Others have come to the same conclusions, for example, Forrester Research concluded in September 2006 that “Firms should consider open source options for mission-critical applications”.I believe that this paper has met its goal; others seem to think so too.You may also be interested in the discussion group for quantitative numbers about free / libre / open source software.
Old archived copies and a list of changes are also available.
Open Source Software / Free Software (aka OSS/FS), also described as Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), has risen to great prominence.
It’s true that FLOSS users have fundamental control and flexibility advantages, since they can modify and maintain their own software to their liking.
And some countries perceive advantages to not being dependent on a sole-source company based in another country.
An appendix gives more background information about OSS/FS. A short presentation (briefing) based on this paper is also available.
Palm PDA users may wish to use Plucker to view this longer report.The 2004 report of the California Performance Review, a report from the state of California, urges that “the state should more extensively consider use of open source software”, and specifically references this paper.A review at the Canadian Open Source Education and Research (Can Open ER) site stated “This is an excellent look at the some of the reasons why any [organization] should consider the use of [FLOSS]...Some sites provide a few anecdotes on why you should use FLOSS, but for many that’s not enough information to justify using FLOSS.Instead, this paper emphasizes quantitative measures (such as experiments and market studies) to justify why using FLOSS products is in many circumstances a reasonable or even superior approach.But although most people understand the need to compare proprietary products before using them, many people fail to even consider FLOSS products, or they create policies that unnecessarily inhibit their use; those are errors this paper tries to correct.