| Linux |
|
| Apache |
|
| Firefox |
|
| Thunderbird |
|
| MySQL |
|
| Postgres SQL |
|
| Samba |
|
| Squid |
|
| OpenOffice |
|
| Eclipse |
|
| Gimp |
|
| Snort |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Linux (operating system) |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
5% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
3% |
|
| Linux (desktop) |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
8% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
5% |
|
| Apache web server |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
7% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
3% |
|
| Squid |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
5% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
5% |
|
| Snort |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
7% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
5% |
|
| Thunderbird |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
9% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
3% |
|
| OpenOffice |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
7% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
2% |
|
| MySQL |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
8% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
5% |
|
| Postgres SQL |
| If used could support in-house |
| |
9% |
| If used would require external support |
| |
5% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Application Development |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
17% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
5% |
|
| Application Service Provider |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
10% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
5% |
|
| Location and Directory Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
11% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
7% |
|
| Operating System Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
15% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
2% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
9% |
|
| System and Network Management |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
15% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
1% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
8% |
|
| Transaction Processing Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
8% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
7% |
|
| Application Implementation |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
18% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
1% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
7% |
|
| Data Interchange Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
10% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
3% |
|
| Desktop Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
13% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
3% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
9% |
|
| Network Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
17% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
2% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
8% |
|
| Security Services |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
15% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
1% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
6% |
|
| Training |
| Currently support in-house |
| |
14% |
| Have supported in-house |
| |
2% |
| If required could support in-house |
| |
7% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Application Development |
| Would require external support |
| |
11% |
|
| Application Service Provider |
| Would require external support |
| |
9% |
|
| Location and Directory Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
10% |
|
| Operating System Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
6% |
|
| System and Network Management |
| Would require external support |
| |
7% |
|
| Transaction Processing Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
10% |
|
| Application Implementation |
| Would require external support |
| |
8% |
|
| Data Interchange Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
9% |
|
| Desktop Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
8% |
|
| Network Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
8% |
|
| Security Services |
| Would require external support |
| |
8% |
|
| Training |
| Would require external support |
| |
7% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Linux (operating system) |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
16% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
10% |
|
| Linux (desktop) |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
10% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
13% |
|
| Apache web server |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
15% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
8% |
|
| MySQL |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
13% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
8% |
|
| Postgres SQL |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
11% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
3% |
|
| Squid |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
7% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
9% |
|
| Snort |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
7% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
6% |
|
| Thunderbird |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
7% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
7% |
|
| Open Office |
| We are/were a support provider for |
| |
9% |
| Could provide support in |
| |
10% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Application Development |
| If required could support |
| |
5% |
|
| Application Service Provider |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Location and Directory Services |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Operating System Services |
| If required could support |
| |
8% |
|
| System and Network Management |
| If required could support |
| |
5% |
|
| Transaction Processing Services |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Application Implementation |
| If required could support |
| |
6% |
|
| Data Interchange Services |
| If required could support |
| |
8% |
|
| Desktop Services |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Network Services |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Security Services |
| If required could support |
| |
7% |
|
| Training |
| If required could support |
| |
9% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Application Development |
| Could provide support in |
| |
16% |
|
| Application Service Provider |
| Could provide support in |
| |
14% |
|
| Location and Directory Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
11% |
|
| Operating System Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
15% |
|
| System and Network Management |
| Could provide support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Transaction Processing Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
11% |
|
| Application Implementation |
| Could provide support in |
| |
17% |
|
| Data Interchange Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
13% |
|
| Desktop Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
17% |
|
| Network Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Security Services |
| Could provide support in |
| |
14% |
|
| Training |
| Could provide support in |
| |
17% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Linux (operating system) |
|
| Apache (web server) |
|
| Firefox (web browser) |
|
| Thunderbird (email client) |
|
| MySQL (database) |
|
| Postgres SQL (database) |
|
| Samba (file server) |
|
| Squid (web proxy server) |
|
| OpenOffice (word-processor and spreadsheet) |
|
| Eclipse (software development environment) |
|
| Gimp (graphic image processing) |
|
| Snort (intrusion detection) |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Application Development |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
16% |
| Would require support in |
| |
18% |
|
| Application Service Provider |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
16% |
| Would require support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Location and Directory Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
16% |
| Would require support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Operating System Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
16% |
| Would require support in |
| |
14% |
|
| System and Network Management |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
17% |
| Would require support in |
| |
14% |
|
| Transaction Processing Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
15% |
| Would require support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Application Implementation |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
19% |
| Would require support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Data Interchange Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
18% |
| Would require support in |
| |
13% |
|
| Desktop Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
24% |
| Would require support in |
| |
10% |
|
| Network Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
19% |
| Would require support in |
| |
11% |
|
| Security Services |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
18% |
| Would require support in |
| |
15% |
|
| Training |
| Could support ourselves (in house) |
| |
19% |
| Would require support in |
| |
14% |
|
| Other/s |
|
| Security |
|
| Support |
|
| Cost |
|
| Data Integrity |
|
| Migration Issues (changing systems) |
|
| Interoperability |
|
| Existing Contracts |
|
| Training |
|
| User Resistance |
|
| Compatibility with Existing Systems |
|
| Adherence to Open Standards |
|
| Legal/Licensing Ramifications |
|
| Management Resistance |
|
| Comment: |
|
| In the future we plan to use more open source software. |
|
| When acquiring new software we prefer to purchase proprietary applications. |
|
| Proprietary software is generally more secure than open source software. |
|
| Open source software does not lock us in to a particular software vendor, thus giving us more choice. |
|
| Open source software is cheaper than proprietary software in the long run. |
|
| There are not enough local IT companies in Tasmania providing support for open source software for us to consider it seriously. |
|
| We don't know of any local companies in Tasmania that provide training for open source software products. |
|
| If a company that sells a particular proprietary software product that we rely on were to go out of business, then it may harm our business because we could no longer get support/upgrades. |
|
| The transition from our current set up to an open source environment would be too difficult. |
|
| We use proprietary software and are happy with the current performance and costs involved. |
|
| If a cheaper alternative was available we would consider moving to an open source environment with the right conditions. |
|
| The amount of money that we spend on software is too high. |
|
| The amount of money that we spend on software support is too high. |
|
| Tasmanian government IT procurement policy should include the option of open source software solutions. |
|
| Over the next 5 years the use of OSS solutions will increase significantly. |
|
| We are supportive of initiatives to assist the development of business opportunities for Tasmanian IT Industry. |
|
| Our organisation does not believe OSS will provide significant business benefits. |
|
| OSS assists develop innovative software. |
|
| We use open source software and are happy with the current performance and costs involved. |
|
| There is no difference between the longevity of data storage when using proprietary or OSS. |
|
| We would prefer to spend a large portion of our IT budget on services rather than licences. |
|
| We are supportive of the potential community and local industry benefits associated with open source software. |
|