large community of support improving it. Sure, if I am thrown off a boat, my freedom liberates me from having to swim...
For the most part, the article reminded me that the choice between any collection of tools should remain rooted in pragmatism. We should neither be swept away by the software cost, its branding, or its openness, but by a host of factors most important for our needs.
