Open-Source As An Alternative To Commercial Software

OPEN-SOURCE AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO
COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE
Final Report 583
Prepared by:
Sean Coleman
2401 E Rio Salado Pkwy. #1179
Tempe, Arizona 85281
March 2009
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are
cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S.
government and the state of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
2
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-AZ-09-583
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March, 2009
Open-Source as an Alternative to Commercial Software 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization

Sean Coleman Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

Sean Coleman 11. Contract or Grant No.
2401 E Rio Salado Pkwy, #1179 SPR-583
Tempe, AZ 85281
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
206 S. 17th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Project Managers: Frank DiBugnara, John Semmens, and
Steve Rost
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
In recent years, open-source software has demonstrated rapid growth in popularity with the proliferation of
alternatives to commercial applications. This study investigates the feasibility of ADOT using open-source
software by determining overall benefits, candidate applications, and potential cost savings. First, the
concept of open-source is introduced through a literature review giving the history and analysis of the hacker
culture that lies at its core, as well as noting common misconceptions regarding open-source. Additionally,
the economic and intrinsic motivation of open-source developers is investigated, along with key
development methodologies such as crowd sourcing and transparent peer review. In order to investigate the
current landscapes of open-source and commercial software among state transportation agencies, a survey
was conducted of several other departments of transportation. Data from the 26 respondents showed that
these agencies favored commercial software during the procurement process, despite the rapid adoption of
open-source software in the consumer market. Regarding Microsoft Office 2007 and Windows Vista
deployments, the consensus was that upgrading is a possibility, but no specific plans have been made.
Based on these findings, OpenOffice.org was identified as a strong open-source candidate application
comparable to Microsoft Office. In order to further investigate this claim, a pilot test called the OpenOffice
Challenge was developed to compare the usability of OpenOffice.org and Office 2007. Results showed that
participants generally see OpenOffice.org as a closer alternative to Office 2003, currently the standard office
suite at ADOT, than to Office 2007. This study concludes by analyzing current Microsoft licensing contracts
and software cost at the department. A potential cost savings based on reduced licensing costs was found
to be $410,000 with the implementation of OpenOffice.org. Additional recommendations are made to the
Department regarding open-source procurement and accessibility as a government agency.
17. Keywords 18. Distribution statement 23. Registrant’s

Stamp
open-source software, licensing, technology
19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 140
3
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
API Application Programming Interface

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
BSD Berkeley Software Distribution
COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software
CAR Common Average Rank
CSRG Computer Science Research Group
DOT Department of Transportation
FSF Free Software Foundation
GNU GNU’s Not UNIX
GPL General Public License
IT Information Technology
LGPL Lesser General Public License
MPL Mozilla Public License
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCSA National Center for Supercomputer Applications
OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
OSI Open-source Initiative
OSS Open-source Software
PHP PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor
RFP Request for Proposal
ROI Return on Investment
SaaS Software-as-a-Service
SQL Structured Query Language
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TBO Total Benefit of Ownership
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
VBA Visual Basic for Applications
XML Extensible Markup Language
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................8
1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................9
1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................9
1.2 Literature Review..................................................................................................9
1.3 External Agency Survey .......................................................................................9
1.4 The OpenOffice Challenge™..............................................................................10
1.5 Recommendations ...............................................................................................10
2.0 Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
2.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................12
2.2 Definitions and License Types............................................................................12
2.2.1 Free Software ...............................................................................................12
2.2.2 The Open-Source Definition........................................................................13
2.2.3 OSS Licenses ...............................................................................................14
2.3 History of Open-source .......................................................................................15
2.3.1 UNIX ...........................................................................................................16
2.3.2 Linux ............................................................................................................18
2.3.3 Other Major Projects....................................................................................19
2.4 Economics and Philosophy .................................................................................20
2.4.1 Open-source Initiative..................................................................................20
2.4.2 Economics and Motivation ..........................................................................21
2.4.3 Government and OSS ..................................................................................22
2.5 Total Cost of Ownership .....................................................................................24
2.5.1 OSS Costs ....................................................................................................26
2.6 OSS Advantages and Disadvantages ..................................................................28
2.6.1 Customization and Modularity ....................................................................28
2.6.2 Security Models ...........................................................................................29
2.6.3 Usability and Interfacing .............................................................................29
2.6.4 Software Versioning ....................................................................................30
2.6.5 Reliability and Support ................................................................................30
2.7 Summary .............................................................................................................30
3.0 External Agency Software Survey..........................................................................32
3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................32
3.2 Survey Methodology ...........................................................................................32
3.2.1 Development ................................................................................................32
3.2.2 Distribution ..................................................................................................32
3.3 Survey Results.....................................................................................................33
5
3.3.1 Statistical Overview .....................................................................................33
3.3.2 Qualitative Findings.....................................................................................35
3.4 Summary .............................................................................................................37
4.0 OpenOffice Challenge ............................................................................................38
4.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................38
4.2 Pilot Test Methodology.......................................................................................38
4.2.1 Key Objectives.............................................................................................38
4.2.2 Pilot Test Format .........................................................................................38
4.2.3 Participant Selection ....................................................................................39
4.3 Data Collection....................................................................................................39
4.3.1 Exit Survey ..................................................................................................40
4.3.2 Focus Group Discussion ..............................................................................40
4.4 Results and Analysis ...........................................................................................40
4.4.1 Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................41
4.4.2 Analysis Summary .......................................................................................46
4.5 Open-Ended Responses.......................................................................................47
4.5.1 Application Efficiency .................................................................................47
4.5.2 Comparison to Microsoft Office 2003.........................................................48
4.5.3 Office 2007 Overall Experience ..................................................................48
4.5.4 OpenOffice.org 3 Overall Experience .........................................................48
4.6 Conclusions .........................................................................................................49
4.6.1 Office 2003 Alternatives..............................................................................49
4.6.2 Office 2003 Comparison..............................................................................49
4.6.3 Possible Restrictions ....................................................................................49
5.0 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................51
5.1 Research Summary..............................................................................................51
5.1.1 Software Trends ...........................................................................................51
5.1.2 Hybrid Internet Model .................................................................................52
5.2 Department Recomendations ..............................................................................53
5.2.1 OpenOffice.org Implementation ..................................................................53
5.2.2 Software Procurement Process ....................................................................55
5.2.3 Encourage Open-Source Proliferation .........................................................55
Appendix A: External Agency Survey Individual Results ................................................56
Appendix B: External Agency Survey Summary ..............................................................82
Appendix C: External Agency Software Use Survey ........................................................90
Appendix D: External Agency Survey Request Letter ......................................................97
Appendix E: Email with Online External Agency Survey ................................................98
6
Appendix F: OpenOffice Challenge™ Discussion .............................................................99
Appendix G: OpenOffice Challenge™ Instructions........................................................100
Appendix H: OpenOffice Challenge™ Individualized Results ........................................108
Appendix I: OpenOffice Challenge™ Summarized Results.............................................124
Appendix J: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Table .............................................................127
Appendix K: OpenOffice Challenge™ Exit Survey .........................................................128
Appendix L: Microsoft Licensing Questionnaire ............................................................132
Appendix M: ADOT Annual Microsoft Licensing Costs................................................135
References........................................................................................................................136
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Brief Historical Timeline of Significant Open-source Events Page 20

Table 2: OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question 6 results ordered by Page 43
absolute difference.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: External Agency Survey Question: “What is your department’s Page 34

current status regarding a Windows Vista deployment?”
Figure 2: External Agency Survey Question: “What is your department’s Page 35
current status regarding a Microsoft Office 2007 deployment?”
Figure 3: OpenOffice Challenge ™ Survey Question: “What feature do you Page 41
find most important in office applications?”
Figure 4: OpenOffice Challenge ™ Survey Question: “Which application do Page 46
you think is most comparable to Microsoft Office 2003?”
Figure 5: OpenOffice Challenge ™ Survey Question: “For the application you Page 47
find most similar to Microsoft Office 2003, which aspect do you
think is most similar?”
8
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) currently spends more than $1
million per year on commercial software licensing, resulting in a recognizable financial
strain. The increasing popularity of open-source software (OSS) and its nominal licensing
fees are making many organizations, including ADOT, look at ways to take advantage of
its lower software costs. The purpose of this research is to investigate ways other
government agencies and transportation departments are utilizing OSS to reduce costs, as
well as identify key areas and open-source applications that will provide value to ADOT.
Additionally, this study provides estimated cost savings for particular applications and
makes general recommendations regarding the software procurement process and OSS.
1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section presents findings from published literature regarding OSS and provides an
introduction to the concept and paradoxical meanings of free software. An extensive
history of open-source is provided by outlining significant projects and people at the
roots of the open-source movement. Additionally, this section outlines programmer
motives and economics that define the anthropologic gift culture1at the core of the open-
source community, demonstrating why developers contribute to projects without
monetary compensation. Finally, previous government OSS implementations are
provided to analyze success stories as a base for open-source introduction at ADOT.
Several notable items are summarized:
• Openly sharing source code was the original method of programming software
that led the development of computer science. Originally, hardware and
software of a computer system were so tightly coupled that keeping source
code proprietary provided no competitive advantage.
• The social concept of a gift economy is prevalent across open-source
communities in which programmers regularly exchange source code without
any expectation of repayment. However, social classes are developed within
project teams in which an individual’s status is defined by what he or she
contributes.
• Public sector organizations are increasingly adopting OSS to realize increased
file accessibility through open formats. Additionally, many governments
around the world are recognizing cost savings without reduced functionality
by migrating to alternative open-source applications.
• The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), a narrowly focused metric used in
software procurement, might well be inferior to the Total Benefit of
Ownership (TBO). Investigation of TBO may reveal qualitative advantages
such as open formats, usability, and development quality.
1.3 EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY

1
A gift culture contrasts to a market economy since valuable goods and services are regularly given away
without any expectation of reward or compensation.
9
To gain an understanding of the collective software landscape of external transportation
agencies, a survey was conducted to explore their software use. Survey questions were
developed to satisfy the following three objectives:
• Gain insight into the overall use and perception of proprietary software and
OSS among departments of transportation (DOTs), as well as investigate their
future software implementations.
• Discover DOTs that have experience with OSS implementations and that may
serve as continued references and give useful comments.
• Provide an avenue for other state DOTs to benefit from the research
constituting this study.
The survey was sent to the state transportation agencies of the other 49 states and the
District of Columbia. Twenty-six responded, which was a favorable return. The survey
showed a consensus that commercial software was the dominant player, but also revealed
a strong interest in advantages OSS provides. Some key results are:
• 18 survey respondents stated that a deployment/upgrade to Windows Vista is
a possibility, but no plans have been made.
• 11 respondents stated that a deployment/upgrade to Office 2007 is a
possibility, but no plans have been made.
• All survey respondents reported that they do not use an OSS office suite;
however the Wisconsin DOT responded that it has implemented an OSS
operating system.
1.4 THE OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™

Based on the findings of the survey, OpenOffice.org was identified as a strong candidate
for an OSS pilot test. Transportation agencies, including ADOT, showed reluctance to
deploy Microsoft Office 2007 because of its significant change in usability, interface, and
interoperability compared to previous versions. The OpenOffice Challenge™ was
developed to test the hypothesis that OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite
comparable to Microsoft Office, is more similar to Office 2003, which is the current
version used throughout ADOT, than is Office 2007. The following outlines key results
and conclusions from the pilot test:
• OpenOffice.org 3 is more comparable in terms of usability and functionality
to Office 2003 than is Office 2003’s successor, Office 2007.
• There was consistent favoring of OpenOffice.org 3 as an “easier-to-learn”
application in comparison to Office 2007.
• OpenOffice.org 3 is a reasonable alternative to Microsoft Office 2003 in terms
of usability, efficiency, and functionality.
1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
10
One objective of this research study is to offer recommendations to ADOT regarding
open-source software. Findings throughout the research led to three overall
recommendations:
• ADOT should implement OpenOffice.org 3 as a dual deployment with
Microsoft Office 2007 within a normal upgrade cycle. By providing
OpenOffice.org as an alternative to Office 2007, the culture will gradually
shift to using OpenOffice.org, as seen in the conclusions from the OpenOffice
Challenge ™. Additionally, a dual deployment mitigates migration costs and
risks associated with immediately switching to an entirely different platform.
• A policy should be implemented to require the consideration of open-source
applications during software procurement and RFPs.
• ADOT should seek to encourage the proliferation of OSS throughout the
department by offering IT support for OSS and allowing developers to
contribute up to 10% of their time toward open-source projects.
11
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The use of OSS is one of the fastest-growing trends among both consumers and large
organizations. With the increasing cost of commercial software, individuals and
technology leaders are looking for ways to reduce software licensing fees. The nominal
prices and extensive popularity of OSS packages have led consumers, small businesses,
and large enterprises to switch from proprietary software configurations to OSS.
Although many factors are used to decide on software used throughout an organization, a
reason against using OSS stems from the distributed-development model of OSS projects.
Generally speaking, commercial software is developed, distributed, and supported by

profit-seeking companies. The universal goal of such companies is to create reliable and
feature-rich products that will sell and generate revenue. Customers realize that the
companies stand behind their products in order to guarantee future sales. However, OSS
projects do not have the same economic motivation to guarantee support and reliability in
the software. Instead of a centralized corporation, a distributed network of skilled
computer system administrators, database administrators, computer programmers, and
other engineers contribute to OSS products that in many cases are regarded as equivalent,
if not superior, to similar proprietary software.
This report covers the following aspects of OSS: definitions, history, economics and
philosophy, TCO analysis, advantages and disadvantages, and government
implementation. First, the OSS definition is introduced, along with commonly used OSS
software licenses as governed by the Open-source Initiative (OSI). Next, the historical
background of OSS is summarized, along with the history of UNIX and Linux, the two
projects at the historical roots of OSS. In addition, the philosophical basis for OSS
success, as well as the development models for both OSS and proprietary companies, is
investigated. The TCO of large-scale OSS implementation is analyzed and reviewed
using various case studies. Next, specific advantages and disadvantages are looked at in
both OSS and proprietary software to gain a better understanding of how to analyze an
organization’s information technology (IT) infrastructure. Finally, several case studies of
governmental OSS implementation are summarized, providing a look at the success of
OSS implementation at the enterprise level.
2.2 DEFINITIONS AND LICENSE TYPES
2.2.1 Free Software

In addition to the concept of open-source, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) provides
meaning for the term free software often used in discussing open-source software.
However, the word free is not used in the context of gratis, meaning “without cost”;
instead, it is based on the meaning of libre, or “free as in freedom.” This definition was
made popular by Richard Stallman, the FSF’s founder and formerly a programmer at the
12
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) artificial intelligence (AI) lab, in a
magazine article titled “GNU Manifesto.”2
Although free software and open-source software essentially describe the same
applications and are often used interchangeably, the terms are specifically defined.
Stallman describes free software as a social movement that contrasts with the open-
source development methodology in this way:
“Nearly all open-source software is free software; the two terms describe
almost the same category of software. But they stand for views based on
fundamentally different values. Open-source is a development methodology;
free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free
software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the
users’ freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open-source considers issues
in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says
that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software
movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to
free software is the solution.”3
For the purpose of this study, “open-source software” will be used as defined by the OSI
below.
2.2.2 The Open-source Definition

The OSI 4 is a non-profit corporation that governs open-source standards and licenses in
order to provide a framework for OSS developers. Based on the terminology of open-
source, many believe that the only requirement for a project to be considered open-source
is to give the public access to the source code. Others believe that free software is, by
default, considered open-source. However, the OSI provides strict criteria for a software
project to be considered open-source:
• Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
• Source Code: The program must include source code and must allow
distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a
product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost, preferably by downloading via the Internet without charge.
The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would
modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
2
Stallman, Richard. “The GNU Manifesto.” The GNU Operating System.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
3
Stallman, Richard. “Why Open-source misses the point of Free Software.” The GNU Operating System.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
4
Open-source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ (accessed March 22, 2009).
13
Intermediate forms, such as the output of a preprocessor or translator, are not
allowed.
• Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works and
must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
• Integrity of the Author’s Source Code: The license may restrict source code
from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the
distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The license may require derived
works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
• No Discrimination against Persons or Groups: The license must not
discriminate against any person or group of persons.
• No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict
anyone from using the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it
may not restrict the program from being used in a business or from being used
for genetic research.
• Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all
to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
additional license by those parties.
• License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the
program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software
distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or
distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the
program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted
in conjunction with the original software distribution.
• License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not place
restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed
software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs
distributed on the same medium must be OSS.
• License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license may be
predicated on any individual technology or interface style.
2.2.3 OSS Licenses

The term “copyleft” is often used to describe the rights regarding free and open-source
software. Playing upon the term “copyright,” copyleft ensures the freedom of software
use and distribution. The FSF, established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer
users’ rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF
describes copyleft as “a general method for making a program or other work free, and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.”5 OSS
5
Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org (accessed March 20, 2009).
14
licenses are often based on a version of copyleft in order to ensure the freedom of use and
modification of the software.
The OSI, besides enforcing the open-source definition, manages OSS licenses that
organizations and individuals may use to distribute software. Several popular licenses are
used by the various communities to license open-source projects; however, many
organizations have created specific licenses that they use for their products. To have an
OSS license approved, the author must follow an eight-step process that includes an in-
depth analysis of how the OSS project conforms to the open-source definition. The
license is finalized with approval from the OSI.
Among the numerous open-source licenses, several public-use licenses are popular
among developers. Stephen Fishman, an intellectual property attorney and OSS advocate,
describes the main open-source license types:
2.2.3.1 GPL (General Public License)
The GNU GPL (General Public License), one of the first open-source licenses and
still by far the most widely used, was the first to implement copyleft. Linux, the
most famous open-source application, uses the GPL [created by] Richard
Stallman and Eben Moglen.
2.2.3.2 MPL (Mozilla Public License)

The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the most popular open-source license that
contains a weak copyleft provision. It was developed to distribute the Mozilla
web browser (the open-source version of the Netscape browser). It requires the
inclusion or publishing of the source code for all publicly distributed
modifications. The length of time necessary to publish the code is limited to a
period of one year or six months, depending on the situation. 6
The OSI has approved a multitude of additional licenses based on the concept of copyleft.
This includes the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) which doesn’t have the
extensive redistribution requirements that the GPL has. In addition, the Berkeley
Software Distribution (BSD) License was created with the BSD UNIX variant (Sec.
2.3.1) and has been modified for use with many new projects. Typically, new open-
source projects will include the modification of previous open-source licenses to fit the
description and scope of the new project.
2.3 HISTORY OF OPEN-SOURCE

The concept of sharing source code freely was standard long before software was
developed and packaged for profit. Original software applications were developed
exclusively for use with a specific set of hardware and seen not as stand-alone products,
but as a portion of the overall package. Early software developers and organizations
embraced the concept of sharing source code for the sake of speedy feedback and
6
Fishman, Stephen. “Open-source Licenses Are Not All the Same.” ONLamp.com.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html (accessed March 20, 2009).
15
collaboration. However, early data showed that the large corporations employing or
retaining these developers were unresponsive to their suggestions and the needs of
customers. As a result, many disgruntled employees left their respective companies and
developed applications that rivaled their commercial counterparts, knowing that their
system architecture and necessary features meant certain success for these rogue
developers. Many current large-scale OSS projects were started through this process,
including UNIX, Linux, Sendmail, and Apache.
In response, over the past 20 years, the software industry has switched from the extensive
collaborative environment of external source code sharing to one where companies guard
their source code as intellectual property. As software started becoming more complex
and companies recognized that software could be a competitive advantage, they started
closing their source code. Although the software market is currently controlled by
commercial software vendors, the industry has begun to view open-source projects as a
viable option once again.
2.3.1 UNIX
During the early days of computing, large-scale commercial computers were developed
by IBM and AT&T Bell Labs and other companies. These commercial computers each
had distinct operating systems that were written specifically for a unique hardware
profile—the software could not be run on multiple platforms. To eliminate the hardware
profiling of software, many programmers started developing a new operating system that
would reach beyond a computer’s original hardware. In 1969, as Jesus Gonzalez-
Barahona describes it, “Kenneth Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and others at AT&T Bell
Labs began developing a small operating system on a little-used PDP-7. The operating
system was soon christened UNIX, a pun on an earlier operating system project called
MULTICS (Multiplexed Information and Computing Service).”7 The UNIX project was
the most successful of all the attempts to develop a cross-platform operating system. One
of the biggest catalysts for success was the collaborative nature of the project. The UNIX
source code was freely shared among the many talented programmers who contributed to
the project. Carolyn Kenwood of The MITRE Corporation credits a majority of the
collaboration to a computer network:
“The process of sharing code rapidly accelerated with the emergence of Usenet, a
computer network begun in 1979 to link together the UNIX programming
community.” 8
After years of development, the seventh edition (V7) of UNIX was released in 1979. This
version is described as “the grandfather of all extant UNIX systems.”9 Although UNIX
had rapid success, the project was not without problems. Throughout the software’s
7
Gonzalez-Barahona, Jesus M. A Brief History of Open-source Software. Report.
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/brief_history_open_source.html (accessed March 20, 2009).
8
Carolyn A. Kenwood, A Business Case Study of Open-source Software, publication no. 01B0000048, 1,
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_01/kenwood_software/kenwood_software.pdf
(accessed March 22, 2009).
9
Ibid.
16
history, no entity had tried to claim property rights to the source code until AT&T did in
the early 1980s.10 In response, Stallman started out to produce a free version of UNIX.
One of the important aspects of this new project was that any individual could contribute
to source code. As Kenwood tells it:
“This project, called GNU, allowed individual programmers, regardless of
individual or commercial interests, to contribute to the development effort. GNU
stands for ‘Gnu’s not Unix.’ In the end, users were not charged for the operating
system.” 11
From this project, the GNU GPL was developed, dictated by the following restrictions as
stated by Kenwood:
• “Software licensed under GNU General Public License can be copied and
distributed under this same license.
• Products obtained and distributed under this license may be sold.
• Users may alter the source code, but if they distribute or publish the resulting
work, they must make the software available under the same licensing terms.
• Ancillary technology can be developed, and as long as such products do not
include code licensed under the GNU General Public License, they need not
be licensed or made available under the terms of the GNU General Public
License.” 12
Stallman’s intentions were to ensure that UNIX-compatible software would remain free
and catalyze more collaborative programming and development. In GNU Manifesto, he
states:
“I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it
with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and
conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break
solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a
nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.”13
On a parallel plane, the Computer Science Research Group (CSRG) at the University of
California at Berkeley built upon the proprietary UNIX system. David Wheeler, an expert
in computer security and high-risk software systems, recounts, “The academic
community …developed a variant called the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).”14
Like GNU, the UNIX variant BSD was developed by a worldwide network of
programmers and UNIX hackers who “helped debug, maintain, and improve the
10
Ibid
11
Kenwood, Business Case Study, 1.
12
Ibid
13
The GNU Manifesto.
14
David A. Wheeler, Secure Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO, 1,
http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/ (accessed March 22, 2009).
17
system.”15 Continuing in the footsteps of GNU, BSD was distributed under the BSD
License making BSD another open-source alternative to UNIX. However, despite BSD’s
open-source nature, each user needed the proprietary AT&T license to run parts of the
core operating system and utilities that made BSD a usable system.
2.3.2 Linux
Arguably the quintessential open-source project is the Linux operating system. Linux is
regarded as the closest competitor to Microsoft’s Windows operating system and receives
continuous contributions from programmers worldwide. It was conceived in 1991 by
Linus Torvalds, a student at the University of Helsinki. Dissatisfied with his school’s
choice of the MINIX operating system, Torvalds decided to create a free operating
system based on UNIX. Kenwood writes:
“Linus Torvalds…created the Linux operating system and gave hackers his code
so they could contribute to the development. Many programmers analyzed his
code and wrote improvements that Linus incorporated into Linux. Linux grew and
expanded into an advanced and powerful, multi-use operating system.”16
March 1994 marked the first official release of the Linux kernel, the foundation of
modern Linux distributions. According to Michael Godfrey and Qiang Tu of the
Computer Science department at the University of Waterloo, this release “contained 487
source code files comprising over 165,000 lines of code.”17 However, the most notable
aspect of this release was the maintenance methodology from that point forward. Two
directions were formed to help carve out future products: developmental releases and
stable releases. Developmental releases contain mostly untested and experimental code,
while stable releases contain updates and are relative to the previous stable release. This
process has led to many new distribution releases and millions of people using the Linux
operating system. In addition, companies have been formed that sell distribution copies of
Linux as well as support contracts. The most notable organizations are SuSE, RedHat,
Ubuntu, and Caldera.
The Linux operating system is becoming a huge competitor to Microsoft Windows in

both the server and desktop arenas. An InformationWeek study done in January 2000
reported that Linux constituted about 4% of the respondents’ operating systems and was
expected to rise to 15% in two years.18 In addition, CNET reported that “Linux grabbed
27 percent market share [of server operating systems] in 2000, up from 25 percent the
previous year.”19
15
Brief History.
16
Business Case Study, 1.
17
Godfrey, Michael W. and Qiang Tu. “Evolution in Open-source Software: A Case Study.” Proceedings
of the IEEE Intl. Conference on Software Maintenance. ICSM, 2000. pp.
18
Ricadela, Aaron. “Linux Comes Alive.” InformationWeek, January 24, 2000.
19
Shankland, Stephen. “Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft.” CNET News.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-253320.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
18
2.3.3 Other Major Projects
The UNIX and Linux operating systems occupy most of the history of OSS. However,
many projects have followed in their footsteps including the Apache Web server, one of
the most recent successful OSS projects. Started in 1995 by Brian Behlendorf, Apache’s
story parallels that of UNIX, in which frustrated employees left in order to create better
software. While working at the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA),
Behlendorf and several other employees became frustrated “in getting the NCSA staff to
respond to their suggestions.”20 In an effort to implement fixes, Behlendorf and “six other
pioneering developers decided to establish a mailing list to collect and integrate the
patches to the NCSA server software.”21 Apache 0.8 was released in August 1995 and
named after the extensive use of “patches.” The server software continued to grow,
mainly due to a lack of equivalent competition. A Netcraft survey done in November
2000 found that 59.7% of websites used the Apache Web server while Microsoft’s IIS
only had 20.2% of the market.22
Sendmail is another example of open-source innovation and success. The OSS project
was “originally developed in the late 1970s by Eric Allman, a graduate student in
computer science at the University of California at Berkeley.”23 Faced with the
incompatibility of the two networks on campus, BerkNet and Arpanet, “Allman
developed…a program called ‘Delivermail’, which provided a way to greatly simplify the
addressing problem.”24 Two years later in 1981, the software was released as ‘Sendmail’
which “soon became the standard method of routing email on the Arpanet.”25 Sendmail
continued a successful path and in 2000, “the program was estimated to handle about
75% of all Internet email traffic.”26
A multitude of OSS projects have started, many becoming so successful that they
compete in or even dominate a market filled with proprietary products and profit-seeking
corporations, such as the case of the Apache Web server. Although the motivation and
inspiration for programmers to participate in these projects vary greatly, one of the
driving forces behind OSS development is dissatisfaction with current proprietary
software. This has led to the development of a comparable OSS project for most, if not
all, commercial applications. OpenOffice.org, based on the StarOffice suite started in the
1980s, is an open-standard, XML-based office productivity suite that compares to
Microsoft’s Office in terms of features and capabilities. In the operating system arena,
Linux has been a direct competitor of Windows, both in desktops and servers. MySQL is
another open-source project that is based on the Structured Query Language (SQL) and is
20
Tirole, Jean, and Josh Lerner. “Some Simple Economics of Open-source.” Journal of Industrial
Economics 50, no. 2 (2002): 197-234. http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf (accessed March 22,
2009).
21
Simple Economics, 13.
22
23
24
Ibid
25
Ibid
26
19
a direct competitor of MS SQL. Finally, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is rivaled by its
open-source competitor, Firefox, developed by Mozilla. Although there is constant
debate as to whether Microsoft’s software or comparable OSS are better, many OSS
projects have succeeded in developing large market share.
Table 1: Brief Historical Timeline of Significant Open-source Events

1969 UNIX development starts at AT&T Bell Labs for the PDP-7.
1979 UNIX V7 is released, the grandfather of all extant UNIX systems.
1984 Richard Stallman starts GNU project.
1985 Richard Stallman creates Free Software Foundation.
1989 GNU General Public License (V1) is published.
August 1991 Linus Torvalds begins developing an operating system kernel.
December 1993 The UNIC OS, FreeBSD 1.0 is released.
March 1994 Linux V1.0 kernel is officially released.
January 1995 Apache Web server is started by programmers from the National
Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA).
April 1996 Apache takes 29% market share
February 1998 The term “open-source” is coined during a conference in Palo
Alto, California; the Open-source Initiative is founded.
April 2003 First annual MySQL conference is held.
July 2003 Mozilla Foundation is formed.
June 2004 Sun Microsystems licenses Solaris as open-source.
May 2007 Dell announces it preloads Linux on its computers.
2.4 ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY
2.4.1 Open-source Initiative

Although the concepts of open-source have existed since the beginning of UNIX in the
1970s, the term “open-source” is relatively new. The OSI’s website reads “The open-
source label was invented at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto,
California.”27 The OSI states that individuals including Linus Torvalds from Linux and
Eric Raymond from Netscape:
“decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had
been associated with “free software” in the past and sell the idea strictly on the
same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.” 28
27
28
Ibid
20
Founded in February 1998 as a non-profit organization for the advocacy of OSS, the OSI
focuses on the fundamentals of OSS discussed at the Free Software Summit. Kenwood
describes OSI as:
“…an unincorporated nonprofit research and educational association with the
mission to own and defend the open-source trademark and advance the cause of
OSS.”29
2.4.2 Economics and Motivation

The driving forces behind open-source software are truly revolutionary, especially for a
largely capitalist world. Voluntary labor, free products, and unlicensed redistribution are
foreign aspects to the free market. However, despite the seemingly backward strategy,
open-source projects have been successful not only in terms of implementation, but also
profit. Both individual contributors and large companies pour time and money into OSS
projects without direct compensation. Dirk Riehle, a member of SPA Research describes:
“The advent of open-source software has produced more than lower software
costs for users. It has also caused major changes in the economic interaction
among players in the software ecosystem.”30
OSS projects can generally be classified into either of two categories: community and
commercial. Community OSS is developed by networks of individual contributors who
volunteer their time and skill. A group of leaders generally governs what contributions
are accepted into the core source code and eventually the final releases. Commercial OSS
is developed with the support and driving forces of profit-seeking companies. Riehle
states that “the company maintains the copyright and determines what is accepted into the
software code base and what to implement next.”31 Significant economic research has
been completed on labor and monetary economics dealing with both commercial and
community-supported OSS.
2.4.2.1 Gift Culture

Volunteer contributions to OSS projects are usually done without any form of immediate
or direct payout. However, the individuals focus on the net benefit of the project “equal
to the immediate payoff (current benefit minus current cost) plus the delayed payoff
(delayed benefit minus delayed cost).”32 The net benefit includes the abstract benefits—
personal gratification and increased rapport and experience are main reasons people
endure the opportunity cost and volunteer their skills. Riehle states that “developers
contribute to document their technical capabilities and improve job prospects with future
employers.”33 The individuals’ contributions are rewarded in the long term through
higher pay. Large corporations also have experienced the benefits of peer recognition
29
Business Case Study, xi
30
Riehle, Dirk. “The Economic Motivation of Open-source Software: Stakeholder Perspectives.” IEEE
Computer Society (April 2007): 25. http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2007/computer-
2007.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
31
Ibid
32
33
Economic Motivation, 25.
21
through OSS participation—companies have increasingly encouraged their employees to
contribute to open-source projects on company time while partially crediting the
organization. Boldrin and Levine state, “Evidence shows that the source of competitive
returns that pay the bills of software developers is the complementary sale of
expertise.”34
Another side deals with open-source companies that seek profit from an OSS project.
Although this appears to defy the concept of open-source, the company’s profits are
received through methods other than actual software licensing since the code is freely
available. OSS companies often seek revenue in the form of support contracts,
distribution mechanisms, and the development of proprietary enhancements to the OSS
projects. Some companies focus on providing alternative distribution methods to
customers for profit. In addition, upgrade services are provided by commercial
companies for open-source products. Krishnamurthy describes that:
“Enterprises can now enter into long-term agreements with distributors to ensure
that they get the latest upgrade. By acting as the application service providers,
distributors can help their clients get the latest version of the product
seamlessly.”35
Although the open-source business model differs greatly from that of proprietary
software companies, OSS commercial enterprises still make large profits. In addition,
OSS development has several clear advantages over proprietary software organizations,
including the “benefits of community open-source [software]: faster adoption, free and
speedy user feedback, and possibly volunteers’ code contributions.”36 Arguably, this
business model allows companies to develop software faster and release more thoroughly
tested products. These reasons have pushed many companies to disclose their products’
source code and license it under the OSI.
2.4.3 Government and OSS

Government agencies are unique entities that share characteristics with both non-profit
and commercial enterprises. Public-sector departments typically have a unique set of
business requirements and demands. Revenue for government agencies is generated from
taxpayers, both directly and indirectly. In general, the budgets for agencies are based on
tax revenue. Unlike private sector corporations, governments are unable to generate
additional revenue through increased sales. In addition, government agencies are charged
with providing citizens with particular services usually with tight operating budgets.
Unfortunately, without a mechanism for generating additional revenue, agencies must
focus on cost reduction and efficiency in order to allocate additional money to fund
service improvements.
34
Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. “Open-Source Software: Who Needs Intellectual Property?” The
Freeman: Ideas on Liberty (2007). The Freeman. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/open-
source-software-who-needs-intellectual-property (accessed March 20, 2009).
35
Ibid
36
Economic Motivation, 29.
22
Software licensing and information technology are some of government agencies’ largest
costs. “In fiscal year 2003, the U.S. government budgeted more than $58 billion for IT
products and services. More than 4 million desktops, laptops, and networked computers
play essential roles in allowing the federal agencies to achieve their goals.”37 The public
sector has taken an increased interest in OSS because of its potential cost savings.
Procurement officials in government agencies across the world are looking at the TCO of
OSS in particular. In addition to the monetary savings, government agencies are
interested in the compatibility and accessibility that OSS offers—an important area for an
organization that serves diverse demographics. For example, Microsoft’s proprietary file
formats seen in its Office applications require compatible software. Various OSS office
productivity applications comply with an “open format” that allows other software
platforms to use them without proprietary software requirements. Many OSS case studies
have been followed by successful OSS deployment initiatives for nations around the
world. In addition, many legislatures have developed policies regarding the use and
procurement of OSS. At a minimum some policies require government agencies to
investigate OSS during software procurement. Overall, several studies show the main
reasons and advantages for using OSS:
• The need to reduce possible domination of a single software provider.
• Most fears of security risks in OSS are unfounded.
• OSS solutions are available to meet all the requirements in a particular area.
• Decreased total cost of ownership for software.
• Decreased initial software licensing costs.
• Maximization of return on taxpayer dollars.
2.4.3.1 Notable Government Implementations

• An extensive study was done in September 2003 regarding Canada’s use of
OSS and future implementation. The investigation surveyed the Canadian
software landscape and analyzed the opportunities of OSS to the public and
private sectors.38
• According to CNET News.com, “The local government of [Munich,
Germany] has transferred 100 staff members in the Lord Mayor’s department
to a Debian configuration, and it intends to migrate 80 percent of the city’s
PCs by mid-2009.”39
• The Massachusetts state government approved its Enterprise Technical
Reference Model in 2005, mandating that “State agencies in the executive
37
Walker, Tom. The Future of Open-source in Government. Report. http://oss-
institute.org/newspdf/walker_oss_white_paper_2292004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
38
Open-source Business Opportunities for Canada’s Information and Communications Technology Sector.
Report. http://www.e-cology.ca/canfloss/report/CANfloss_Report.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
39
CNET News.com. “Munich fires up Linux at last.” September 25, 2006. http://news.cnet.com/Munich-
fires-up-Linux-at-last/2100-7344_3-6119153.html (accessed August 19, 2009).
23
branch are to … migrate to OpenDocument-compliant applications by 1
January, 2007, a change that will affect about 50,000 desktop PCs.”40
• Garden Grove, a city in southern California, began using OSS in 1995. The
city’s website states, “Open-source software has enabled the City to take
advantage of many advanced networking capabilities … By implementing
Open-source solutions in place of solutions based on Microsoft software or
commercial networking appliances, City staff has saved taxpayers at least
$380,557.74 in initial costs as well as $70,465.05 annually. Garden Grove’s
decision to embrace Open-source software has allowed it to create an IT
infrastructure that has advanced features, stable performance, robustness, ease
of implementation, and low cost of use.”41
2.5 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

OSS packages undoubtedly have significantly lower licensing costs than their proprietary
counterparts. However, TCO is often used as the metric for determining overall software
costs. Odellion Research defines TCO as “the systematic quantification of all costs
generated over the lifetime of a project.”42 The TCO of a software package not only
includes the initial licensing and media costs, but all recurring costs from the project’s
lifecycle. The lifespan of a project typically consists of the following iterative phases
with recurring and initial costs at each point:
• Planning and Design

• Deployment and Installation
• Training
• Support
• Maintenance
• Retirement
Enterprise IT departments use varying TCO metrics for software projects based on
particular business requirements and management viewpoints. Most notable, however, is
included in a study prepared by Kenwood in part of the research project “Open-source
Software in Military Systems.” Kenwood provides a framework for TCO taxonomy with
specific associated costs:
• Software
• Purchase price
• Upgrades and additions
40
LaMonica, Martin. “Massachusetts finalises open standards proposal.” ZDNet Australia.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Massachusetts-finalises-open-standards-
proposal/0,130061733,139214476,00.htm (accessed March 22, 2009).
41
Local Government Embraces Open-source Technology. http://ch.ci.garden-
grove.ca.us/internet/is/linuxwhitepaper.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
42
“Total Cost of Ownership.” Odellion.
http://www.odellion.com/pages/online%20community/TCO/financialmodels_tco_definition.htm
24
• Intellectual property/licensing fees
• Hardware
• Purchase price
• Upgrades and additions
• Internal Support Costs
• Installation and set-up
• Maintenance
• Troubleshooting
• Support tools (e.g., books, publications)
• External Support Costs
• Installation and set-up
• Maintenance
• Troubleshooting
• Staffing Costs
• Project management
• Systems engineering/development
• Systems administration
• Vendor management
• Other administration
• Purchasing
• Training
• De-installation and Disposal
• Indirect Costs
• Support Costs
• Peer support
• Training
• Casual learning
• Formal training
• Downtime43
The IT industry relies extensively on TCO analysis to determine strategic purchases.

However, TCO does not consider qualitative benefits such as improved user interfaces or
43
25
advanced functionality. When making significant software purchases, companies also
consider the TBO in addition to the TCO. Odellion Research describes the use of TCO in
IT:
“The TCO concept is widely used in Information Technology (IT)
implementations where the benefits are hard to quantify and the focus is on
minimizing the project costs. Companies use the TCO methodology when
comparing similar products from different vendors. The product features among
vendors may not be much different but the quality and support of the products
may yield considerably different TCO values.”44
Since TCO includes the initial deployment costs, including both software licensing and
hardware, comparing the TCO of a prospective solution to that of an existing solution is
difficult. Generally, the existing solution has no initial deployment cost while the
prospective solution’s TCO includes all up-front costs. Although an obvious resolution is
to ignore initial deployment costs when calculating the respective TCO, this does not give
an accurate answer. When calculating the TCO of an OSS solution, it is important to
calculate the costs of OSS migration as well as a comparison of initial deployment of
OSS and the proprietary counterpart.
2.5.1 OSS Costs

The prevailing benefit of an OSS solution is its low licensing costs. However, many
criticize OSS for having high indirect costs that outweigh any licensing cost savings. In
2002, Cybersource extensively compared the TCO of Windows and Linux. As the core
methodology of the TCO comparison, the research company took into consideration
future software iterations and a longer lifecycle instead of one initial migration.
Cybersource describes TCO methodology used for a software migration:
“Most organizations will likely factor in the costs associated with a single
upgrade-versus-migration cycle … Many of the costs of upgrading to newer
versions of Microsoft platforms have to be borne again and again. Most of the
costs of migrating to Linux are borne once, during the initial migration. Any
subsequent upgrades for that Linux platform occur with no license costs or
software assurance costs. Therefore, to provide a more realistic appraisal and
model of this scenario, you should include two or three full refresh lifecycles,
stretching over a period of 5-10 years.”45
The best known OSS alternative to Microsoft Office is OpenOffice.org, which conforms
to the OpenDocument format developed by the Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS). OpenOffice.org is very similar to Microsoft
Office, including most of the same familiar features. Many organizations have migrated
to the OpenOffice.org platform throughout their organization and realized a lower TCO
compared to Microsoft Office.
44
Total Cost of Ownership.
45
Linux vs. Windows: Total Cost of Ownership Comparison. Publication.
http://www.cyber.com.au/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
26
One Microsoft Office migration was finalized by the commonwealth of Massachusetts in
2007 that switched about 50,000 desktop PCs to OpenOffice.org. Due to a state mandate
from its Enterprise Technical Reference Model, all new document formats for office
productivity must be OpenDocument format. A representative from the Massachusetts
Technology Leadership Council said that “the state would save significantly by migrating
to OpenDocument-based products rather than going with Office [2007] - on the order of
US$5 million for OpenDocument versus US$50 million for Office [2007], including
hardware and operating-system upgrade costs.”46
2.5.1.1 Linux Implementation

One particular OSS implementation common among organizations aims for a lower TCO
through Linux. Many organizations have experienced tremendous savings by migrating
to a Linux-based desktop infrastructure compared to the proprietary Microsoft Windows
setup. Studies have shown varying levels of savings by migration to Linux; however, key
parts of the analysis show lower costs of maintenance and deployment.
A study done by Cybersource in 2002 “modeled an organization with 250 computer-

using staff, an appropriate number of workstations, servers, with Internet connectivity, an
e-business system, network cabling and hardware, standard software and salaries for IT
professionals to establish and support this infrastructure and technology.” 47 This study
found that by using existing hardware in the organization, a three-year cost savings of
using Linux approximated 34.62%, while purchasing new hardware and infrastructure
resulted in a savings of 24.69%.48
Although paper-based studies are often scrutinized for their practicality, real-world
situations have shown Linux to save money in an enterprise-level deployment. The city
of Largo, Florida, deployed Linux to the desktops of 800 city employees and reports an
annual savings of $1 million. Not only does Linux provide the city with a much lower
TCO, but users report a superior overall experience compared to Windows.
2.5.1.2 OSS Programming and Database Environments

Open-source development platforms have also been popular in organizations looking to
reduce the TCO of software programming. Programming languages such as Ruby,
Python and PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP) offer the same features as costly
platforms such as Microsoft’s ASP.net with few or no license fees. In addition,
organizations are looking toward open-source database environments to house mission-
critical data. MySQL is an open-source database engine based on the SQL standard seen
in Microsoft SQL. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has
realized a lower TCO by implementing MySQL. The NASA Acquisition Internet Service
(NAIS) “has grown to be a vital component of its business, saving $4 million per year by
managing large acquisitions online…MySQL averaged 28% faster than their existing
46
Massachusetts.
47
Linux vs. Windows.
48
Ibid
27
proprietary database.” 49 NASA is not a unique case for MySQL—Cox Communications,
Inc., in Atlanta, used MySQL as the back end for a large data warehouse application;
3,600 MySQL tables are in use with over 2 billion records with about “4 million inserts
every two hours. By selecting MySQL, [Cox Communications, Inc.] was able to budget
just $14,000 per year for license fees and maintenance compared to $300,000 for a
proprietary database.” 50
2.6 OSS ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

OSS projects and proprietary developers have differing strategies for software
development lifecycles. Generally, OSS projects have a development advantage by
harnessing an extensive community for knowledge and experience, whereas proprietary
projects are limited to internal capabilities. Eric Raymond, an open-source enthusiast,
says that good open-source projects reuse as much code from other projects as possible to
avoid duplicated work, relying heavily on feedback and suggestions from users of the
software and operating under the principle of “release early, release often, and listen to
your customers.”51 In contrast, the proprietary software company must start at a lower
level when entering a new software market since the company can not legally build upon
another company’s code. Additionally, Raymond states that the “intense peer review
process, shared among a potentially large group of developers and testers, dings and
eliminates errors in software faster than any proprietary effort could.”52 Extensive
research and studies show many advantages and disadvantages between OSS and
proprietary software.
2.6.1 Customization and Modularity

OSS is notable for its ability to be customized for particular business applications.
Wheeler defends the idea that possessing an application’s source code inherently allows
“users to tailor the product as necessary to meet their needs in ways not possible without
source code.”53 Although proprietary software companies often provide tools and other
resources to customize the software, there are limits as to what a developer can do
without source code access. OSS products give a developer free reign to create solutions
to match the exact business requirements.
In addition to base software customization, modularization is an important aspect for

many users. The ability to add components that interact with an application is critical for
businesses. In the proprietary software business model, modules are developed by the
company based on an expected return on the investment (ROI). Companies using the
software must depend on the overall market demand for a module in order to receive
product modules. Without a substantially high ROI, software companies may decide not
to develop the modules. However, OSS allows companies to hire developers to create
49
An SMB Guide to Lower Database TCO. Technical paper.
http://www.sun.com/solutions/smb/docs/mysql_smb_guide.pdf (accessed March 20, 2009).
50
Ibid
51
Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar Musings on Linux and Open-source by an Accidental
Revolutionary. (Release Early, Release Often). Sebastopol: O’Reilly, 1999.
52
Ibid
53
Secure Programming.
28
new modules that the software company otherwise wouldn’t. With source code access,
programmers can create new modules that interact seamlessly with the OSS application.
2.6.2 Security Models

OSS security has been a continuous concern among enterprises looking to adopt open-
source applications. Exposing an application’s source code may appear as an inherent
security risk. However, OSS developers focus on crafting very well-written programs that
rely on security through code complexity and barriers rather than on the secretive model.
Jaap-Henk Hoepman provides an analogy regarding OSS security:
“Who would you trust most? A locksmith who keeps the working of his locks
secret, so that thieves cannot exploit this knowledge? Or a locksmith who
publishes the workings of his locks, so that everyone (including thieves) can
judge how good/bad they are (so you exclusively rely on the complexity of the
keys for protection)?”54
In the event that the source code is exposed, the proprietary software developer must rely
on the secure nature of the source code to avoid intrusions—a difficult situation if the
only focus was on keeping the source code secret. However, the OSS developer is
prepared for an attack without relying on the secret nature of the proprietary source code.
Hoepman describes further that “Even if the source remains closed, vulnerabilities of
such closed-source systems will eventually be found and become known to a larger
public after a while. Vulnerabilities in existing closed-source software are announced on
a daily basis.”55
Additionally, OSS allows potential customers to evaluate the security of the product
themselves without having to solely rely on the trust of a proprietary software company.
Hoepman states:
“Open-source even enables several different and independent teams of people to
evaluate the security of the system, removing the dependence on a single party to
decide in favor of or against a certain system. All this does not decrease the
security or exposure of the system.”56
2.6.3 Usability and Interfacing

Oftentimes commercial software companies spend a significant allotment of product
development resources to ensure the product is user friendly and appeals to individuals
with experience levels of all ranges. While usability is a key feature for software, OSS
development is typically focused on the core functionality of the product. General end
users tend to be experienced technically and accept the “barebones” package through the
motto of “by developers, for developers.” Kenwood notes that a “barrier to Linux’s
success in the desktop market is that it is not as user-friendly as Windows.”57 Based on
54
Hoepman, Jaap-Henk. “Increased Security Through Open-source.” COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
50, no. 1 (January 2007): 79-83.
55
Ibid
56
Ibid
57
29
the current landscape, many companies are focusing on improving the user interface of
Linux distributions. This is most likely due to the recent surge of less experienced
computing end users who are switching to Linux.
Although the consensus is that commercial software is more user friendly, OSS typically
provides for easier IT management. Kenwood states that “Linux is the easiest to manage
because it is more centralized and enables features such as remote management, disk
quota support, remote security, and diskless booting; with Linux a network administrator
is not needed at every site.”58
2.6.4 Software Versioning

Code fragmentation, also known as version proliferation, is the excessive generation of
software versions with few, if any, major differences. Kenwood elaborates on the
community-developed nature of OSS stating, “[Version proliferation can occur when]
developers try to create alternative means for their code to play a more significant role
than achieved in the base product.”59 This evolution causes confusion for determining the
most current version, as well as management complications. In contrast, commercial
software typically offers clear version definitions through careful market analysis. The
end user can more easily determine what the latest version is and what features are
included. Additionally, there is very little horizontal version proliferation—commercial
application versions generally are improved upon previous versions.
2.6.5 Reliability and Support

OSS generally has support methods through two models: community- and business-
offered. Many companies thrive on supporting OSS products for other businesses.
Although OSS may be free in terms of licensing, companies may choose to purchase
support contracts through a third party to ensure that problems can be resolved in a timely
manner. Another support model, the community method, depends on a wide network of
volunteers and developers that provides support for OSS products. This method usually
takes the form of Internet forums and news groups where issues can be discussed online.
The reliability of this support is argued to be fleeting at best. However, many IT
professionals use forums and other Internet communities as a sole method of problem
solving even for commercial software.
2.7 SUMMARY
The concept of allowing free access to a software application’s source code is at the
origin of software programming. During the first stages of operating system
development, source code was shared among developers to enhance a collaborative
environment among organizations. However, companies realized the potential profit and
claimed intellectual property rights over developed source code. The software market has
since shifted to a proprietary development model through closed-source code. In the last
decade, there has been a revitalization of open-source projects that compete directly with
proprietary applications.
58
59
Business Case Study, xiv.
30
The research discussed here outlines the development models for both proprietary and
open-source software. The process of community-based development and intense peer
review are summarized along with the motivations for individual contributors. This
process, compared to the proprietary method, exposes both advantages and disadvantages
in the open-source development lifecycle including the ability to harness contributions
from a diverse range of programmers from across the world
OSS is increasingly being viewed as a viable alternative to commercial software for

large-scale implementation. One of the main motivating factors for OSS is the perceived
lower TCO. Several studies outlined in this literature review demonstrate the lower TCO
of OSS applications. Most notable, the combination of Linux and OpenOffice.org has
been deployed among several large organizations, demonstrating extensive cost savings.
As seen in multiple case studies, a multitude of government agencies have migrated to
various OSS products from comparable proprietary versions with great success. Among
key factors for government promotion of OSS is the maximization of return on taxpayers’
dollars. Governments striving to justify extensive software costs may find reprieve with
the cost savings associated with OSS.
Although many case studies show migration success from commercial software to OSS,
research shows that success is attributed to proper planning as well as a proper analysis of
business needs. The TBO of a product needs to be investigated in addition to the
functional requirements of an organization. Through proper planning and organizational
research, OSS can be implemented successfully and achieve added benefits and lower
costs.
31
3.0 EXTERNAL AGENCY SOFTWARE SURVEY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
One focus of this study was to gain an understanding of the collective software use of
state DOTs. A survey was created to explore software use by these agencies. The survey
investigated current proprietary and open-source software use, planned implementations,
and reasoning behind and against OSS implementation. This survey had three overall
goals:
• Gain insight into the overall use and perception of proprietary and open-
source software among DOTs and investigate future software
implementations.
• Discover DOTs that have experience with OSS implementations that may
serve as continued resources and provide useful data.
• Provide an avenue for other state DOTs to benefit from the research done for
this study.
3.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Development
The survey was designed to be completed by the IT leadership of each DOT in
conjunction with appropriate team members across the organization. An introduction was
included in the survey describing the overall objectives as well as the background of the
research study. A brief list of definitions was given in the introduction to ensure
consistency of question perception. The survey had 25 questions divided into the
following categories: server/mainframe computing, desktop computing, and development
and general OSS questions. All questions required an answer, excluding open-ended
responses. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the survey and provided
suggestions and revisions prior to its distribution. The entire set of survey questions is
included in Appendix B.
The online service SurveyMonkey was used to design and manage the online version of
the survey. SurveyMonkey was chosen to provide an intuitive, reliable, and secure way of
distributing the online survey as well as collecting responses. Moreover, SurveyMonkey
provided tools to assist in summarizing and analyzing the survey. In order to provide a
concise URL for participants to access the survey, a domain alias,
http://survey.opensourcestudy.com, was created to replace the long and difficult-to-
remember SurveyMonkey URL.
3.2.2 Distribution
A series of initial emails was sent out to a list of contacts from a survey conducted in
2005 as well as email addresses that were found on respective DOT websites. The email
introduced the survey and requested that the recipient respond with a preferred method of
survey distribution. A copy of the initial email is in Appendix D. The survey was also
offered via phone, internet, mail, and fax. In addition, a printable survey was available
32
online at http://www.opensourcestudy.com/print_survey.pdf60 and could be used as a
- - - -
reference in conjunction with the online survey. A total of 27 agencies replied with a
preferred method of survey distribution with 25 requesting a link to the online survey and
two requesting that the survey be faxed.
On 11/11/2007, the survey was sent out to the 27 agencies. A copy of this email is in
Appendix E. The remaining DOTs were contacted by phone, mail, or fax and were given
instructions on how to access the online version of the survey. The DOT's of the District
of Columbia and the other 49 states excluding Arizona were sent the survey and given
until 1/10/2008 to complete it. Biweekly reminders were sent to the agencies that had not
responded. A final reminder was sent on 1/2/2008 that indicated the 1/10/2008 survey
close date.
The online survey did experience two minor technical issues during collection. One
participant could not access the survey on his desktop computer, while another
participant’s Web browser would crash while attempting to complete the survey. Neither
problem could be resolved or replicated, however both participants completed the survey
at another workstation. These issues seemed to be isolated to those users and did not
prevent them from submitting the survey.
3.3 SURVEY RESULTS

A total of 26 completed responses were received from the state DOTs, in which was a
53% response rate; 24 were received online and two were received via fax. Results were
downloaded from SurveyMonkey’s database into several spreadsheets. The entire set of
raw survey results is in Appendix A.
3.3.1 Statistical Overview

With the release of both Microsoft’s newest operating system (OS) and office
productivity suite, an important objective of this survey was to discover what plans DOTs
had regarding Windows Vista and Office 2007. Eighteen survey respondents stated that a
deployment/upgrade to Windows Vista was a possibility but no plans had been made.
Five respondents answered that Windows Vista was currently being deployed, or that
they planned to deploy it within one year. Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of
the Microsoft Office 2007 deployment status.
60
The survey was only available online for the duration of the study, but can also be found in the
Appendix.
33
Figure 1: External Agency Survey Question: “What is your department’s current
status regarding a Windows Vista deployment?”
The same question involving Office 2007 had a similar response; 11 respondents stated
that a deployment/upgrade to Office 2007 was a possibility, but that no plans had been
made. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the Microsoft Office 2007
deployment status.
34
Figure 2: External Agency Survey Question: “What is your department’s current
status regarding a Microsoft Office 2007 deployment?”
All respondents said that they do not use an OSS office suite; however, the Wisconsin
DOT responded that it has implemented an OSS OS. Eight DOTs responded that they
have officially deployed OSS applications to their organization, while the remaining 18
DOTs have not deployed OSS.
Another question asked whether the agency had a policy regarding OSS in the
procurement of software. Twenty-three DOTs said no, while three said they did have a
policy. Another important statistic was that when both an OSS and proprietary
application are being reviewed for procurement and holding all things equal, 18 agencies
would choose the proprietary software while only eight would choose the OSS
counterpart. A quantitative summary of the survey results may be found in Appendix B.
Questions that asked for only open-ended responses are excluded from this summary.
3.3.2 Qualitative Findings

An important goal of this survey was to glean open-ended responses from state agencies
regarding their use of proprietary and open-source software in conjunction with drawing
overall conclusions. One discovery was that several state DOTs seem to be limited in the
decisions they can make regarding software and IT purchases and changes. Tennessee
DOT reported that it is governed by a state standards group that has not approved the use
35
of OSS. The Michigan DOT stated that the selection of an office productivity suite is
managed by the Michigan Department of Information Technology.
An overall conclusion that can be drawn from this survey is that DOTs are concerned
about a lack of support with OSS. Several commented that a lack of internal support was
an issue for them. Additionally, many stated that training for internal support would be a
large cost that would outweigh the benefits of OSS. An important open-ended question
asked DOTs to provide any additional information regarding OSS that may be useful for
this study. Several states responded with useful comments.
California
“We expect ‘system software’ to be supported; that is, we want someone to
complain to if there’s a problem. For instance, we ‘license’ Linux through Novell,
and they respond to problems we might have with it.”
Connecticut
“Participating in open-source projects is a great benefit to IT professionals,
stimulating their creativity and reducing their deployment time and effort. This
realizes both a lower TCO and affords greater opportunities for the users.”
Oregon
“Oregon did a study of what OSS we have. While we do not have policies
regarding its acquisition there was some that developers used for their own
purposes. We would like to bring more OSS in, however, it requires retooling our
workforce and a new model of how to do business. We have not yet been able to
make the business case for this as yet.”
Tennessee
“TDOT is eager to explore the OSS possibilities, but is prohibited from doing so
due to the Standards Setting Group from our Centralized IT Department.”
Kansas
“Open-source is a choice of a strategic direction. We get better solutions when we
can share open designs and patterns and allow each agency [to] choose their
preferred deployment model.”
South Carolina
“If an organization has a capable staff and can support an application developed
by others, OSS is ideal. For those organizations with less-than-capable technical
staffs, OSS is not a good idea because taking complete ownership of an
application requires quick learning and a will to become responsible for the work
of others. Some places just cannot do that.”
Maine
“State of Maine currently has an OSS Feasibility Study underway. They started
by looking at OSS Office and client OS. We will likely deploy an OSS Office by
36
loading that and MS Office. User agencies can elect to turn on either, but they pay
for MS Office.”
3.4 SUMMARY
Overall, this survey had a successful response rate while achieving each objective,
although the survey did not generate as many open-ended responses as desired. However
the responses did provide useful information about software procurement processes.
Moreover, few agencies appear to have extensive experience with OSS. Maine DOT
appears to be a great resource for additional information regarding OSS; the agency
currently has an OSS study going on and stated that it will most likely deploy an open-
source office productivity suite. This agency would be a good contact when planning
OSS procurement. Many DOTs are also interested in continued involvement in this study.
Fifteen DOTs indicated that they would like to receive the results of the survey, and 17
DOTs want to receive a copy of the final study.
37
4.0 OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Microsoft’s newest office productivity suite, Office 2007, represents a dramatic change in
usability as Microsoft designed an entirely new user interface for this version. The
Ribbon interface introduced in Office 2007 provides a unique method of navigating
office functions by grouping tools into bands across the application’s interface.
Additionally, the use of new XML-based file formats introduces compatibility issues with
previous Office versions, as well as other third-party software.
The OpenOffice Challenge™ seeks a comparison of the overall usability between Office
2007 and OpenOffice.org 3. Participants in the OpenOffice Challenge™ were fully aware
of which software suite they were using; however due to their inexperience with both
applications, participants could approach the pilot test with objectivity.
This pilot test investigated usability by seeking answers for the following questions:
• User Interface: How efficient and easy to use are the user interfaces? Are
commands, functions, and tools easy to find and access?
• Functionality: Do the office suites offer all the necessary functionality to
complete required tasks?
• Learning: How easy is it to get accustomed to the user interface? What is the
learning curve for each office suite?
4.2 PILOT TEST METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 Key Objectives

• Record how current Microsoft Office 2003 users viewed usability in both
Office 2007 and OpenOffice.org 3 to provide insight on user-preferred
software.
• Determine the feasibility of using OpenOffice.org 3 as an alternative Office
2003 upgrade in place of Office 2007.
• Investigate any possible critical restrictions against using either office suite as
a replacement for Office 2003.
4.2.2 Pilot Test Format

The OpenOffice Challenge™ tested each application’s usability and functionality in
comparison to Office 2003. The objective was to give participants a wide range of tasks
that typically would be completed in Office 2003 throughout daily and weekly use. The
OpenOffice Challenge™ provided a controlled computing environment for participants to
reduce interference and subjectivity. With the assistance of the University Technology
Office at Arizona State University, a conference room with sufficient laptops was used to
38
conduct the pilot test. Each computer was imaged with Windows XP,61 including Office
2007 and OpenOffice.org 3. The imaging process ensured that every participant used the
exact same software and also reduced the risk of unexpected technical issues.
Additionally, the image provided a baseline setup with only the necessary software and
files to complete the pilot test.
Participants were each given an instruction set corresponding to the respective assigned
application category: word processing, spreadsheet, database, and presentation. The tasks
were completed on both Office 2007 and OpenOffice.org 3 with the appropriate
application. Approximately half of the participants started with Office 2007 then
transitioned to OpenOffice.org 3, while the other half started with OpenOffice.org 3 and
then moved to Office 2007.
The timeline of the pilot test went as follows:

• Assigned instruction set on the first application – 30 Minutes.
• Assigned instruction set on the second application – 30 Minutes.
• Exit survey – 15 Minutes.
• Focus group discussion – 15 Minutes.
The instruction sets were printed out for each participant to follow. All tasks were
generalized and did not provide details or specific steps on how they should be
completed. This stratagem was intended to give participants the opportunity to learn new
functionality and familiarize themselves with the applications. However, each participant
had access to built-in help menus for additional resources to complete the task.
Participants were told to refrain from asking questions related to tasks, although they
were encouraged to seek technical assistance should any issues arise.
4.2.3 Participant Selection

The OpenOffice Challenge™ was advertised on various social networking platforms as
well as by word of mouth for approximately three weeks before the pilot test. The
solicitations stated that ideal participants should have little or no prior experience using
either Office 2007 or OpenOffice.org 3 but should have a working knowledge of
Microsoft Office 2003. Volunteers were filtered based on informal questioning to
determine experience level and pilot test qualifications. Additionally, participants were
selected based on their capabilities for completing tasks in the pilot test applications, with
advanced volunteers assigned to the more complex database and spreadsheet
applications.
4.3 DATA COLLECTION

To effectively analyze participants’ experiences, an exit survey was designed to collect
data on predetermined areas, and a focus group was convened to glean open-ended
responses on the applications.
61
Windows XP was used as the pilot test operating system to achieve a computing environment most
similar to that of the Arizona Department of Transportation.
39
4.3.1 Exit Survey
The online survey seen in Appendix K was created using SurveyMonkey and completed
by participants after the pilot test. The survey focused on collecting quantifiable data
regarding usability of pilot test applications. Specifically, the survey questions were
designed to accomplish the following objectives:
• Understand which office suite provides the greater level of usability.
• Find out which office suite users find easier to learn.
• Investigate which office suite users believe has more features and capabilities.
• Find out which office suite users felt more productive using.
4.3.2 Focus Group Discussion

Following the survey, a focus group discussion was conducted to discuss participant
experiences. The open-ended nature of the discussion encouraged unstructured responses
and collaboration to elicit overall group opinions. All unique discussion highlights were
recorded, including conflicting opinions and opposite viewpoints. The discussion minutes
seen in Appendix F provide qualitative insight into the pilot test on a broad level;
however, it was clear that generalized conclusions could not be drawn directly from the
discussion minutes due to their unstructured nature.
4.4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The OpenOffice Challenge™ was conducted on Saturday, November 8, 2008, in Arizona
State University’s Coor Hall. Fourteen individuals participated in the pilot test, exit
survey, and group discussion. The participants reported no technical issues, and proved
they were engaged by offering extensive contributions, thus making the OpenOffice
Challenge™ a great success.
Based on observational data and prior research from the literature review62, the expected
outcome of the pilot test was that data would support the claim that Office 2003 is more
similar to OpenOffice.org 3 than to Office 2007, and OpenOffice.org 3 provides a greater
level of usability than Office 2007. To capture the overall opinion of which aspects are
important in software, participants were asked to identify the most important feature of
office applications. As shown in Figure 3, 71.4% of participants answered that
Usability/Efficiency was most important. This result further demonstrates the relevance of
the survey results.
62
A literature review was completed before the pilot test to investigate OpenOffice.org and open-source
software in general.
40
Figure 3: OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question: “What feature do you find most
important in office applications?”
4.4.1 Statistical Analysis

Several questions in the OpenOffice Challenge™ invited a comparison between
OpenOffice.org 3 and Office 2007 using a numeric scale of 1 to 5 to rank qualitative
attributes. These questions particularly allowed for analysis to show whether each set of
data was significantly different than the other; i.e., if participants favored one application
over the other in regard to the question. Based on the following characteristics of the four
ranking questions, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test63 was used to analyze the data and
determine significance of difference.
• Two related sets of data were collected from the exact same sample.
• The results are presumed to be non-parametric64 and do not represent a normal
Gaussian population distribution.
• No clear control group exists and both sample tests are independent.
• The sample size is less than 20.
63
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test analyzes data for two related data sets or repeated measurements on a
single sample. It is one of the most popular non-parametric statistical analysis methods. An extensive
explanation and set of examples can be reviewed at:
http://business.fullerton.edu/isds/zgoldstein/361b/Extensions/Wilcoxon/Wilcoxon%20signed%20rank.do
c.
64
Non-parametric analysis assumes that data interpretation does not depend on the generalized population
fitting a Gaussian distribution or “bell curve” over the possible ranked values.
41
4.4.1.1 Applying the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test starts with determining the differences between related
values of the results set. Differences are then ranked based on an absolute-value scale,
ignoring all differences with a value of zero. Like differences are assigned a common
average rank to replace actual ranks, and the signs of the differences are reapplied to the
rankings. Finally, the sums of the positive and negative ranks are calculated to determine
the critical T+ and T- values representing the positive and negative sums, respectively.
To show significance, the statistical T value65 is compared to a standard Wilcoxon

Signed-Rank Table in Appendix J of upper and lower-boundary values, TU or TL,
respectively, for the given sample size n.66 If the test statistic, either T+ or T- depending
on the alternative hypothesis, is outside the range of TU and TL, the results are significant
for the corresponding one-tail significance level, and the null hypothesis is rejected. An
alpha value of 0.05 (5% significance level) is used to determine if these data are
significant.
The null hypothesis H0 is structurally the same for all questions to which the Wilcoxon
Signed-Rank Test is applied.
H0: No significant difference exists between the resulting ranked data of

OpenOffice.org 3 and Office 2007.
The null hypothesis is either validated or rejected based on the level of significance. In
case of rejection, the alternate hypothesis is accepted. For the following four survey
questions, an alternative hypothesis was developed, along with tabular results from
applying the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.
4.4.1.2 Question 6 Analysis

For the survey question, “Please rate the ease of menu navigation with each
application,” an alternative hypothesis was made based on the higher mean value of the
OpenOffice.org 3 rankings.
H1: OpenOffice.org has a greater ease of menu navigation.
Table 2 shows the differences, ranks, Common Average Ranks (CAR),67 and resulting T+
and T- values. Since the alternative hypothesis presumes that OpenOffice.org 3 has a
higher mean value and the OpenOffice.org 3 values are to the right, T+ must be
significantly small and less than T-; i.e., T+ must be less than the critical value TL. By
looking at the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Table, TL and TU are 26 and 79, respectively, for a
sample size of 14. Since T+ is not less than the value of TL, there is not sufficient
65
Either the T+ or T- value is chosen as the statistical T value depending on the alternative hypothesis.
66
n is a common variable used in statistics to represent the sample size of a test.
67
Common Average Rank (CAR) is used to calculate an average rank for rankings of the same value. The
formula based on the series of rankings with similar values is:
42
evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference in ease
of menu navigation between the applications.
Table 2. OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question 6 results ordered by

Microsoft Office OpenOffice.org Difference |Difference| Rank CAR Signed CAR
4 4 0 0
2 2 0 0
2 3 -1 1 1 3.5 -3.5
3 2 1 1 2 3.5 3.5
4 3 1 1 3 3.5 3.5
3 4 -1 1 4 3.5 -3.5
3 4 -1 1 5 3.5 -3.5
3 4 -1 1 6 3.5 -3.5
2 4 -2 2 7 9 -9
2 4 -2 2 8 9 -9
2 4 -2 2 9 9 -9
2 4 -2 2 10 9 -9
4 2 2 2 11 9 9
4 1 3 3 12 12 12

T-‐ 50 T+ 28

For the survey question “Please rate the ease of learning features and functionality with
each application” an alternative hypothesis was made based on the higher mean value of
the OpenOffice.org 3 rankings.
H1: OpenOffice.org is easier to learn features and functionality on.
Table 3 shows the resulting values from applying the Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test.
Similarly to the previous investigation, the alternative hypothesis presumes that
OpenOffice.org 3 has higher rankings. In order to show significance, T+ must be less than
T-, and T+ has to be smaller than the critical value TL. Since T+ is less than 26, sufficient
evidence exists to favor the assumption that OpenOffice.org 3 is easier to learn features
and functionality on.
43
Table 3: OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question 7 results ordered by
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
3 3 0 0
3 3 0 0
5 5 0 0
4 4 0 0
3 4 -1 1 1 2.5 -2.5
3 2 1 1 2 2.5 2.5
2 3 -1 1 3 2.5 -2.5
5 4 1 1 4 2.5 2.5
2 4 -2 2 5 5.5 -5.5
4 2 2 2 6 5.5 5.5
1 4 -3 3 7 7 -7

T-‐ 17.5 T+ 11

For the survey question “Please rate the efficiency of each application; i.e. how quickly
were you able to accomplish tasks?” an alternative hypothesis was made based on the
slightly higher mean value of the Microsoft Office 2007 rankings.
H1: Microsoft Office 2007 has greater efficiency.
Table 4 shows the resulting values from applying the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. This
investigation takes a different approach since the Office 2007 values are presumed to be
higher than the OpenOffice.org 3 values and are to the left. In order to show significance
in this scenario, T+ must be significantly large and greater than T-. The latter condition is
satisfied; however, T+ must be larger than the upper-bound critical value, TU. Since T+ is
not greater than 79, there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, it
is assumed that there is no significant difference between the efficiencies of Office 2007
and OpenOffice.org 3.
44
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
4 4 0 0
2 3 -1 1 1 3.5 -3.5
3 4 -1 1 2 3.5 -3.5
3 2 1 1 3 3.5 3.5
3 4 -1 1 4 3.5 -3.5
3 2 1 1 5 3.5 3.5
5 4 1 1 6 3.5 3.5
4 2 2 2 7 8 8
2 4 -2 2 8 8 -8
4 2 2 2 9 8 8

T-‐ 18.5 T+ 27

For the survey question, “Please rate what you expect your personal learning curve to be
with each application,” an alternative hypothesis was made based on the higher mean
value of the OpenOffice.org rankings.68
H1: OpenOffice.org has a lower expected personal learning curve
Table 5 shows the resulting values from applying the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Since
the alternative hypothesis presumes that OpenOffice.org 3 has higher rankings, to show
significance T+ must be less than or equal to T- and T+ has to be smaller than the critical
value TL. Since T+ is less than 26 and less than the T- value of 26, evidence supports the
alternative hypothesis that OpenOffice.org has the lower expected personal learning
curve.
68
For this question, a higher ranking signifies a lower expected personal learning curve.
45
3 3 0 0
4 4 0 0
3 3 0 0
4 4 0 0
2 2 0 0
3 4 -1 1 1 3 -3
3 4 -1 1 2 3 -3
3 2 1 1 3 3 3
2 3 -1 1 4 3 -3
2 3 -1 1 5 3 -3
2 4 -2 2 6 7 -7
4 2 2 2 7 7 7
3 5 -2 2 8 7 -7
5 2 3 3 9 9 9

T-‐ 26 T+ 19

4.4.2 Analysis Summary
One survey question investigated a comparison of the applications to Office 2003. This
step satisfied the pilot test objective of seeking the most comparable application to Office
2003. The results of the survey in Figure 4 below show that a large majority, 78.6%,
thought that OpenOffice.org 3 was more comparable to Office 2003 than was Office
2007.
Figure 4: OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question: “Which application do you think

is most comparable to Microsoft Office 2003?”
46
To further investigate the comparison to Office 2003, participants were asked to choose
an aspect that is most similar to Office 2003 for the application they chose as more
comparable. Interestingly, Functionality/Features and Navigation both received 50% of
the responses. This result aligns with Figure 3, which shows that usability is the most
important software attribute. Figure 5 below shows a graph of the results.
Figure 5: OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question: “For the application you find
most similar to Microsoft Office 2003, which aspect do you think is most similar?”
4.5 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES

Many participants provided comments for survey questions. Additionally, participants
gave generalized comments at the end of the survey expressing their opinions of the two
applications.
4.5.1 Application Efficiency

When asked about the efficiency of the applications, several participants reported that the
efficiency was generally the same between the two applications. These comments align
with the statistical finding that there is no significance between the two applications after
analyzing the rankings.
One participant reported that “Both are efficient if you know what you are looking for and
don’t have to find it/figure it out.” Another participant stated, “Both were about equally
efficient—I ran into snags equally.”
47
4.5.2 Comparison to Microsoft Office 2003
Participants seemed to agree that OpenOffice.org 3 was the more comparable when asked
which application was more similar to Office 2003. When referencing his or her answer
that OpenOffice.org 3 is more similar, one participant stated that “Everything is mostly in
the same places and uses the same symbols.”
Additionally, when comparing Microsoft Office 2007 and 2003, participants stated:
“The new Microsoft Office is very different from the old Microsoft Office.”
“The change in menu style from 2003 to 2007 is large and can be confusing.”
4.5.3 Office 2007 Overall Experience

Participants provided feedback when asked to describe their overall experience with
Office 2007. Based on the comments received, most users agree that menu navigation
presented significant difficulty:
“The menus were extremely difficult to navigate. [I] had to resort to using the
help feature [multiple] times in order to complete certain tasks.”
“Very pleasant appearance but often difficult to find functions due to the
navigation set up. Keyboard and automatic shortcuts I managed to find were
extremely handy.”
However, some users reported that, with continued use, they might learn to use the menu
navigation better. This aligns with the findings that Office 2007 has a significantly higher
learning curve than OpenOffice.org 3.
“…I don’t like the new menu system in Word 2007 but if I used it more I would
probably be able to use it to the same level as 2003, I just don’t want to take the
time to use it right now.”
“I think my learning curve for OpenOffice.org would be less [than] for Office
2007, because of my knowledge of Office 2003…”
“I hate the new way it’s set up, but for all I know, after using it for a little, I could
get to like it better.”
4.5.4 OpenOffice.org 3 Overall Experience

In agreement with previous survey results that showed OpenOffice.org 3 was more
similar to Office 2003 than to Office 2007, most comments described OpenOffice.org 3
as very similar to Office 2003.
“Similar to Office 2003 (the version of Office that I have used the most). Menus
were not very difficult to navigate as well as finding certain functions.”
“Open office was very, very similar to the old Microsoft Word that I am used to.
It was easy to use and learning the different commands was simple and quick.”
“OpenOffice.org is very familiar to me, so I had no problems using it. It is very
similar to the products I have been using for years now, so it was familiar.”
48
However, several participants did not like the basic user interface and found frustration in
navigating through menus.
“There was a little difficulty on some task like importing data is a pain. In
addition the user interface is really basic”
“I had an ok time with it—some things were easier, like the headers and footers—
but I was kind of frustrated with finding functions because I’m used to Microsoft
Office and had to re-create motor pathways because the functions were stored
under different headings or you had to go through a totally different channel to get
what you want.”
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the survey results, applied statistical analysis, and open-ended responses,
several conclusions and generalizations can be made. These conclusions provide answers
to key pilot test objectives defined during the design of the OpenOffice Challenge™.
4.6.1 Office 2003 Alternatives

Throughout the pilot test results, there was constant favoring of OpenOffice.org 3 over
Office 2007 as an “easier-to-learn” application. For both questions 7 and 11, which
investigated application learning curves, evidence showed OpenOffice.org 3 to have the
significantly shallower learning curve. Additionally, none of the four questions that used
ranking scales favored Office 2007. Considering the results from the statistical analyses
and open-ended responses favoring OpenOffice.org 3, the OpenOffice.org 3 application
should be considered a reasonable alternative to Microsoft Office 2003 in terms of
usability, efficiency, and functionality.
4.6.2 Office 2003 Comparison

Another critical objective of the OpenOffice Challenge™ was to determine which
application, OpenOffice.org 3 or Office 2007, participants considered most similar to
Office 2003. Extensive comments stated that OpenOffice.org 3 was very similar to Office
2003, and a large majority of participants responded that OpenOffice.org 3 was more
comparable to Office 2003 than was Office 2007. These results lead us to conclude that
in terms of usability and functionality, Office 2003 more closely compares to
OpenOffice.org 3 than to its own successor, Office 2007.
4.6.3 Possible Restrictions

The final pilot test objective was to investigate possible restrictions that would prevent
implementing Office 2007 or OpenOffice.org 3. No critical restrictions were found in the
pilot test, although some minor usability difficulties prevented participants from
performing all tasks. These difficulties could each be resolved with training, since all
tasks were possible to complete. However, one participant did encounter a possible
complication with file formats. Since OpenOffice.org 3 uses entirely different file format
architecture, Microsoft Office is unable to open OpenOffice.org files natively. However,
a plug-in69 available from Sun Microsystems allows Microsoft Office (versions 2000 and
up) to read the OpenOffice.org Open Document Format (ODF), providing backward
69
The ODF plug-in for Microsoft Office is available at: http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/
49
compatibility. The reverse is not true; OpenOffice.org 3 is able to open and save
Microsoft Office file formats without additional software. This disparity presents
potential obstacles for a possible migration, but the challenges can be mitigated through a
proper implementation.
Overall, based on the various results of the OpenOffice Challenge™, OpenOffice.org 3

provides a more user-accepted office productivity suite than Office 2007. Additionally,
OpenOffice.org 3 is a viable alternative and an acceptable upgrade to Office 2003.
OpenOffice.org 3 should be strongly considered as an option when considering upgrading
to a new office productivity suite.
50
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY

OSS presents a huge change in the traditional commercial software model for
organizations. With the decentralized development methodology and seeming lack of
commercial support, OSS is often disregarded by organizations as experimental and not
suitable for large organizational implementations. However, continued growth of the
open-source community and support from large organizations, including the FSF and the
OSI, have positioned open-source software as a strong competitor to commercial
applications. This research investigated reasons organizations refrain from open-source
adoption by providing a comparable analysis of open-source and commercial
development methodologies, sustainable support plans, and total cost of ownership.
Specifically, the OpenOffice Challenge™ demonstrated that OpenOffice.org 3 is a more
user-accepted application than Microsoft Office 2007 in terms of usability and general
functionality.
5.1.1 Software Trends

Several trends are identified in the current software landscape based on the literature
review and external agency survey. One trend is a gradual cultural shift from an
exclusively commercial-based software licensing scheme to a mixed-use model where
OSS is used among commercial applications to solve specific problems or provide
benefits where commercial software can't. These benefits vary among organizations as
well as particular uses of software; however, the most common motivating factors for
adopting OSS are:
• Need to adopt and support open file formats.
• Lower licensing costs.
• Reduced risks from vendor lock-in.
Particularly, some governments and public-sector organizations have migrated to using

OpenOffice.org as their primary office productivity suite. With government
organizations, information accessibility is a key concern that has grown with the
standardization of digital documents. However, providing information to the public in
proprietary formats that require commercial software ignores the goal of complete
accessibility. Requiring costly software to read public information excludes people
without the means to obtain the appropriate applications. The philosophies of free
software provide an open method for distributing digital documents and also provide
formats in which other applications can interoperate.
Another trend identified among public-sector entities is the reluctance to deploy

Microsoft’s newest applications including Office 2007 and Windows Vista. The external
agency survey showed that 42% of respondents did not have plans to deploy Office 2007
while nearly 70% had no plans to deploy Windows Vista. Numerous reasons may be the
cause of this implementation delay including recent OSS success, usability and
compatibility concerns, and extensive hardware requirements. However, many
organizations have looked toward OSS to solve these problems.
51
5.1.2 Hybrid Internet Model
The 1990s marked the Internet Age and “dot-com” era, defined partially by a shift of
organizations toward utilizing Web applications as opposed to traditional desktop
software. However, despite the outstanding promises of Web-based computing, desktop
applications including Microsoft Office continued to be the organizational standard after
the era passed. Interoperability and file formats are a huge concern among organizations,
enforcing the reluctance to adopt Web-based office software. However, the traditional
model of installing an application and saving files to a local computer is archaic and
obsolete. The past several years have seen a revival of Web-based software through cloud
computing,70 described by Geva Perry as a mechanism that “allows [organizations to]
develop, deploy and run applications that can easily grow capacity (scalability), work fast
(performance), and never – or at least rarely – fail (reliability), all without any concern as
to the nature and location of the underlying infrastructure.”71 Cloud computing, Software-
as-a-Service (SaaS), and the concept of social media and online interaction are often
collectively referred to as “Web 2.0.” This shift has demonstrated a clear separation
between data and applications that process the data. Instead of enforcing a cohesive
relationship between an application and the data it produces in a file, open formats,
application programming interfaces (API) and the Internet cloud72 allow distributed
access to data, solving the following critical flaws of desktop computing:
• Lack of universal accessibility.
• Specific application installation requirements.
Services such as Google Docs and Zoho promise access to data anywhere in the world
without software requirements other than a standard Web browser. Most importantly,
such services offer backward compatibility and interoperability with desktop application
file formats such as Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org. This distributed model of open
architecture is the core aspect allowing the hybrid Internet to fulfill the promises of the
1990s. Data continually shifts to the Internet cloud where access is open to an array of
applications, services, and APIs allowing the end user to bypass the critical problems of
desktop computing. Most importantly, the hybrid Internet provides user choice in
accessing data, thus allowing OSS, commercial applications, SaaS, etc. to coexist without
a complete shift to any particular architecture.
Surely the biggest fallacy of Web 2.0 and cloud computing is that SaaS applications will
eventually conquer desktop computing by providing encompassing access to data via
Web applications, making traditional open-source and commercial software obsolete. On
the contrary, the hybrid Internet model will allow for distributed access to cloud data
through open APIs, giving the user the choice of what software to use. Open-source
70
Cloud computing is a term used to describe computing power that is provided as an effervescent service,
rather than by a tangible collection of hardware and software.
71
Perry, Geva. “How Cloud & Utility Computing Are Different.” GigaOM.
http://gigaom.com/2008/02/28/how-cloud-utility-computing-are-different/ (accessed March 29, 2009).
72
The Internet cloud is used to describe the intangible collection of cloud computing services that provide
seamless interconnectivity and abstraction over physical software and hardware, as well as a generic
entity to which users of Software-as-a-Service connect to.
52
applications, commercial desktop software, or a Web browser will be available to a user,
thus fulfilling the needs of a particular situation and set of preferences.
5.2 DEPARTMENT RECOMENDATIONS

An important goal of this research study is to provide specific recommendations to
ADOT regarding OSS. Three recommendations are given below that offer distinct
benefits to ADOT but are structured as generic guides that other departments may adapt.
5.2.1 OpenOffice.org Implementation

This research recommends that the current version of OpenOffice.org be introduced as an
alternative to Microsoft Office. The OpenOffice Challenge™ demonstrated that users
find OpenOffice.org 3 more comparable to Office 2003 than Office 2007 is to Office
2003. Additionally, participants showed that Office 2007 had a steeper learning curve
than OpenOffice.org 3. The current ADOT infrastructure mostly encompasses computers
running Windows XP and Office 2003. Microsoft Office 2007 represents a huge shift in
usability and interface along with compatibility which may cause productivity loss and
frustration among users.
5.2.1.1 Proposed Deployment Methodology

When Microsoft Office 2007 is deployed to the department at a large scale,
OpenOffice.org should also be included as an alternative office suite in the computer
image.73 However, it is important that OpenOffice.org not be immediately deployed as a
replacement to Microsoft Office, but instead as an additional option for users. Also, the
deployment should occur during normal computer imaging cycles.74 This process
provides multiple advantages over an immediate migration to OpenOffice.org:
• Deployment costs associated with releasing OpenOffice.org are mitigated by
combining them with Office 2007. Implementing OpenOffice.org
immediately across ADOT would represent significant costs associated with
reimaging computers. By waiting to deploy OpenOffice.org in conjunction
with the normal reimaging cycle, nominal cost is added to the deployment
process.
• Migrating from the Microsoft platform to OpenOffice.org represents a cultural
shift that takes time for user acceptance. Although a migration to Office 2007
presents an array of user acceptance problems because of the drastically
changed user interface, switching platforms may introduce unforeseen
problems associated with the software architecture. For instance, macros and
other custom programs are likely to have been developed using Visual Basic
for Applications (VBA) exclusively for Microsoft products. These
customizations may provide business critical functions and represent years of
development. By providing OpenOffice.org as an alternative to Office 2007,
potential incompatibilities can be discovered without immediate risk to
73
A computer image is defined as the set of software, operating system and settings that is used as a
standard for computer setup.
74
A computer imaging cycle is defined as the periodic deployment of a computer image to a subset of an
organization’s computers.
53
business continuity. Additionally, having OpenOffice.org as an alternative to
Office 2007, instead of being the sole application, will catalyze user
acceptance of the open-source platform. If OpenOffice.org were forced on
users in a large scale deployment, any complications would be exhibited
through reluctance to accept OpenOffice.org. However, by providing
OpenOffice.org as a second choice, users frustrated with the usability of
Office 2007 may switch to OpenOffice.org, drastically improving acceptance
rates. As OpenOffice Challenge™ results show, OpenOffice.org is a more
usable application with a smaller learning curve than Office 2007.
• Finally, an immediate deployment of OpenOffice.org 3 in place of Microsoft
Office 2007 would not provide any initial license cost savings. As seen in
Appendix L, the current ADOT license contract with Microsoft does not end
until 2011 and also includes Office 2007. By deploying both office suites
together, additional comparative data can be analyzed to determine if
cancelling Microsoft licensing in favor of OpenOffice.org 3 is suitable for the
department.
5.2.1.2 Estimated Cost Savings

An important goal of this research study is to provide an estimated cost savings model for
implementing candidate open-source applications. In particular, cost savings of
implementing OpenOffice.org 3 in place of Microsoft Office 2007 is an important metric.
It is important to note that licensing costs do not represent the TCO typically used in IT
software cost analysis. The recommendation of dual deployment helps mitigate indirect
costs associated with training, support and productivity loss.
Currently, ADOT spends approximately $410,000 annually on Microsoft Office

licensing. This represents about $82 for each of the 5000 workstations. By switching to
OpenOffice.org and eliminating the costs of Microsoft Office, the department would save
$410,000 in licensing costs given that OpenOffice.org has no licensing costs whatsoever.
A detailed outline of annual Microsoft licensing costs can be seen in Appendix M.
However, to realize any cost savings, the indirect costs associated with switching to
OpenOffice.org must be less than current Microsoft Office licensing costs. Deployment
often represents exorbitant costs since IT retooling and training may be required, in
addition to outside consultants for planning and migration analysis. Continued costs
associated with training and productivity loss offset potential cost savings as well.
Microsoft Office 2007 represents the larger learning curve compared to OpenOffice.org
3, while OpenOffice.org 3 more closely resembles Office 2003, which is currently the
standard at ADOT. This positions OpenOffice.org 3 as a likely contender to lower the
TCO for office productivity suites.
It should also be noted that licensing contracts are often negotiated and costs are
dependent on additional software included in the plan. By excluding Microsoft Office in
the consecutive Microsoft licensing contract, cost associated with other software may
increase. By deploying OpenOffice.org 3 across ADOT as an alternative to Microsoft
Office 2007, more negotiating power is given to ADOT to reduce future costs.
54
5.2.1.3 Other Intrinsic Benefits
In addition to cost savings, qualitative benefits exist from implementing OpenOffice.org
and inherently from implementing open-source software. Specifically, open formats such
as the OpenDocument Format included with OpenOffice.org 3 encourage increased
accessibility. Government agencies naturally focus on disseminating information to the
public through ensuring universal access. Proprietary file formats inherently exclude
people without the means to obtain the commercial software. Since no specific
commercial software is required with open formats, individuals are free to access
information with readily available free software.
5.2.2 Software Procurement Process

Throughout this research study, many benefits of OSS have been observed. Furthermore,
the past decade has seen open-source applications becoming positioned as comparable
contenders to commercial software. On this basis, an additional recommendation for
ADOT is to implement a policy to require the consideration of OSS in addition to
commercial applications during software procurement and in requests for proposals
(RFP). This practice will encourage the investigation of open-source alternatives that may
reduce the TCO of the software as well as provide qualitative benefits such as open
formats. The literature review showed that several government agencies have adopted
similar policies and have thereby implemented many OSS applications. Additionally, this
policy will help dispel the notion that only commercial software is acceptable for
organizational implementation by ensuring future comparative analysis of commercial
and open-source software.
5.2.3 Encourage Open-Source Proliferation

A final recommendation to ADOT is to encourage open-source proliferation by offering
IT support of open-source tools and applications that users may find and start using. By
offering support for new OSS, ADOT will shift towards finding methods for a lower
TCO. Overall, software adopted from the user base in a bottom-up approach is shown to
be more successful than a top-down implementation without user consent. The alternative
approach is to deny official IT support for rogue applications users may find. However,
this approach stunts innovation and the ability to rapidly gain user adoption of a
particular tool or application.
Additionally, the department should offer support for developers who contribute to open-
source projects. Similar in concept to Google’s innovative “20% time,”75 ADOT should
offer developers a portion of their time at work to work on OSS if they wish. This
provides many benefits, such as continued education and technical training for
developers, while allowing ADOT to reap the benefits of developers continuously
surveying the open-source landscape.
75
Google’s “20% time” is a program that allows Google engineers to spend one day a week working on
projects of their choice outside their job description.
55
APPENDIX A: EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY INDIVIDUAL
RESULTS
State Name Title Email Phone

System Programmer
Alaska Brian J. Idzik brian.idzik@alaska.gov 907-465-8964
III
Division Head - bryan.stewart@arkansashighways
Arkansas Bryan Stewart 501-569-2436
Computer Services .com
Doug Chief, IT Solutions
California Doug.Kempster@dot.ca.gov 916-654-2614
Kempster Division
Katherine Business Systems
Connecticut katherine.trudeau@po.state.ct.us 860-594-3549
Trudeau Manager
Enterprise IT
Kansas Bill Roth billr@ksdot.org 785-296-0941
Architect
502-564-8900
Kentucky Connie Egbers IT Branch Manager connie.egbers@ky.gov
ext. 3533
PC Support
Louisiana Warren Huffty whuffty@dotd.la.gov 225-379-1813
Supervisor
Nancy
Maine IT Director nancy.armentrout@maine.gov 207-624-3209
Armentrout
MD Dept. of
Maryland Chuck Bristow cbristow@mdot.state.md.us 410-865-1040
Transportation CIO
Sudhakar
Michigan Enterprise Architect ramaswamys@michigan.gov 517-241-4009
Ramaswamy
IT Infrastructure
Minnesota John Moreland john.moreland@dot.state.mn.us 651-366-5646
Manager
Missouri Madalynn Bell IS Manager Madalynn.Bell@modot.mo.gov 573-751-6909
Mike
Montana Division Administrator mbousliman@mt.gov 406-444-6158
Bousliman
Acting Manager
Richard
New Jersey Applications Richard.Jablonski@dot.state.nj.us 609-530-2399
Jablonski
Development
Robert
New Mexico CIO robert.ashmore@state.nm.us 505-827-3270
Ashmore
North Dakota Erv Zimprich IT Manager ezimpric@nd.gov 701-328-3229
Manager, Technology
Oregon Virginia Alster Virginia.M.Alster@odot.state.or.us 503-986-3196
Management
Chief, Operations
Pennsylvania Joyce Black joblack@state.pa.us 717-705-1388
Division
401-222-6935
Rhode Island Mary Gelardi Administrator of MIS mgelardi@dot.ri.gov
ext. 4470
South Jose software development
ValdivieJL@scdot.org 803-737-1003
Carolina Valdivieso
Tennessee Vic Mangrum IT Director Vic.Mangrum@state.tn.us 615-741-3576
Frank R. Director of IT
Texas fbushon@dot.state.tx.us 512-465-7713
Bushong, P.E. Architecture
Utah Greg Jackson IT Manager gregjackson@utah.gov 801-965-4036
Vermont Tom Hurd CIO tom.hurd@state.vt.us 802-828-3426
Manager PC/LAN
West Virginia Candice Prince cprince@dot.state.wv.us 304-558-9527
applications
IT Strategy &
Wisconsin John Hoskins john.hoskins@dot.state.wi.us 608-266-6929
Architecture
56
1. Please approximate the percentage of servers in your department that use each of
the following environments.
Windows Windows Server Mac OS

State Mainframe Unix Linux Other
Server 2003 2000 Server
Alaska 10 85 5
Arkansas 1 86 10 3
California 100
Connecticut 1 4 40 54 1
Kansas 1 2 97
Kentucky 1 2 59 36 2
Louisiana 1 4 65 30
Maine 10 1 80 9
Maryland 40 60
Michigan 16 40 10 34
Minnesota 1 11 74 14
Missouri 1 12 2 26 58 1
Montana 5 10 5 80
New Jersey 100
New Mexico 100
North Dakota 20 10 60 10
Oregon 1 2 9 88
Pennsylvania 63 27 10
Rhode Island 5 95
South
100
Carolina
Tennessee 5 90 5
Texas 1 1 1 57 40
Utah 1 5 60 5 29
Vermont 1 99
West Virginia 75 25
Wisconsin 1 1 2 96
57
2. Please approximate the percentage of desktops in your department that use each
of the following environments.
Mac Windows Windows Windows Thin

State Unix Linux Other
OS X 2000 XP Vista Client
Alaska 1 1 98
Arkansas 21 79
California 100
Connecticut 3 97
Kansas 100
Kentucky 1 99
Louisiana 15 85
Maine 100
Maryland 75 25
Michigan 2 98
Minnesota 3 97
Missouri 98 2
Montana 100
New Jersey 98 2
New Mexico 100
North Dakota 25 75
Oregon 99 1
Pennsylvania 100
Rhode Island 20 80
South
99 1
Carolina
Tennessee 1 98 1
Texas 1 99
Utah 35 65
Vermont 100
West Virginia 100
Wisconsin 99 1
58
3. Please approximate the percentage of desktops or users in your department that use
each of the following office productivity suites.
Google Docs Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft

Open Corel Star
State and Office Office Office Other
Office WordPerfect Office
Spreadsheets 2000 2002/XP 2003
Alaska 99 1
Arkansas 88 12
California 100
Connecticut 3 97
Kansas 98 2
Kentucky 1 99
Louisiana 5 5 85 5
Maine 80 20
Maryland 100
Michigan 100
Minnesota 5 95
Missouri 99 1
Montana 100
New Jersey 100
New Mexico 40 60
North Dakota 90 10
Oregon 60 40
Pennsylvania 100
Rhode Island 20 80
South
1 99
Carolina
Tennessee 2 98
Texas 100
Utah 45 35 18 2
Vermont 100
West Virginia 100
Wisconsin 100
59
4. What is your department’s current status regarding a Windows Vista
deployment?
State Response Comments
Alaska Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Arkansas Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
California Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Connecticut Currently planning upgrade timeline
Kansas Currently planning upgrade timeline

The KY
Commonwealth
Office of
Kentucky Other (please specify) Technology
determines OS
updates and
schedules
Louisiana Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Maine Currently planning upgrade timeline
Maryland Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Michigan Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Minnesota Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Missouri Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Montana Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
New Jersey Currently planning upgrade timeline
New Mexico Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
North Dakota Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
Oregon Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Pennsylvania Currently planning upgrade timeline

Hold off until
Rhode Island Other (please specify) Division of IT
approves
South Carolina Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Tennessee Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Texas Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Utah Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Vermont Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
West Virginia Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Wisconsin Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
60
5. What is your department’s current status regarding a Microsoft Office 2007
deployment?
Other (please
State Response
specify)
Alaska Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Arkansas Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
California Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Connecticut Currently planning upgrade timeline
Kansas Currently being deployed
Kentucky Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Louisiana Currently planning upgrade timeline
Maine Currently planning upgrade timeline
Maryland Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Michigan Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Minnesota Currently planning upgrade timeline
Missouri Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Montana Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
New Jersey Currently being deployed
New Mexico Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
North Dakota Currently being deployed
Oregon Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Pennsylvania Currently planning upgrade timeline
Division of IT has
ordered departments
Rhode Island Other (please specify)
to hold off, not to
upgrade to date
South
Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
Carolina
Tennessee Currently being deployed
Texas Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Utah Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
Vermont Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
West Virginia Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
Wisconsin Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year
61
6. If your department currently does not use an Open-source Software (OSS) office
suite, has your department considered OpenOffice.org or another OSS office suite
(informally or formally)?
State Yes No Please briefly describe your decision and rationale.
Alaska X
Long term user of Microsoft Office Suite with a current Enterprise Agreement.
Arkansas X
The amount of training it would cost to change to another suite.
California X
Connecticut X Informal at present because state standards are legislated.

We always consider alternatives, but our stability for support and
Kansas X
interoperability is critical.
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X we are considering making an alternate offering, pre-loaded onto PCs
Maryland X
Direction comes from Office Automation group that is part of Michigan

Michigan X
Department of Information Technology.
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Montana X
New Jersey X We are part of a Statewide Enterprise Agreement
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X Standard for the Commonwealth of PA is MS Office
Rhode Island X
South
X
Carolina
Although we have considered it, we are governed by a State Standards Group
Tennessee X
that has not approved such.
TxDOT uses the Microsoft Office product suite. The cost of change (training,
Texas X conversion, etc) to an open-source application would far outweigh any
perceived cost savings.
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
62
7. If your department currently does not use an OSS desktop operating system, has
your department considered Linux or another OSS operating system (informally or
formally)?
Already
use an
State Yes No OSS Please briefly describe your decision and rationale.
operating
system
Alaska X
Arkansas X Lack of experience with an OSS operating system.
California X
Connecticut X Informal at present because state standards are legislated.
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Will not deploy OSS OS at this time but are considering moving
Maine X the application layer in that direction to position us to look at OSS
OS in the future.
Maryland X
Direction comes from Office Automation group that is part of
Michigan X
Michigan Department of Information Technology.
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Montana X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X Standard for the Commonwealth of PA is MS Windows
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
Although we have considered it, we are governed by a State

Tennessee X
Standards Group that has not approved such.
Texas X The cost of change would be too high.
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
63
8. What is the primary application development environment used by your
department?
State Environment Comments
Alaska Java
Arkansas ASP.NET
California Java
Connecticut ASP.NET
Kansas ASP.NET
Kentucky Other (please specify) C#.Net and ASP.Net
Louisiana ASP.NET
Maine Other (please specify) Oracle PL/SQL
Maryland ASP.NET
Michigan Java
Minnesota Java
Missouri Java
Montana Other (please specify) Oracle tools
New Jersey Classic ASP
New Mexico ASP.NET
North Dakota ASP.NET
Oregon ASP.NET
Pennsylvania Java
Rhode Island Other (please specify) VB, PL/SQL
South Carolina ASP.NET
Tennessee ASP.NET
Texas ASP.NET
Utah Other (please specify) Oracle Tools
Vermont ASP.NET
West Virginia ASP.NET
Wisconsin Java
64
9. What other application development environments are used by your department?
Select all that apply
M
P ASP/
o
State H ASP. Ruby Rails Perl Java Python Please list any others
n
P NET
o
Alaska X X ColdFusion MX7
CA - Ideal on the mainframe

Arkansas X X
primarily for maintenance.
California X X X X Oracle Forms and Reports
Connecticut
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X X X
Maine X X X
Maryland X
Michigan X Adobe ColdFusion
Minnesota X X Oracle Forms, Access
DreamWeaver, Visual Basic,

Missouri X X X X X X X
Lotus Domino, Eclipse
Montana X X X X Oracle
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X X Cold Fusion
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
Oracle 10g forms and
South Carolina
reports.
PowerBuilder, Oracle for
Tennessee X
Applications, Visual Basic 6
Texas X
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X VB.NEt

Cobol, CoolGen for non-web
Wisconsin
apps
65
10. What is the primary enterprise database environment currently being used by
your department? Select only one
State Environment Other (please specify)
Alaska Oracle
Arkansas Microsoft SQL
California Oracle
Connecticut Oracle
Kansas Oracle
Kentucky Oracle
Louisiana IBM DB2
Maine Oracle
Maryland Oracle
Michigan Oracle
Minnesota Oracle
Missouri Oracle
Montana Oracle
New Jersey Microsoft SQL
New Mexico Oracle
North Dakota Microsoft SQL
Oregon IBM DB2
Pennsylvania IBM DB2
Rhode Island Microsoft SQL
South Carolina Microsoft SQL
Tennessee Oracle
Texas Oracle
Utah Oracle
Vermont Microsoft SQL
West Virginia Microsoft SQL
Wisconsin IBM DB2
66
11. What other enterprise database environments are used by your department?
Please list
Filemaker
Microsoft
IBM DB2
MS SQL
My SQL
Postgre
Sybase
Access
Oracle
others
State
dBase
SQL
any
Pro
Alaska X
dBas CA - DataCom on the
Arkansas X X X
e mainframe.
California X X X X
Connecticut X
Kansas X X X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X X X
Maine X
Maryland X X X
Michigan X X Foxpro
Minnesota X X
Missouri X X X
Montana X X X X
New Jersey X
New
X
Mexico
North
X
Dakota
Oregon X X X
Pennsylvan
X X IMS
ia
Rhode
X
Island
South Software AG ADABAS
X X
Carolina (mainframe based)
Tennessee X
Texas X
Utah X X X
Vermont X ADBASE
West
X X
Virginia
Wisconsin X X
67
12. What is the primary enterprise email system currently being used by your
department?
State System Other (please specify)
Alaska Microsoft Exchange 2003
Arkansas Microsoft Exchange 2003
California Lotus Domino
Connecticut Microsoft Exchange 2000
Kansas Microsoft Exchange 2003
Kentucky Microsoft Exchange 2003
Louisiana Lotus Domino
Maine Microsoft Exchange 2003
Maryland Microsoft Exchange 2003
Michigan Other (please specify) Novell Groupwise
Minnesota Other (please specify) Novell Groupwise
Missouri Lotus Domino
Montana Microsoft Exchange 2007
New Jersey Other (please specify) Novell Groupwise
New Mexico Microsoft Exchange 2003
North Dakota Microsoft Exchange 2003
Oregon Microsoft Exchange 2003
Pennsylvania Microsoft Exchange 2000
Rhode Island Microsoft Exchange 2003
South Carolina Microsoft Exchange 2003
Tennessee Other (please specify) Novell Groupwise
Texas Other (please specify) Novell Groupwise
Utah Other (please specify) Novell GroupWise
Vermont Microsoft Exchange 2003
West Virginia Microsoft Exchange 2003
Wisconsin Other (please specify) Exchange 5.5
68
13. Does your department have any officially deployed OSS applications?
State Yes No
Alaska X
Arkansas X
California X
Connecticut X
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Montana X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
Tennessee X
Texas X
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
69
14. How long has OSS been used officially department wide?
State Duration
Alaska
Arkansas
California Greater than 3 years
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine Greater than 3 years
Maryland
Michigan Greater than 3 years
Minnesota
Missouri 1 to 3 years
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon 6 Months to 1 Year
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina Greater than 3 years
Tennessee
Texas
Utah 1 to 3 years
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin 6 Months to 1 Year
70
15. Please list known OSS applications being used below, and briefly describe your
overall satisfaction with them.
State Response
Alaska
Arkansas
Apache Web server, Tomcat app server, STRUTS development framework for Java.
California
Considering Plone for Web Content management.
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Just one in CGI/Perl, on the Intranet Is stable, works well, but only one person can
Maine
maintain
Maryland
Eclipse Development Platform CFEclipse Subclipse CVS Subversion TortoiseSVN

AnkhSVN for Visual Studio Wireshark (formerly Ethereal) Apache Web Server Apache
Michigan
Jakarta Tomcat Filezilla Cygwin Putty openSSH Fully satisfied with the above. Not
using CVS anymore. The others are part of day to day business.
Minnesota
Missouri wiki good
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon Linux OS deployed on servers for Motor Carrier customers. They seem to work well.
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Highway Maintenance Management System(Booz-Allen-Hamilton product), SCARPS

South Carolina (Bentley Systems Product). SCDOT purchased a COTS product then received the code
and table structures and took [full] responsibility for maintenance and enhancements.
Tennessee
Texas
Utah Nagios
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin OpenCMS
71
16. What is the primary way OSS applications are introduced to the department?
State Response Other (please explain)
Alaska
Arkansas
OSS applications are deployed to introduce new functionality
California
and provide solutions that previous software did not have
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
OSS applications are used ad hoc among individual users

Maine
without official deployment
Maryland
It is a combination of
replacement and providing
new functionality the path
Michigan Other (please explain)
being start at providing new
functionality and then look at
replacement.
Minnesota

Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
OSS applications are deployed to replace a proprietary
Oregon
application
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
OSS applications are deployed to replace a proprietary
Utah
application
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
72
17. If your department has ever deployed an open-source application to replace a
proprietary application, what were the most important reasons for the migration?
Select up to 3 choices
OSS Have not
Maintenance
performance
provided Needed deployed
was easier
More Other
reliability
a lower to OSS to
security
Greater
Greater
Greater
State features/ (please
TCO than upgrade replace a
functionality specify)
previous anyways proprietary
system application
Alaska
Arkansas
California X X
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine X
Maryland
Michigan X X
Minnesota
Missouri X
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon X
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
X
Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah X X
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin X
73
18. If your department has ever deployed OSS to provide new functionality that
didn’t exist in a previous system, what are the most important reasons for selecting
the OSS application over a proprietary solution? Select up to 3 choices
to provide new
More features/
deployed OSS
OSS provided
Other (please
Maintenance
performance
functionality
functionality
counterpart.
a lower TCO
comparable
proprietary
proprietary
was easier
reliability
reviewed
Have not
software
State
security
specify)
existed/
Greater
Greater
Greater
than
No
Alaska
Arkansas
California X X X
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine X
Maryland
Michigan X X
Minnesota
Missouri X X
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon X
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
X X X
Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah X X
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin X X
74
19. What is the primary reason why your department has not implemented any open-
source solutions? Select only one.
State Reason Other (please specify)
Resistance from management to use
Alaska
OSS
The long term viability of various OSS platforms
Arkansas Other (please specify)
is still uncertain at this time.
California
Standards are formal here in CT and Open-
Connecticut Other (please specify)
source is still before the legislature.
Kansas Lack of external support for OSS
Kentucky Other (please specify) Hasn’t been considered.
Louisiana Lack of external support for OSS
Maine
Maryland Lack of external support for OSS
Michigan
Migration costs from a proprietary
Minnesota
application to the OSS counterpart
Missouri
Montana Other (please specify) No business need to do so

Both migration costs and lack of external
New Jersey Other (please specify)
support.
No lower Total Cost of Ownership for
New Mexico
OSS applications

North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania Other (please specify) concerns regarding ongoing support

Rhode Island
South Carolina
Governed by State Standards Group that
Tennessee Other (please specify)
prohibits us.
Texas
Utah
Vermont
OSS applications
West Virginia
OSS applications
Wisconsin
75
20. Does your department have a policy regarding open-source software during
software procurement? For example, an open-source policy may include
requirements to never consider open-source software or to always review a
minimum number of open-source applications.
State Yes No
Alaska X
Arkansas X
California X
Connecticut X
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Montana X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
Tennessee X
Texas X
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
76
21. Consider a software procurement in which two applications are being reviewed.
One is an OSS application and the other is a proprietary or commercial application.
Assume all aspects for both products are equal; the TCO, benefits and
disadvantages are the same for both products. Which of the products would your
department be more inclined to implement?
State OSS Proprietary Software
Alaska X
Arkansas X
California X
Connecticut X
Kansas X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Missouri X
Montana X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
Tennessee X
Texas X
Utah X
Vermont X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
77
22. In your professional opinion, what are the major strengths and benefits of OSS
compared to proprietary software? Select up to 3 choices
Functionality
Performance
maintenance
and features
Lower TCO
Scalability
Reliability
Security
Support
State Other (please specify)
Easier
Alaska X X standards based
I am not convinced that there are provable

Arkansas strengths and benefits of OSS compared to
proprietary software.
California X X
Connecticut X X X
I don’t see any of these as better than
Kansas
proprietary, just different
We have not engaged in OSS therefore we
Kentucky
cannot verify any of the above.
Louisiana X X
Maine X X not driven by vendor upgrade schedules
Maryland X
Michigan X X Adherence to Open Standards
Minnesota X X X
Missouri X X
Montana There are pros and cons with both
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota X
Oregon you have the code
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X X X
South Carolina X X X
Tennessee X X No Vendor Lock-In
Texas X X
Utah X X
Vermont X
West Virginia
Wisconsin X
78
23. In your professional opinion, what are the major weaknesses and disadvantages
of OSS compared to proprietary software? Select up to 3 choices
Licensing and
Functionality
Performance
maintenance
and features
Restrictions
proprietary
Scalability
Reliability
Unproven
TCO than
software
State Other (please specify)
Security
Support
Lack of
Higher/
Harder
Legal
Alaska Management & resistance
Lack of user and support staff
Arkansas X X training and education in the
use of OSS.
California X
Connecticut X X
Kansas X X X
We have not participated in
Kentucky OSS therefore we cannot
verify the above.
Louisiana X X compatibility
Maine X
Maryland X X
Michigan X X X
Minnesota X X
Missouri X
Montana X X
New Jersey X X X
New Mexico X
North Dakota X
Oregon X X X
Pennsylvania X X X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
Lack of ONE primary source

Tennessee X
of support
Texas X X
Utah X X
Vermont X X X
West Virginia X X X
Wisconsin X X X
79
24. Please feel free to include any additional information regarding findings on OSS
that you think would benefit this study.
State Comments
Alaska
Arkansas
We expect “system software” to be supported; that is, we want someone to complain to if
California there’s a problem. For instance, we “license” Linux through Novell, and they respond to
problems we might have with it.
Participating in open-source projects is a great benefit to IT professionals, stimulating their
Connecticut creativity and reducing their deployment time and effort. This realizes both a lower TCO and
affords greater opportunities for the users.
Open-source is a choice of a strategic direction. We get better solutions when we can share
Kansas
open designs and patterns and allow each agency choose their preferred deployment model.
Kentucky I would like to know what the goal of this survey is?
Louisiana
State of Maine currently has an OSS Feasibility Study underway. They started by looking at
Maine OSS Office and client OS. We will likely deploy an OSS Office by loading that and MS Office.
User agencies can elect to turn on either, but they pay for MS Office.
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota In the GIS area, commercial products offer better integration for the Enterprise.
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon did a study of what OSS we have. While we do not have policies regarding its
acquisition there was some that developers used for their own purposes. We would like to
Oregon
bring more OSS in, however, it requires retooling our workforce and a new model of how to
do business. We have not yet been able to make the business case for this as yet.
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
If an organization has a capable staff and can support an application developed by others,
OSS is ideal. For those organizations with less-than-capable technical staffs, OSS is not a
South Carolina
good idea because taking complete ownership of an application requires quick learning and a
will to become responsible for the work of others. Some places just cannot do that.
TDOT is eager to explore the OSS possibilities, but is prohibited from doing so due to the
Tennessee
Standards Setting Group from our Centralized IT Department.
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
80
25. Would you like further information regarding this study?
I would like to receive the results of this I would like to receive a copy of the final
State
survey. report.
Alaska
Arkansas X X
California X
Connecticut X
Kansas X X
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X X
Maryland X X
Michigan X X
Minnesota X
Missouri X X
Montana X
New Jersey X
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X X
Tennessee X
Texas X X
Utah X
Vermont X X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X
81
APPENDIX B: EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY SUMMARY
1. Please approximate the percentage of servers in your department that use each of
the following environments.
Response Average
Mainframe 9.4%
Unix 3.6%
Linux 4.3%
Windows Server 2003 70.0%
Windows Server 2000 18.2%
Mac OS Server 0.0%
Other (Please Specify) 25.0%
2. Please approximate the percentage of desktops in your department that use each
of the following environments.
Response Average
Unix 0.3%
Linux 0.0%
Mac OS X 0.3%
Windows 2000 28.6%
Windows XP 83.7%
Windows Vista 0.6%
Thin Client 0.0%
3. Please approximate the percentage of desktops or users in your department that

use each of the following office productivity suites.
Response Average
Google Docs and Spreadsheets 0.0%

Microsoft Office 2000 46.7%
Microsoft Office 2002/XP 51.2%
Microsoft Office 2003 67.1%
OpenOffice.org 0.6%
Corel WordPerfect 1.4%
Star Office 0.0%
82
4. What is your department’s current status regarding a Windows Vista
deployment?
Response Response
Percent Count
Fully deployed 0.0% 0
Currently being deployed 0.0% 0
Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year 3.8% 1
Currently planning upgrade timeline 19.2% 5
Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been
69.2% 18
made
Plans have been made to specifically NOT upgrade to Windows
0.0% 0
Vista
Other (please specify) 7.7% 2

deployment?
Response Response
Percent Count
Fully deployed 0.0% 0
Currently being deployed 15.4% 4
Plans to deploy/upgrade within 1 year 19.2% 5
Currently planning upgrade timeline 19.2% 5
Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been
42.3% 11
made
Plans have been made to specifically NOT upgrade to Office
0.0% 0
2007
(informally or formally)?
Response Percent Response Count
Yes 26.9% 7
No 73.1% 19
Already use an OSS office suite 0.0% 0
83
your department considered Linux or another OSS operating system (informally or
formally)?
Yes 23.1% 6
No 73.1% 19
Already use an OSS operating system 3.8% 1

department?
PHP 0.0% 0
Classic ASP 3.8% 1
ASP.NET 50.0% 13
Mono 0.0% 0
Ruby and/or Rails 0.0% 0
Perl 0.0% 0
Java 26.9% 7
Python 0.0% 0
No “In House” Development is done 0.0% 0

PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor) 15.4% 4
ASP/ASP.NET 61.5% 16
Mono 3.8% 1
Ruby 7.7% 2
Rails 3.8% 1
Perl 19.2% 5
Java 42.3% 11
Python 11.5% 3
84
your department?
MySQL 0.0% 0
Microsoft SQL 26.9% 7
PostgreSQL 0.0% 0
Sybase 0.0% 0
IBM DB2 15.4% 4
Oracle 57.7% 15
Microsoft Access 0.0% 0
Filemaker Pro 0.0% 0
dBase 0.0% 0
No “In House” databases are used 0.0% 0
Select all that apply.
MySQL 19.2% 5
Microsoft SQL 57.7% 15
PostgreSQL 0.0% 0
Sybase 3.8% 1
IBM DB2 23.1% 6
Oracle 30.8% 8
Microsoft Access 61.5% 16
Filemaker Pro 3.8% 1
dBase 3.8% 1
85
department?
Lotus Domino 11.5% 3

Microsoft Exchange 2003 50.0% 13
Google Gmail 0.0% 0
SendMail 0.0% 0
If the answer is “no” the respondent moved to question 19. If the answer is “yes” the
respondent moved to question 14.
Yes 30.8% 8
No 69.2% 18
14. How long has OSS been used officially department wide?
A total of 8 responses were recorded for this question based on the requirement of
Question 13.
Greater than 3 years 50.0% 4
1 to 3 years 25.0% 2
6 Months to 1 Year 25.0% 2
Less than 6 Months 0.0% 0
I am not sure the exact length, but at least: 0.0% 0
86
Question 13.
Response Response
Percent Count
OSS applications are deployed to replace a proprietary application 25.0% 2
OSS applications are deployed to introduce new functionality and
50.0% 4
provide solutions that previous software did not have
OSS applications are used ad hoc among individual users without
12.5% 1
official deployment
Other (please explain) 12.5% 1
17. If your department has ever deployed an open-source application to replace a

proprietary application, what were the most important reasons for the migration?
Select up to 3 choices.
Question 13.
Response Response
Percent Count
OSS provided a lower TCO than previous system 25.0% 2
Maintenance was easier 25.0% 2
Greater reliability 12.5% 1
Greater security 0.0% 0
Greater performance 0.0% 0
More features/functionality 25.0% 2
Needed to upgrade anyways 12.5% 1
Have not deployed OSS to replace a proprietary application 37.5% 3
87
18. If your department has ever deployed OSS to provide new functionality that
didn’t exist in a previous system, what are the most important reasons for selecting
the OSS application over a proprietary solution? Select up to 3 choices.
Question 13.
Response Response
Percent Count
OSS provided a lower TCO than proprietary counterpart. 62.5% 5
Maintenance was easier 37.5% 3
Greater reliability 0.0% 0
Greater security 12.5% 1
Greater performance 12.5% 1
More features/functionality 50.0% 4
No comparable proprietary software existed/reviewed 12.5% 1
Have not deployed OSS to provide new functionality 12.5% 1
19. What is the primary reason why your department has not implemented any
open-source solutions?
Question 13.
Response Response
Percent Count
Legal constraints from Open-source licenses. e.g. if the source code
0.0% 0
is modified, it must be released to the public
Resistance from management to use OSS 5.6% 1
Migration costs from a proprietary application to the OSS counterpart 22.2% 4
Lack of external support for OSS 16.7% 3
No lower Total Cost of Ownership for OSS applications 16.7% 3
Yes 7.7% 2
No 92.3% 24
88
One is an OSS application and the other is a proprietary or commercial application.
Assume all aspects for both products are equal; the TCO, benefits and
OSS 30.8% 8
Proprietary Software 69.2% 18
compared to proprietary software? Select up to 3 choices
Lower TCO 50.0% 13
Easier maintenance 19.2% 5
Reliability 7.7% 2
Security 7.7% 2
Performance 11.5% 3
Scalability 15.4% 4
Support 7.7% 2
Functionality and features 15.4% 4
23. In your professional opinion, what are the major weaknesses and disadvantages
of OSS compared to proprietary software? Select up to 3 choices.
Higher/Unproven TCO than proprietary software 23.1% 6

Harder maintenance 15.4% 4
Licensing and Legal Restrictions 15.4% 4
Reliability 23.1% 6
Lack of Support 69.2% 18
Security 15.4% 4
Performance 3.8% 1
Scalability 0.0% 0
Functionality and features 19.2% 5
89
APPENDIX C: EXTERNAL AGENCY SOFTWARE USE SURVEY
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is examining the issue of open-
source software use by transportation agencies. As part of this process, we have
commissioned this survey by Sean Coleman, a student at Arizona State University.
We would appreciate your response to the following questions. This information will be
used to assist ADOT in making decisions regarding the use of open-source software.
This survey is also available for online submission at:

http://survey.opensourcestudy.com
Person completing this survey: __________________________________
Title: ___________________________ State: ______________________
Phone: __________________________ E-mail: ____________________
Please take a moment to read over the definitions for specific terms used in this survey. If
you have any questions while completing this survey, please contact
Sean Coleman (480-603-8850) or sean.m.coleman@asu.edu
Survey Definitions
• OSS – Open-source Software
• Server Environment – Operating system used by the server or a mainframe
system.
• Desktop Environment – Operating system used by individual desktop
computers or workstations, or thin clients.
• Thin Client – A “dumb” computer or terminal that requires a connection to a
server to operate and run applications.
• Officially Deployed Software – Any application or software that is supported
and has been deployed by the IT department. This does not include any
software the individuals decide to use on a per case basis.
• TCO – Total Cost of Ownership. This includes all costs associated with the
entire lifecycle of the software including planning, deployment, support and
retirement.
90
1. Mainframe/Server Computing Environment: Please approximate the
percentage of servers in your department that use each of the following
environments.
Total should add to 100%
- Mainframe
- Unix
- Linux
- Windows Server 2003
- Windows Server 2000
- Mac OS Server
- Other (Please Specify)
2. Desktop Computing Environment: Please approximate the percentage of

desktops in your department that use each of the following environments.
- Unix
- Linux
- Mac OS X
- Windows 2000
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Thin Client
3. Please approximate the percentage of desktops or users in your department that

use each of the following office productivity suites.
- Google Docs and Spreadsheets
- Microsoft Office 2000
- Microsoft Office 2002/XP
- Microsoft Office 2003
- OpenOffice.org
- Corel WordPerfect
- Star Office
4. What is your department’s current status regarding a Windows Vista deployment.

- Fully deployed
- Currently being deployed
- Plans to deploy/upgrade in 1 year
- Currently planning upgrade timeline
- Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
- Plans have been made to specifically NOT upgrade to Windows Vista
- Other (please specify)
91
deployment.
- Fully deployed
- Currently being deployed
- Plans to deploy/upgrade in 1 year
- Currently planning upgrade timeline
- Deployment/Upgrade is a possibility, but no plans have been made
- Plans have been made to specifically NOT upgrade to Office 2007
- Other (Please Detail)
(informally or formally)? Please briefly describe your decision and rationale.
- Yes
- No
- Already use an OSS office suite
your department considered Linux or another OSS operating system (informally
or formally)? Please briefly describe your decision and rationale.
- Yes
- No
- Already use an OSS operating system
Programming and Web Development

department?
Select only one
- PHP
- Classic ASP
- ASP.NET
- Mono
- Ruby and/or Rails
- Perl
- Java
- Python
- No “In House” Development is done

- PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor)
- ASP/ASP.NET
- Mono
- Ruby
92
- Rails
- Perl
- Java
- Python
Please list any others
your department?
Select only one
- MySQL
- Microsoft SQL
- PostgreSQL
- Sybase
- IBM DB2
- Oracle
- Microsoft Access
- Filemaker Pro
- dBase
- No “In House” databases are used
- MySQL
- Microsoft SQL
- PostgreSQL
- Sybase
- IBM DB2
- Oracle
- Microsoft Access
- Filemaker Pro
- dBase
Please list any others
department?
Select only one
- Lotus Domino
- Microsoft Exchange 2003
- Google Gmail
- SendMail
General Open-source Questions
93
- Yes
- No
If you answered no to Question 13, please skip to Question 19
14. How long has OSS been used officially department wide.
- Greater than 3 years
- 1 to 3 years
- 6 Months to 1 Year
- Less than 6 Months
- I am not sure the exact length, but at least:
15. Please list known OSS applications being used below, and briefly describe your
overall satisfaction with them.
Select only one
- OSS applications are deployed to replace a proprietary application.
- OSS applications are deployed to introduce new functionality and provide
solutions that previous software did not have.
- OSS applications are used ad hoc among individual users without official
deployment.
- Other (Please Detail)
17. If your department deployed an open-source application to replace a proprietary

application, what are the most important reasons for the migration?
- OSS provided a lower TCO than previous system
- Maintenance was easier
- Greater reliability
- Greater security
- Greater performance
- More features/functionality
- Needed to upgrade anyways
- Have not deployed OSS to replace a proprietary application
18. If your department deployed OSS to provide new functionality that didn’t exist in
a previous system, what are the most important reasons for selecting the OSS over
a proprietary solution?
- OSS provided a lower TCO than proprietary counterpart.
- Maintenance was easier
- Greater reliability
94
- Greater security
- Greater performance
- More features/functionality
- No comparable proprietary software existed/reviewed
- Have not deployed OSS to provide new functionality
Only answer question 19 if you answered no to Question 13.
19. What is the primary reason why your department has not implemented any open-
source solutions?
Select only one
- Legal constraints from Open-source licenses such as the case if the source
code is modified, it must be released to the public.
- Resistance from management to use OSS.
- Migration costs from a proprietary application to the OSS counterpart.
- Lack of external support for OSS
- No lower Total Cost of Ownership for OSS applications.
- Yes
- No
One is an OSS application and the other is a proprietary or commercial
application. Assume all aspects for both products are equal; the TCO, benefits and
- OSS
- Proprietary Software
compared to proprietary software?
- Lower TCO
- Easier maintenance
- Reliability
- Security
- Performance
- Scalability
- Support
- Functionality and features
95
23. In your professional opinion, what are the major weaknesses and disadvantages of
OSS compared to proprietary software?
- Higher/Unproven TCO than proprietary software
- Harder maintenance
- Licensing and Legal Restrictions
- Reliability
- Lack of Support
- Security
- Performance
- Scalability
- Functionality and features
24. Please feel free to include any additional information regarding findings on OSS
that you think would benefit this study.
25. Would you like further information regarding this study?

- I would like to receive the results of this survey
- I would like to receive a copy of the final report.
Thank you.
John Semmens
Project Manager
Arizona Transportation Research Center
206 S. 17th Ave., MD 075R
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Ph. 602-712-3137
e-mail jsemmens@ADOT.gov
96
APPENDIX D: EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY REQUEST LETTER
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Sean Coleman and I am conducting a study on the use of Open-source
Software in transportation agencies on behalf of the Arizona Department of
Transportation. You were listed as an appropriate technology contact to complete a
survey regarding your agency’s use of commercial and open-source software.
Before sending the survey, I wanted to verify that you would be an appropriate recipient
and if so, let you decide the method to receive the survey. If you aren’t an appropriate
recipient for the survey, I appreciate any contact information for someone who you think
would be a good fit. I also want to thank you in advance for taking the time to fill out the
survey. Feel free to reply to this email with an ’X’ next to the method in which to receive
the survey.
__ Via Email/Online Form - (A hyperlink to the online survey will be sent via email)
__ Via Fax
__ Via USPS Mail
__ Via Phone - (I can schedule a time to administer the survey over the phone. The
survey will take approximately 30 minutes)
If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this email or call me at (480) 603-8850.
Thank you,
Sean Coleman
Phone: (480) 603-8850
Email: sean.m.coleman@asu.edu
Please contact the project manager, Mr. John Semmens for authenticity verification if
needed.
John Semmens
Project Manager
206 S. 17th Ave., MD 075R
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Ph. 602-712-3137
E-mail jsemmens@ADOT.gov
97
APPENDIX E: EMAIL WITH ONLINE EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY
To Whom It May Concern:
As requested, I am sending the hyperlink to the online survey for the ADOT Open-source
Software Study. The survey is comprised of 4 pages and takes approximately 30 minutes
to complete. Some questions may require additional time in order to research the correct
response. You cannot save your survey once you begin, but may start over at any time if
you have not yet submitted the survey. I want to thank you in advance for your time and
the ADOT appreciates your responses.
You may access the survey online at http://survey.opensourcestudy.com with any web
browser. Alternatively you may go to
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=AtwcNmHfmy3GwuTJwRrhLw_3d_3d if
you have problems with the other hyperlink.
Since many questions may require additional research, you may download a printable
PDF of the survey at http://www.opensourcestudy.com/print_survey.pdf for use as a
guide. If you encounter any technical issues, please contact me (Sean Coleman) at
sean.m.coleman@asu.edu or by phone (480) 603-8850.
Thank you,
Sean Coleman
Please contact the project manager, Mr. John Semmens for authenticity verification if
needed.
John Semmens
Project Manager
206 S. 17th Ave., MD 075R
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Ph. 602-712-3137
E-mail jsemmens@ADOT.gov
98
APPENDIX F: OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™ DISCUSSION
• Microsoft Office 2007 was aesthetically pleasing; looked more like a Mac
application.
• Microsoft Office 2007 was more useable.
• Participants debated between OpenOffice.org 3 and Microsoft Office 2007 icons
and which were more confusing.
• Many participants thought OpenOffice.org 3 was easier to use because you know
what to do in the application more so than Microsoft Office 2007.
• A majority of the participants found OpenOffice.org 3 more similar to Microsoft
Office 2003 than Microsoft Office 2007.
• Importing data was very difficult in OpenOffice.org 3 because there was no built
in import function; you must copy and paste the data.
• OpenOffice.org 3 was easier to implement the mail merge because it told you
each step as you went through the process.
• If a company were to only use OpenOffice.org 3 or Microsoft 2007, there would
be problems because people who save their documents in different versions
cannot open them. The company must make sure different versions are
compatible.
• Participants had great difficulty with conditional formatting in both
OpenOffice.org 3 and Microsoft Office 2007.
• It’s obvious that companies should take advantage of the free OpenOffice.org 3
software to save money in comparison to Microsoft Office 2007.
99
APPENDIX G: OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™ INSTRUCTIONS
Thank you for participating in the OpenOffice Challenge™. The Arizona Department of
Transportation is examining the use of Open-source Software as an alternative to
commercial products. This pilot test consists of completing a series of tasks for two
similar applications. The entire pilot test should take no longer than 90 minutes.
You will be given an instruction set of tasks to complete for each of the two applications.
You will work through the tasks in the same instruction set for 30 minutes with each
application. The instruction sets are much longer than the allotted 30 minutes; do not
focus on completing the tasks. The goal of the pilot test is for you to use each product for
a reasonable amount of time to gain a good feel for the product’s usability. Please work
through the tasks at your own pace; if you do not know how to complete a task, attempt it
but move on to additional tasks if you are unable to complete it in a few minutes.
After you have worked through the tasks for 30 minutes, please stop the tasks and switch
to the other application. You will then start the instruction set over with the remaining
application completing the same tasks at your own pace for 30 minutes.
Assigned Instruction Set: Instruction Set

Assigned Starting Application: Application
Once you have finished the pilot test portion, please complete the online survey at:
http://survey.opensourcestudy.com. Thank you gain for participating in this pilot test,
your time is greatly appreciated.
100
WORD PROCESSING INSTRUCTION SET
1. Launch the application Microsoft Word or OpenOffice.org.org Writer located on the

desktop. Please start with the assigned application.
2. Go to “File” then “Open” and open the file “Word Processing – Document” located
in the folder named Data on the desktop.
3. Determine the number of words and pages in the document.
4. Replace all instances of “TCO” with “Total Cost of Ownership”.
5. At the beginning of the document, before the introduction, create a numbered list of
definitions using Roman numerals with the following items and sub items.
TCO: Total Cost of Ownership
OSS: Open-source Software
COTS: Commercial Off-the-shelf Software
- Generalized term for software that must be purchased.
- Includes any form of proprietary software and source code.
GNU: GNU’s Not Unix
- A recursive acronym for the open-source organization
OSI: Open-source Initiative
6. In the first footnote, make the text
http://turingmachine.org/opensource/papers/lerner2002.pdf a hyperlink and verify
that the link works.
7. Find the block quote that starts with “This project, called GNU” and create an
endnote reference with the following citation:
Kenwood, Carolyn A. A Business Case Study of Open-source Software. MITRE.
2001.
8. Create a comment/note for the heading “Other Major OSS Projects” stating “This
section will be divided into subsections with specific OSS projects.”
9. Locate the paragraph that begins with “The Linux operating system is becoming a
huge competitor to Microsoft Windows” and insert a table below the paragraph with
four rows and two columns.
10. Add a 4pt blue border on the outside of the table and 1pt black borders on all inside
borders.
11. In the first column, insert the values Windows, UNIX, Linux, and Solaris in each
consecutive cell and change the font style to 14 pt bold.
12. In the second column, insert the values 25%, 30%, 15%, and 30% with right
justification.
13. Go to page 4 and insert the image file image.gif located in the folder named Data
below the heading “History of Open-source”
101
14. Open the file “Word Processing – Data” located in the folder named Data using
Microsoft Excel.
15. Copy the cells with data and paste into the document below the picture.
16. Create a document header with your name left justified and a footer that has today’s
date left justified and the page number right justified.
17. Modify the document properties Title and Subject with text of your choice.
18. Save the document as Document_Lastname_Firstname (using your name) in the
folder on the desktop named Results.
19. Close this document and create a new blank document.
20. Change the size to a #10 Envelope in landscape mode.
21. Create a mail merge using the “Word Processing – Mail Merge” spreadsheet located
in the folder named Data as the recipient addresses. Insert a static return address
using your name and address.
22. Finish the mail merge and save the document as Mail_Merge_Lastname_Firstname in
the folder named Results located on the desktop.
102
SPREADSHEET INSTRUCTION SET
1. Launch the application Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice.org.org Calc located on the

2. Go to “File” then “Open” and open the file “Spreadsheet – Data” located in the
folder named Data on the desktop.
3. Change the top row to have the following properties:
a. Font: Times New Roman, Bold
b. Fill Color: Light Blue
c. Row Height: 25
4. Change the cell G1 from “Total:” to “Average:”
5. Change the formula in the cell H1 to calculate the average instead of the sum of
column B.
6. Create a column next to the “Price” column and name it “Sales Tax”.
7. For each cell in the column (excluding the header), calculate the sales tax based on a
7% sales tax rate.
8. Make all cells in this column protected.
9. Create another column named “Total” next to “Sales Tax” and calculate the sum of
the price and sales tax for each product.
10. Create a conditional format for the total column with the following properties:
a. If price is less than $25, fill the cell in green.
b. If price is within $25 and $100, color the text yellow.
c. If price is greater than $100, fill the cell in red.
11. Change the “Price” and “Sales Tax” column to display currency with two decimal
places.
12. Go to the “Items” sheet and sort the “Data” column in ascending order.
13. Create a calculated cell to determine the number of elements in the data column.
14. Create a calculated cell of the standard deviation of the data column.
15. Remove all duplicate values in the data column.
16. Return to the “Products” sheet and select cell H2 and make an absolute reference to
the cell with the standard deviation in it from the “Items” sheet.
17. Copy the “Items” sheet to a new sheet labeled “Items – Copy”.
18. Create a bar graph based on the prices and products (from the products sheet). Include
a custom title, legend, and appropriate scale.
19. Create a new sheet named “Bar Graph” and move the graph to this sheet.
103
20. Save the spreadsheet as Spreadsheet_Lastname_Firstname in the folder on the
desktop named Results.
104
PRESENTATION INSTRUCTION SET
1. Launch the application Microsoft PowerPoint or OpenOffice.org.org Impress located

on the desktop. Please start with the assigned application.
2. Create a new blank presentation and save it as Presentation_Lastname_Firstname in
the folder on the desktop named Results.
3. Select a template theme of your choice and apply it to the presentation.
4. Change the background to the image file background.jpg located in the folder named
Data located on the desktop.
5. On the first slide create a title “Pilot Test Results” using the following properties:
a. Font: Verdana, Bold
b. Size: 24pt
6. Create three new blank slides after slide 1.
7. Go to slide 4 and create a bulleted list with these three lines:
Literature Review
External Government Agency Survey
Pilot Test
8. Copy slide 4 and insert it before slide 2.
9. Go to slide 2, and create a 4x3 table. Fill in each cell with any text of your choice.
10. Change the formatting of the table to have a thick outer border and a thinner inner
border around each cell.
11. Open the file “Presentation – Data” located in the folder named Data on the desktop
using Microsoft Excel.
12. Copy the all the data into slide 2 below the table. Make sure both items do not
overlap.
13. Go to slide 3 and draw the following diagram using the available drawing tools:
14. Insert the picture named photo.jpg located in the folder named Data, into a new slide.
105
15. Add a background shadow and white border to the photo.
16. Center and enlarge the photo to fill about 90% of the slide.
17. Create a header on each slide with your name and the respective slide number.
18. Change the background of the slides to a solid blue color.
19. Set the resolution of the presentation to 1024x768.
20. Create the following transitions between slides.
a. Slide 1 and 2: Vertical Wipe, fast transition, on mouse click
b. Slide 2 and 3: Dissolve, slow transition, Automatic
21. View the slide show and cycle through each slide to check transitions.
22. Save the presentation as Presentation_Lastname_Firstname in the folder named
Results on the desktop.
106
DATABASE INSTRUCTION SET
1. Launch the application Microsoft Access or OpenOffice.org.org Base located on the

2. Create a new empty database.
3. Create the following tables with the respective fields listed below.
a. Cars
car_make – text
car_model – text
year – decimal
category_id – int
b. Categories
category_id - int
category_name – text
category_description – text
c. People
person_id – int
person_first_name – text
person_last_name - text
4. Import the Microsoft Excel document named “Database – Data,” located in the
folder Data on the desktop, into the database mapping the appropriate fields.
5. Add three new records/rows to the “cars” table with any data.
6. Create a one-to-many relationship between products and categories respectively
based on the category _id.
7. Remove the “person_name” field in the People table and replace it with
“person_first_name” and “person_last_name”
8. Create a query to return all cars with a year newer than 2005 and are either in the
sedan, sports, or luxury car categories.
9. Export all the returned data to a spreadsheet and save the spreadsheet as
Database_Lastname_Firstname in the folder Results located on the desktop.
10. Create a report with a table view based on the previously created query.
11. Create a form based on the cars table to allow for easy data entry of new cars and also
includes a drop-down list of available categories to choose from.
107
APPENDIX H: OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™ INDIVIDUALIZED
RESULTS
1. Which instruction set did you work through?
Participant 1 Database - Microsoft Access and OpenOffice.org Base
Participant 2 Spreadsheet - Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc
Participant 3 Word Processing - Microsoft Word and OpenOffice.org Writer
Participant 4 Spreadsheet - Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc
Participant 6 Presentation - Microsoft PowerPoint and OpenOffice.org Impress
108
2. In which order did you use the applications?
Order
Participant 1 First OpenOffice.org, then Microsoft Office
Participant 2 First Microsoft Office, then OpenOffice.org
109
3. Please rate your overall experience and knowledge of computer applications.
(1 - No Experience, 5 - Extensive Experience)
Experience Level
Participant 1 4
Participant 2 4
Participant 3 2
Participant 4 3
Participant 5 2
Participant 6 4
Participant 7 5
Participant 8 5
Participant 9 4
Participant 10 5
Participant 11 5
Participant 12 4
Participant 13 3
Participant 14 3
110
4. Please rate your overall experience and skill level with Microsoft Office and
OpenOffice.org.
(1 - No Experience, 5 - Extensive Experience)
Microsoft Office OpenOffice.org
Participant 1 4 2
Participant 2 4 1
Participant 3 2 1
Participant 4 1 1
Participant 5 3 2
Participant 6 5 1
Participant 7 4 4
Participant 8 5 5
Participant 9 4 2
Participant 10 4 4
Participant 11 3 3
Participant 12 4 4
Participant 13 4 1
Participant 14 3 1
111
5. What feature do you find most important in office applications?
Usability Functionalit
Security Speed/Performance Reliability Other
Efficiency y
Participant 1 X
Participant 2 X
Participant 3 X
Participant 4 X
Participant 5 X
Participant 6 X
Participant 7 X
Participant 8 X
Participant 9 X
Participant 10 X
Participant 11 Compatibility
Participant 12 X
Participant 13 X
Participant 14 X
112
6. Please rate the ease of menu navigation with each application.
(1 - Very Difficult, 5 - Very Easy)
Microsoft
OpenOffice.org Additional Comments
Office 2007
Participant 1 2 4
Participant 2 2 4
Participant 3 2 3
Participant 4 3 2
Participant 5 2 4
Participant 6 4 4
Participant 7 4 3
I have hardly ever used Office 2007. If we were using 2003 I

Participant 8 2 4
would have had a much easier time.
In Open Office it was very hard to try to select a background
for all slides, which should be a pretty simple thing to do. It
was also hard to select picture options of any type,
background shadow- there is just not usability features for it.
Participant 9 4 1 Also, both applications fail in trying to resize the large data
set. not really sure why. Both applications make it hard to
set inside/outside borders of the table. Apparently it’s really
easy to set both outside borders, but if you want to do inside,
well then it will take some creative thought.
Participant 10 3 4
Participant 11 2 2 Neither was all that intuitive
Open Office is much more similar to the version of Office I

use at home (Microsoft Office XP) than Microsoft Office
Participant 12 3 4 2007, so it took me a while to get used to the menus. But in
MSO, once I got used to the menus they made a lot of
sense. I liked how they were organized somewhat intuitively.
never found out how to add page numbers on Open Office!

Participant 13 4 2
Some functions just seemed hidden to me.
This might just be because I hate the setup of the new

Participant 14 3 4 Powerpoint in Microsoft Office--I’m so used to drop down
menus that it’s hard to adjust.
113
7. Please rate the ease of learning features and functionality with each application.
(1 - Very Difficult, 5 - Very Easy)
Microsoft Office
2007
Participant 1 2 4
Participant 2 3 4
Participant 3 4 4
Participant 4 3 2
Participant 5 1 4
Participant 6 4 4
Participant 7 4 4
There are a ton of features. Normally I would

Participant 8 3 3
google it.
Participant 9 4 2
Participant 10 2 3
I had to use OpenOffice.org’s help files in order to

Participant 11 3 3 figure out how to import data. However, I was
unable to retain IDs when importing in Access.
Participant 12 5 5
Participant 13 5 4
Participant 14 4 4
114
8. Please rate the efficiency of each application; i.e. how quickly were you able to
accomplish tasks?
(1 - Not Efficient Whatsoever, 5 - Very Efficient)
Microsoft Office
2007
Participant 1 2 3
Participant 2 3 4
While these are overall grades, I feel that the

Participant 3 4 4 efficiency varied considerably between tasks on
each application.
Participant 4 3 2
Participant 5 3 4
Participant 6 4 4
Participant 7 4 4
Both are efficient if you know what you are looking

Participant 8 4 4
for and don’t have to find it/figure it out.
Participant 9 4 2
Participant 10 2 4
Participant 11 3 2
I had to look up how to do some things in the help

file during the first session (Open Office for me), so
Participant 12 5 4
it took me a bit longer, but overall it was easy and
quick.
Participant 13 4 2
Both were about equally efficient--I ran into snags

Participant 14 4 4
equally.
115
9. Which application do you think is most comparable to Microsoft Office 2003?
Microsoft Office 2007 OpenOffice.org Additional Comments
Participant 1 X
Participant 2 X
Participant 3 X
Participant 4 X
Participant 5 X
everything is mostly in the same places and uses

Participant 6 X
the same symbols
Participant 7 X
The change in menu style from 2003 to 2007 is

Participant 8 X
large and can be confusing.
Participant 9 X
Participant 10 X
Participant 11 X
As I said before, the menus were more similar in

Open Office. I like the “new” style of 2007, but it
Participant 12 X would take some getting used to before I was as
proficient with it as I am with Open Office and
older versions of Microsoft Office.
Participant 13 X
The new Microsoft Office is very different from the

Participant 14 X
old Microsoft Office.
116
10. For the application you find most similar to Microsoft Office 2003, which aspect do
you think is most similar?
Ease of Small Learning

Functionality/Features Navigation Other (please specify)
Use Curve
Participant 1 X
Participant 2 X
Participant 3 X
Participant 4 X
Participant 5 X
Participant 6 X
Participant 7 X
Participant 8 X
Participant 9 X
Participant 10 X
Participant 11 X
Participant 12 X
Participant 13 X
Participant 14 X
117
11. Please rate what you expect your personal learning curve to be with each
application.
(1 - Large Learning Curve, 5 - No Learning Curve)
Microsoft Office 2007 OpenOffice.org
Participant 1 2 4
Participant 2 3 4
Participant 3 3 4
Participant 4 3 2
Participant 5 3 3
Participant 6 4 4
Participant 7 3 3
Participant 8 4 4
Participant 9 4 2
Participant 10 2 3
Participant 11 2 3
Participant 12 3 5
Participant 13 5 2
Participant 14 2 2
118
12. Please describe your overall experience with Microsoft Office 2007.
Comments
The menus were extremely difficult to navigate. Had to resort to using the help feature multiple
Participant 1
times in order to complete certain tasks.
Participant 2 It is difficult to navigate through the icons.
Very pleasant appearance but often difficult to find functions due to the navigation set-up.
Participant 3
Keyboard and automatic shortcuts I managed to find were extremely handy.
Participant 4 Confusing but had good information in the help menu. Was difficult.
I did not like it very much. If I was simply writing a paper for a class it would have been simple
Participant 5 to use, however, the creation of a box, among other slightly more complex functions was
difficult.
Participant 6 It was pretty easy since I had used Microsoft Office before
Participant 7 Well over all the experience was pretty good, just had to get use to the user interface
I hate the new menu system. It does not seem as intuitive to me and there are more places to
Participant 8
have to look to find items.
I really liked Microsoft PowerPoint presentation 2007. There was lots of awesome options like
smart graphics for the charts. I struggled trying to create a hierarchical chart in Open Office..
Participant 9 Additionally important is that I started to like Office the more I got to discover all the cool
features. I mean there few a few areas in Office where something simple could be confusing
like the table borders, but I also found this confusing in Open Office
It was easier to find the different database views, but not much seemed to work how I wanted it
Participant 10
to.
Glossy and error-free though sometimes wizards frustratingly limited options without explaining
Participant 11 what was going on. Specifically, importing data. What was that?? Very confusing. Only had
success importing to a new table then copy-pasting.
I really liked it. The interface is very user-friendly, and after getting used to the organization of
Participant 12
the menus it was easy to navigate.
Pretty easy to find things though the style of the toolbars were different. Different look, but the
Participant 13
tools were stored in the same places.
I hate the new way it’s set up, but for all I know, after using it for a little, I could get to like it
Participant 14
better.
119
13. Please describe your overall experience with OpenOffice.org.
Comments
Similar to Office 2003 (the version of Office that I have used the most). Menus were not very
Participant 1
difficult to navigate as well as finding certain functions.
Participant 2 The layout is very similar to Microsoft Office 2003.
Extremely easy to find functions, but occasionally difficult to control them efficiently. Not as
Participant 3
pretty as Office, but every bit as functional.
Looked more like what I was used to, but could not find certain buttons/applications. Was
Participant 4
difficult.
Open Office was very very similar to the old Microsoft Word that I am used too. It was easy to
Participant 5
use and learning the different commands was simple and quick.
Participant 6 About the same as Office, but was a little difficult to get use to
There was a little difficult on some task like importing data is a pain. In addition the user
Participant 7
interface is really basic
I like OpenOffice.org because its menu system is similar to 2003 which is what I am used to
Participant 8
using.
I was pretty frustrated with Open Office. It made me so frustrated that I stopped about 5
minutes before completion at this activity. It just seems like some simple things I could not
Participant 9
figure out how to do. Like change the background setting to blue. All the backgrounds were
all like Open Office templates and crap. It was just very very frustrating
Participant 10 I couldn’t find the relationships view, but everything else went pretty smoothly.
Received quite a few error messages but was able to work through all of them. Once I
appeared to reach a weird state in which an edit to a table was not saved, but the design
Participant 11
window was closed, and I could not add any more records to the table. Re-opening the edit
table window and saving seemed to do the trick.
OpenOffice.org is very familiar to me, so I had no problems using it. It is very similar to the
Participant 12
products I have been using for years now, so it was familiar.
I had an ok time with it - some things were easier, like the headers and footers - but I was kind
of frustrated with finding functions because I’m used to Microsoft Office and had to re-create
Participant 13
motor pathways because the functions were stored under different headings or you had to go
through a totally different channel to get what you want.
Participant 14 The experience with OpenOffice.org was great. Very navigable.
120
14. Describe any frustrations or difficulties you had with using each pilot test
application.
Understanding placement of Importing an excel spreadsheet and moving it into the

Participant 1
functions in the top section. database.
It was difficult to find the icon

Participant 2 I could not figure out how to protect one column of data.
that I wanted.
word count, adding borders to

Participant 3 hyperlink, numbered list
table
Conditional Formatting easy, but putting the colors in was

Participant 4
extremely hard.
I could not find what I wanted to

Participant 5 do because of the redesigned Simple, Easy, Effective
tabs and menus.
Participant 6 Finding tools
one too many in the

Participant 7 relationship, data importing one too many in the relationship, importing data is a pain
could be better
Participant 8 Navigating the menus None.
setting table borders, and setting background colors, table borders, resizing data
Participant 9
resizing data tables tables, I GOT LESS INTERESTED
Participant 10 Complex display Too many windows
Importing data. And the query

designer. Not clear the grouping Not sure why no results were returned from my query.
Participant 11
of “or” operator. Incorrect query Confident a bit more time and I would have figured it out.
at first.
Participant 12 The envelope formatting was kind of difficult
Hard to find where the function I wanted was. Had to go to

help a couple times, and that worked. I would have probably
gone back to help if time hadn’t been up, because I was
Weird to adjust to pictures, style
Participant 13 having trouble even inserting page numbers! It seemed like
of toolbar/menu
you had to click around more to get what you want, but
maybe that’s just because I’m relatively used to Microsoft
Office.
You can’t even find the help It was difficult to draw the diagram, because I couldn’t find
Participant 14 button right away! And the where the toolbar was--then I realized it was at the bottom of
menus are so confusing the screen.
121
15. Describe any features or functionality that you couldn’t find in each office product.
Certain relationship attributes (many to one) No easy option to import external information
Participant 1
options. into databases.
protecting a column of data and a formula to

Participant 2 deleting duplicates
delete duplicates
Participant 3 word count, end notes,
average/sum buttons. Had to create my own

Participant 4
formula.
Participant 5
Participant 6 slide transitions none
data importing beside copy and pasting which

Participant 7 not really
the help actually tell you to do
I couldn’t find a graceful way to get the I couldn’t find a graceful way to get the footer to
Participant 8 footer to have a left and right justified item have a left and right justified item on the same
on the same line. line.
Participant 9 everything was there well table border background colors, picture options like shadow
I think I found everything, but none of it

Participant 10 Relationships view
worked
Import arbitrary columns of Excel data into Interactive designer for conditions in the query
Participant 11
existing tables designer
Participant 12 4 pt borders - only had 3 and 4.5pt.
I got stuck on modifying the document

properties, but I’m not sure what that means freakin’ page numbers. The border thing was
Participant 13
still - the thing at the top? Never found out harder to find too.
how/what that was.
My final presentation (with following the

Participant 14
instructions) looked awful at the end of this.
122
16. Please provide any additional comments you may have on the OpenOffice Challenge
and pilot test applications.
Comments
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Both were difficult. Spent more time on OpenOffice.org looking for things. Found what I was
Participant 4
looking for on Microsoft, but spent more time figuring out how to use it.
Participant 5 Fun time.s
Participant 6
Participant 7
I used to use OpenOffice.org extensively before I purchased a copy of Word 2003 so I am very
familiar with its features and where they are located in the menu system. I don’t like the new
Participant 8
menu system in Word 2007 but if I used it more I would probably be able to use it to the same
level as 2003, I just don’t want to take the time to use it right now.
Okay the bottom line here for me during this session, is that I was impressed by Office 2007
sets of features. The ribbon option at the top made it very easy to use and thus made me
Participant 9
engaged and interested to finish the project. I got very disinterested on Open Office and then
became frustrated and consequently gave up. It just does not compare at all.
I think my learning curve for OpenOffice.org would be less then for Office 2007, because of my
Participant 10
knowledge of Office 2003 and almost all of other computer applications.
OO.o could use some more UI polish, including avoiding error messages by doing things
Participant 11 automatically or suggesting an appropriate course of action. And hey, does OO.o input/export
a superset of formats supported by Office? Wicked.
Participant 12
I liked the Microsoft Office better, overall. It was more fun, and prettier. The Open Office
Participant 13
seemed like something I could get used to, but it wasn’t pretty and seemed more difficult.
I think OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office are very similar--they both have strengths and
Participant 14 weaknesses, but since OpenOffice.org is free, it’s a no-brainer that companies should be using
it instead of paying for Microsoft Office, which isn’t any better or worse, really.
123
APPENDIX I: OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™ SUMMARIZED RESULTS
Word Processing - Microsoft Word and OpenOffice.org Writer 35.7% 5
Spreadsheet - Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc 14.3% 2

Presentation - Microsoft PowerPoint and OpenOffice.org
21.4% 3
Impress
Database - Microsoft Access and OpenOffice.org Base 28.6% 4
First Microsoft Office, then OpenOffice.org 42.9% 6
First OpenOffice.org, then Microsoft Office 57.1% 8

No Extensive
Experience Experience
1 2 3 4 5 Rating Average
Experience Level 0 2 3 5 4 3.79
OpenOffice.org.
No Extensive
Microsoft Office 1 1 3 7 2 3.57
OpenOffice.org 6 3 1 2 1 2.15
124
Usability/Efficiency 71.4% 10
Security 0.0% 0
Speed/Performance 0.0% 0
Reliability 7.1% 1
Functionality 14.3% 2

Very
Very Easy
Difficult
Microsoft Office 2007 0 6 4 4 0 2.86
Very
Very Easy
Difficult
accomplish tasks?
Not Efficient Very
Whatsoever Efficient
Microsoft Office
0 2 4 7 1 3.50
2007
125
Microsoft Office 2007 21.4% 3
OpenOffice.org 78.6% 11
10. For the application you find most similar to Microsoft Office 2003, which aspect do
you think is most similar?
Ease of Use 0.0% 0
Small Learning Curve 0.0% 0
Functionality/Features 50.0% 7
Navigation 50.0% 7
application.
Large Learning No Learning

Curve Curve
Rating
1 2 3 4 5
Average
126
APPENDIX J: WILCOXON SIGNED-RANK TEST TABLE
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

Critical Values Table
alpha = 0.05 for one-tail analysis
alpha = 0.10 for two-tail analysis
TL TU
2 19
4 24
6 30
8 37
11 44
14 52
17 61
21 70
26 79
30 90
36 100
41 112
47 124
54 136
60 150
68 163
75 178
83 193
92 208
101 224
110 241
120 258
130 276
141 294
152 313
Source:
http://business.fullerton.edu/isds/zgoldstein/361b/Extensions/Wilcoxon/Wilcoxon%20signed%20rank.doc
127
APPENDIX K: OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™ EXIT SURVEY
Thank you for participating in the OpenOffice Challenge. The Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) is examining the use of Open-source Software as an alternative
to commercial products. This exit survey is designed to gain an understanding of the
usability of OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office 2007 as well as gain insight to the
opinions of Microsoft Office users. Please take the next 10-15 minutes to complete the
brief series of questions.
1. Please enter your contact information.
2. Which describes you best?
College Student
Work Full Time
Retired
Other
Word Processing - Microsoft Word and OpenOffice.org Writer
Spreadsheet - Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc
Presentation - Microsoft PowerPoint and OpenOffice.org Impress
Database - Microsoft Access and OpenOffice.org Base
First Microsoft Office, then OpenOffice.org
First OpenOffice.org, then Microsoft Office
No Extensive
1 2 3 4 5
128
OpenOffice.org.
No Extensive
1 2 3 4 5
Microsoft Office
OpenOffice.org

Usability/Efficiency
Security
Speed/Performance
Reliability
Functionality
Other (please specify)
Very Very Easy

Difficult
1 2 3 4 5
Microsoft Office
2007
OpenOffice.org
Additional
Comments:
129
Very Very Easy

Difficult
1 2 3 4 5
Microsoft Office
2007
OpenOffice.org
Additional
Comments:
accomplish tasks?
Not Very
Efficient Efficient
Whatsoever
1 2 3 4 5
Microsoft Office
2007
OpenOffice.org
Additional
Comments:
Microsoft Office 2007
OpenOffice.org
Additional Comments:
12. For the question above, which aspect do you find most similar?
Ease of Use
Small Learning Curve
Functionality/Features
Navigation
Other (please specify)
130
application.
Large No
Learning Learning
Curve Curve
1 2 3 4 5
Microsoft Office
2007
OpenOffice.org
Additional
Comments:
14. Please describe your overall experience with Microsoft Office 2007.
15. Please describe your overall experience with OpenOffice.org.
16. Describe any frustrations or difficulties you had with using each pilot test
application.
Microsoft Office 2007:
OpenOffice.org 2007:
17. Describe any features or functionality that you couldn’t find in each office
product.
Microsoft Office 2007:
OpenOffice.org 2007:
18. Please provide any additional comments you may have on the OpenOffice
Challenge and pilot test applications.
131
APPENDIX L: MICROSOFT LICENSING QUESTIONNAIRE
The following information was provided on February, 9 2009 by Bianka Lee, an ADOT
employee knowledgeable in client-side Microsoft licensing for the department. The
questions are in regard to Microsoft licensing contracts with ADOT.
All Microsoft licensing questions refer only to desktop/workstation software contracts;
please exclude server software licensing.
1. What is the typical fiscal year (or longer duration) for Microsoft licensing
contracts?
3 years
2. What is the duration and expiration date of the current Microsoft licensing
contract?
Start Date: August, 1 2008
End Date: July 31, 2011
3. Are there any other applications typically included in the Microsoft licensing
plan other than Windows and Office software?
We add server software products that support our email, such as Exchange Client and
Exchange Server, We also purchase SQL Cal, and for our software programmers we
include Visual Studio with MSDN
4. Please give a description of how costs are determined for licensing plans (outside of
software choice)?
We work closely with a contracted third party and directly with our MS reps if
needed. Microsoft Enterprise Subscription Agreement is a software volume licensing
program designed for corporate customers, with 250 or more desktops, who prefer to
subscribe to — rather than purchase — Microsoft software licenses. We have the
ability to standardize the enterprise by licensing Microsoft Enterprise products
(Microsoft Office Professional, Microsoft Windows® Professional Upgrade, and
Core Client Access License) at discounted prices. Additional products available under
subscription offer a broad selection including Visio, Project, Windows servers and
Exchange servers.
5. How does the number of users/employees affect cost, i.e. are there ranges for the
number of users that determine cost, or is the plan simply dependent on the total
number of users?
Numbers are a major factor determining discount costs for our agency. The
Enterprise Agreement (EA) provides us a way to acquire the latest Microsoft
technology, standardize IT across the enterprise, simplify license management and get
maintenance benefits. EA supports organizations with 250 or more desktops. With
Enterprise, you get lower total cost of ownership, annual payments over the three-
year term and improved workplace productivity by standardizing on Microsoft
software. And with Software Assurance, you get eligibility for the latest upgrades,
deployment support and training for all enrolled products.
6. Please give a description of the current Microsoft licensing plan:
State agencies with a minimum of 250 desktops that wish to license 100% of their
qualified desktops for a three-year period can initiate a subscription. Non-perpetual
software use rights provide temporary use of software with an option to buy out
software licenses for permanent use rights. An annual PC count enables an
organization to shape software license acquisition needs around fluctuations in the
132
enterprise. Annual payments for the three-year enrollment term keep budgeting
predictable, with a renewal option of one or three years they are both part of the
licensing plan but you can order according to what is needed.
7. Does the current licensing plan umbrella over both Windows and Office, or are
they handled as separate licensing plans?
Supports both.
8. Which Office applications are included in the current licensing plan for general
users?
Word, Excel, Power Point, Access, One Note
9. If there are any Office applications not included in the licensing plan in general,
how is licensing handled when they are needed?
There [is] a per instance licensing charge for situations where non-standard
application such as [Microsoft] Project is needed.
10. Which versions are covered in the current licensing plan for each application?
Windows – XP, Vista and/or current
Office – 2003 and 2007 or current
11. How does the current licensing plan handle multiple versions of the same
software? e.g. if Windows 2000 and XP are both deployed across the department.
Our agency just completed an agency-wide upgrade to Windows XP. We have the
ability to upgrade to Vista any time. Same with Office 2003, [it] is our current
standard, but [we] have moved some to Office 2007. It is whatever is supported by
our technical staff.
12. What is the additional cost (if any) for including multiple versions of the same
software?
Our contracted price is quoted.
13. Include any other significant details about the licensing plan that may be useful
for the study.
By adding Software Assurance, you get automatic access to software upgrades plus
tools, training and support to help your organization deploy and use software
efficiently.
14. Does the current Microsoft licensing plan include Office 2007?
Yes
15. If so, what is the cost (if any) of having this in addition to Office 2003?
No cost.
16. If so, are there any restrictions for deploying Office 2007, i.e. any limit to the
number of users who may use it?
The limit is determined on the contracted quantity set by our agency. If we end up
with more desktops, than we need to do a trueup76 and that can be done at any time,
or beginning of each fiscal year. We cannot reduce the number of original contract
until the contract expires.
17. If not, what is the plan (if any) to add Office 2007 to the current of future
licensing plans?
76
A true-up, in the context of Microsoft licensing, is a census of computer hardware and software used to
determine the difference in the number licenses that are supported by an Enterprise Agreement (EA) and
the number of licenses that are actually being used. At this point in time, the EA is realigned to match the
number of actively used licenses.
133
We may use terminal services and have server process the application. PCs are too
old to upgrade.
18. How many ADOT users does the current Microsoft licensing plan cover, or if
there isn’t a limit how many ADOT users were estimated to be covered under
the licensing plan?
Current plan covers 5500 desktops.
134
APPENDIX M: ADOT ANNUAL MICROSOFT LICENSING COSTS
The following information was provided on February, 9 2009 by Bianka Lee, an ADOT
employee knowledgeable in client-side Microsoft licensing for the department. The data
are in regard to Microsoft licensing contracts with ADOT.
Renewal Quote Cost Quantity Total
Office Pro SA $81.97 5000 $409,850.00
Windows Vista OS SA $32.13 5000 $160,650.00
Exchange Std Cal SA $10.75 5000 $53,750.00
Windows Std Cal SA $4.66 5000 $23,300.00
Exchange Ent Edit Cal SA w/Srvs Device $14.98 5000 $74,900.00
SA
SQL Cal SA $24.62 5000 $123,100.00
Line of Business Machine Licenses
Windows Vista OS SA only $32.13 300 $9,639.00
Windows Vista OS Upgrade and Software $48.58 200 $9,716.00
Assurance
Windows Std Cal SA only $4.66 300 $1,398.00
Windows Std Cal License and SA $32.72 200 $6,544.00
SQL Cal SA Only $24.62 300 $7,386.00
SQL Cal License and SA $51.59 200 $10,318.00
Windows Trmnl Svcs Cal SA $12.90 300 $3,870.00
Windows Std Srv SA $116.54 303 $35,311.62
Windows DataCenter Srv SA $386.39 20 $7,727.80
Windows ENT Srv SA $378.75 16 $6,060.00
Exchange Std Srv SA $112.24 39 $4,377.36
Exchange Ent Srv SA $642.63 11 $7,068.93
135
REFERENCES
Boldrin, Michele and David K. Levine. “Open-Source Software: Who Needs Intellectual
Property?” The Freeman 57, no. 1 (January/February 2007): 26-28.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/open-source-software-who-needs-
intellectual-property (accessed March 20, 2009).
CNET News.com. “Munich Fires up Linux at Last.” September 25, 2006.

http://news.cnet.com/Munich-fires-up-Linux-at-last/2100-7344_3-6119153.html
(accessed August 19, 2009).
Dibona, Chris, Danese Cooper and Mark Stone. Open-Source 2.0. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly, 2005.
Fishman, Stephen. “Open-Source Licenses Are Not All the Same.” ONLamp.com.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html (accessed March
20, 2009).
Fitzgerald, Brian and Tony Kenny. “Open-source Software in the Trenches: Lessons
From a Large-Scale OSS Implementation.” Thesis, 2003.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/pdf/events/2004/fitzgerald.p
df (accessed March 20, 2009).
Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org (accessed March 20, 2009).
The GNU Operating System. http://www.gnu.org (accessed March 20, 2009).
Godfrey, Michael W. and Qiang Tu. Evolution in Open-Source Software: A Case Study.
Proceedings of the IEEE Intl. Conference on Software Maintenance, (ICSM,
2000): 131.
Gonzalez-Barahona, Jesus M. A Brief History of Open-Source Software. Report.

http://eu.conecta.it/paper/brief_history_open_source.html (accessed March 20,
2009).
Haruvy, Eman, Fang Wu and Sujoy Chakravarty. “Incentives for Developers’

Contributions and Product Performance Metrics in Open-source Development: an
Empirical Exploration.” Working Paper, Indian Institute of Management –
Ahmedabad. http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2005-03-04sujoy.pdf
Hasan, Ragib. History of Linux. Report. https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/ (accessed

March 20, 2009).
136
Hoepman, Jaap-Henk. “Increased Security Through Open-source.” COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE ACM 50, no. 1 (January 2007): 79-83.
Kenwood, Carolyn A. A Business Case Study of Open-Source Software. Publication no.

01B0000048.
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_01/kenwood_software/kenw
ood_software.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
Kerner, Sean M. “OpenOffice Finds Sweet Spot with Governments.” InternetNews,

January 1, 2004. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3294431
Krishnamurthy, Sandeep. “An Analysis of Open-Source Business Models.” Making

Sense of the Bazaar: Perspective on Open-source and Free Software, Joseph
Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott Hissam and Karim Lakhani, eds., MIT Press,
Forthcoming. http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/bazaar.pdf (accessed
March 22, 2009).
Lakhani, Karim R., and Robert G. Wolf. “Why Hackers Do What They Do:
Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open-Source Software Projects.”
MIT Sloan Working Paper, No. 4425-03, MIT Sloan School of Management,
2005. http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf (accessed March 22,
2009).
LaMonica, Martin. “Massachusetts Finalises Open Standards Proposal.” ZDNet

Australia. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Massachusetts-finalises-
open-standards-proposal/0,130061733,139214476,00.htm (accessed March 22,
2009).
Lane, David. “Openz: A Brief History of Open-source.” Openz: Front Page.

http://www.openz.org/oshistory.php (accessed March 22, 2009).
Linux vs. Windows: Total Cost of Ownership Comparison. Publication.

http://www.cyber.com.au/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf
Local Government Embraces Open-source Technology. http://ch.ci.garden-

grove.ca.us/internet/is/linuxwhitepaper.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
Miller, Robin. “Secretaries use Linux, Taxpayers Save Millions.” Linux.com.

http://www.linux.com/feature/15416 (accessed March 22, 2009).
Open-source Business Opportunities for Canada’s Information and Communications

Technology Sector. Report. http://www.e-
cology.ca/canfloss/report/CANfloss_Report.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
137
Perry, Geva. “How Cloud & Utility Computing Are Different.” GigaOM.
http://gigaom.com/2008/02/28/how-cloud-utility-computing-are-different/
Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar—Musings on Linux and Open-source by
an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 1999.
Ricadela, Aaron. “Linux Comes Alive.” InformationWeek, January 24, 2000.
Riehle, Dirk. “The Economic Motivation of Open-source Software: Stakeholder

Perspectives.” IEEE Computer Society (April 2007): 25-32.
http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2007/computer-2007.pdf
“Roundtable: City of Haarlem and OpenOffice.org.” Roundtable: City of Haarlem and

OpenOffice.org. (accessed March 20, 2009).
Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel. Study into the Use of Open-source Software in the Public-
sector. Report. http://www.csi.map.es/csi/pdf/OSS_parte2_usoeneuropa.pdf
Scholtz, Mitch. The Case for Government Promotion of Open-Source Software. Report.
http://www.netaction.org/opensrc/oss-report.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
Scott, Brendan. Why Free Software’s Long Run TCO must be lower. Report.
http://members.optushome.com.au/brendanscott/papers/freesoftwaretco150702.ht
ml (accessed March 22, 2009).
Shankland, Stephen. “Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft.” CNET News.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-253320.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
An SMB Guide to Lower Database TCO. Technical paper.

http://www.sun.com/solutions/smb/docs/mysql_smb_guide.pdf (accessed March
20, 2009).
Stallman, Richard. “Philosophy of the GNU Project.” The GNU Operating System.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ (accessed March 22, 2009).
Stallman, Richard. “The GNU Manifesto.” The GNU Operating System.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
Tirole, Jean, and Josh Lerner. “Some Simple Economics of Open-source.” Journal of
Industrial Economics 50, no. 2 (2002): 197-234.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf (accessed March 22, 2009).
138
“Total Cost of Ownership.” Odellion.
http://www.odellion.com/pages/online%20community/TCO/financialmodels_tco_
definition.htm (accessed March 22, 2009).
Walker, Tom. The Future of Open-source in Government. Report. http://oss-

institute.org/newspdf/walker_oss_white_paper_2292004.pdf (accessed March 22,
2009).
“What is Copyleft?” Free Software Foundation.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
Wheeler, David A. Secure Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO.

http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/ (accessed
March 22, 2009).
Wheeler, David A. Why Open-source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or

FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Report.
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html (accessed March 22, 2009).
139

Open-Source As An Alternative To Commercial Software

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open-Source As An Alternative To Commercial Software

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPEN-SOURCE AS AN

Final Report 583

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

17. Keywords 18. Distribution statement 23. Registrant’s

API Application Programming Interface

Table 1: Brief Historical Timeline of Significant Open-source Events Page 20

Figure 1: External Agency Survey Question: “What is your department’s Page 34

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.3 EXTERNAL AGENCY SURVEY

1.4 THE OPENOFFICE CHALLENGE™

Generally speaking, commercial software is developed, distributed, and supported by

2.2 DEFINITIONS AND LICENSE TYPES

2.2.1 Free Software

2.2.2 The Open-source Definition

2.2.3 OSS Licenses

2.2.3.2 MPL (Mozilla Public License)

2.3 HISTORY OF OPEN-SOURCE

The Linux operating system is becoming a huge competitor to Microsoft Windows in

Table 1: Brief Historical Timeline of Significant Open-source Events

2.4 ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY

2.4.1 Open-source Initiative

2.4.2 Economics and Motivation

2.4.2.1 Gift Culture

2.4.3 Government and OSS

2.4.3.1 Notable Government Implementations

2.5 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

• Planning and Design

The IT industry relies extensively on TCO analysis to determine strategic purchases.

2.5.1 OSS Costs

2.5.1.1 Linux Implementation

A study done by Cybersource in 2002 “modeled an organization with 250 computer-

2.5.1.2 OSS Programming and Database Environments

2.6 OSS ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

2.6.1 Customization and Modularity

In addition to base software customization, modularization is an important aspect for

2.6.2 Security Models

2.6.3 Usability and Interfacing

2.6.4 Software Versioning

2.6.5 Reliability and Support

OSS is increasingly being viewed as a viable alternative to commercial software for

3.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

3.3 SURVEY RESULTS

3.3.1 Statistical Overview

3.3.2 Qualitative Findings

4.2 PILOT TEST METHODOLOGY

4.2.1 Key Objectives

4.2.2 Pilot Test Format

The timeline of the pilot test went as follows:

4.2.3 Participant Selection

4.3 DATA COLLECTION

4.3.2 Focus Group Discussion

4.4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.4.1 Statistical Analysis

To show significance, the statistical T value65 is compared to a standard Wilcoxon

H0: No significant difference exists between the resulting ranked data of

4.4.1.2 Question 6 Analysis

H1: OpenOffice.org has a greater ease of menu navigation.

Table 2. OpenOffice Challenge Survey Question 6 results ordered by

H1: OpenOffice.org is easier to learn features and functionality on.

H1: Microsoft Office 2007 has greater efficiency.

H1: OpenOffice.org has a lower expected personal learning curve