Response from: Kiat Huang

The evident truth of Open Source software is that it is simply software (technically no different from proprietary software except it's collaborative-focused license) - but crucially with an unrestricted developer, test, distributor and consumer base. Building in this unrestrictiveness, immediately and permanently, lays down a wide, open highway for the project to take advantage of if it wishes to. It is interesting the writer (Scott Wilson) uses flawed logic when looking at the distribution of the health of Sourceforge's open source projects - there are surely just as high (and I suspect a lot higher) a proportion of dead propreitary projects on developers floors and in office bins. You just don't hear much of them. The "proprietary community" (but of a misnomer: since they can't really engage in candid, unfettered code discussions) in general cannot learn collectively from their own member's mistakes...and if a community cannot learn efficiently from it's own mistakes, then it fights a losing battle in the long run, with a viable alternative that really can.

Response from: Scott Wilson

I think you should avoid criticising anyone else's logic when the best rebuttal you can come up with consists of "surely" and "I suspect." :) As you say, the numbers are not generally available for proprietary projects. But in my experience they are abandoned less frequently; some organization is making an investment, and (if not as often as they should) they have run the numbers and know they have a business need for the solution, and have a good idea of the resources they can commit to it before they even start. The failure number is still extraordinarily high--but lower than in the Open Source community. The "unrestrictiveness" you speak of is exactly the point; it sounds good if you are the developer, but the user WANTS some accountability and predictability... a point frequently missed by open-source advocates. If I might offer you a tip, presuming you're an open-source fan: don't try to defend or draw contrast to project abandonment rates between open and closed source projects. Instead, point out that the nature of open source allows more projects to be started with fewer resources, and that the beauty of the system is that these can be consolidated or discarded with little ultimate waste and potentially to some future advantage in lessons learned. As it is, you're making your argument according to ground rules which are already stacked in favor of more traditional proprietary development approaches, and even if you had all the data you need, you'd find yourself losing it. It's acceptable for open-source to be "better" than proprietary software in unconventional ways; you don't need to justify it by traditional metrics.

Response from: Matt Burkhardt

There's an incredible wealth of open source software for the K-12 market. I'm constantly amazed and surprised by the breadth of applications available - from Student Information Systems to Integrated Library Management Systems - that are available. Indiana schools decided to move to open source software and it has and continues to be a resounding success. Check out http://www.imparisystems.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=32
for some of the free and open source SIS's available.

Response from: Stanley F. Quayle

I've spoken with the IT people to see if they'd be interested in migrating to an emulated VAX, which my company sells (http://www.stanq.com).
The response was system availability wasn't an issue. There's an open-source version, called SIMH. But moving to that will violate their license agreements -- HP now owns VMS. Instead, by migrating to CHARON-VAX (the product I sell), they can get legal transfer licenses from HP for $2k. Either way, they'll move to a 3U size PC in a rack, instead of the 3 or 4 racks they're using now...