Hi Art.
Are there any tips or suggestions for more effectively advocating Free Software to non-profits?Yes, here's my number 1 tip:Please, for the love of all that is good and decent, open source developers and advocates need to cease and desist immediately with the collapsing of the open source universe into a single point, and recognize that the benefits of open source are dependent on a number of factors which are usually outside the perception range of those immersed init (i.e., with their heads up their asses).
That's a very good point. It's easy to "sell" people on the idea of Free Software because it's so "cheap", and people like things that save them money (even if they know there's no such thing as a free lunch). My particular tack of late has been to wow them with features instead of price: the superiority of tabbed browsing and automatic pop-up blocking in Mozilla Firefox; the multi-network instant messaging capabilities of GAIM. Of course, the nice thing about these two products is that Windows users can them out without going whole-hog into a Free Software operating system until before they're ready.
I'm fairly sure you're not directing your comments toward me personally, so please don't think that I'm justifying myself in any way. Rather, consider my experience as a bit of positive evidence that not all Free Software advocates are blind zealots:
In my work with the non-profit, we've conducted _extensive_ needs analysis. We've interviewed staff, we've talked to the board, we've developed a Vision statement, and we're working on a robust Technology Plan which will be used both to steer the IT investment as well as to solicit funding from donors interested in helping us get to where we're headed. I see some areas where Free Software is a good fit; and I see areas where it's not. I'm certainly not foisting my preferences onto an unsuspecting audience. I'm bringing to the discussion viable alternatives, and listening to and learning from the reactions.
1. The server is NOT the desktop. No matter how good Unix and Linux are on the server side that doesn't make them worth shit on the desktop, yet. When Linux and KDE/Gnome work as well or better than Mac OS X for the NON-TECHNICAL END-USER, then you can brag. Until then, when explaining open source to non-techies and especially non-profits, please be clear that much of the glory of open source is due to it's achievements on the server and not the desktop. Stop trying to be a Corporate Madison Avenue style shill and be clear about that difference. Tell people the truth and let them make up their own minds.
Why are you using OSX as the baseline for usability? I think far more non-profit organizations have Windows-based systems -- both at the office and at home. As for the "truth" that you speak of (I _think_ you mean to imply that GNU/Linux and most Free Software is more complicated to use than OSX, or presumably Windows), I think you're erring too far on the other side of the argument. _ANY_ software product will be challenging to use to someone who is inexperienced with computers generally, and who lacks the luxury of free time to get comfortable with it. I don't think I'm being a shill when I suggest that with the same amount of patience and effort, any reasonably competent person can learn to use the bulk of the current desktop software -- regardless of which platform it runs on.
In my experiences so far, GNU/Linux systems _do_ work as well as OSX and Windows in the environments where I've recommended it. In reality, many folks' computing requirements are quite boring, with some notable exceptions.
OSX has idiosyncracies. Windows has buggaboos. GNU/Linux has warts. Nothing's perfect, and any system will be evaluated not only by the quantifiable needs of the user and how well the product satisfies those needs, but also all kinds of ephemeral stuff. My mom _loves_ Microsoft Office because the Office Assistant is a cute little cat that sleeps atop her work! She was eager to use KDE when she saw the little green dragon on the login screen.
Microsoft and Apple have the deep pockets to pay for real world usability tests to gauge exactly these kinds of non-technical reactions. GNU/Linux, growing up with the bearded UNIX hackers of yore, relies on contributors to apply that extra polish. Polish is different from functionality; but I know folks poo-poo a lot of Free Software because it's not as polished. I think we're making great strides here, on the whole.
2. Open Source is NOT Linux. Please stop trying to force people to change their operating system every time and allow them the opportunity to experience open source solutions on Mac, Windows, and other platforms. The greatest damage done to the cause of open source is the FUD that has been spread by well-meaning but misguided people who have poor communications skills, and only know how to talk about FLOSS in the context of a complete operating system changeover. This is pathetic and it must come to an immediate stop. The way that open source will win hearts and minds and achieve critical mass is when essential applications that are easy to use become ubiquitous on platforms other than Linux and BSD. Stop masturbating over Linux and recognize that the OS is secondary to what most people care about.
I agree that essential applications across all platforms is a necessary requirement, but a stable and reliable foundation upon which to execute those essential applications is mandatory. The proliferation of Windows viruses, MSIE hijacks, and other malware makes it extremely difficult to actually be productive on a Windows-based computer.
I work with intelligent people, who are extremely good at what they do and _know_ better than to open strange emails. But they still follow links to funny web sites, and sometimes forget to install the latest MS patch, and what have you. A more secure system, with a stronger model of permissions, would go a long way toward letting these people concentrate on their work, instead of calling me to disinfect their systems yet again. End users ought to know how to be cautious, but they ought not be required to suspect and distrust everything on their computers.
3. Free does NOT mean Free. Stop leaning on the idea of open source software as being low-cost or free as being it's main selling point. While that applies in a very surface sense, a lot of hard work and labor goes into the production of open source software and if we want to look into the future, I'm talking about 30+ years from now, we need to recognize that the sustainability of open source can't rest on some sort of magical and inane conceptualization of cheap pricing. Stop the WalMartization and Americanization of open source production. American Capitalism loves to promote cheap products, but it tries to hide the actual oppressive anti-worker labor practices that get us those cheap products. That's why Imperialism is making a comeback, because people in their SUVs want cheap gas. Enough! People need to understand what the cost of open source labor is and they need to appreciate that, even if they aren't paying for it directly in dollars. Folks who don't code need to be encouraged to give money or other support whenever they can, not because they have to, but because it's the right and sustainable thing to do.
Ah, the conundruum of the four freedoms. I agree that the whole price argument is a non-starter, in the long run. But the GPL's Freedom Zero specifically grants people the right to use the product for whatever reason they want. If someone wants to use a piece of software for the _sole_ fact that it's free, great! If a person wants to use it simply because it's _not_ from Microsoft, great! The GPL doesn't make value judgements on usage.
Of course, non-GPL Free Software licenses are a whole other ball of wax.
4. Technology is NOT politics. Please stop mixing up and conflating two distinct and separate issues around open source: political/social philosophy vs. technical superiority/production process. I am sick and tired of people who seem to be unable to clearly lay out the arguments for open source along those two axises, without tripping over their tongue and throwing the two together. Not everyone is going to be won over to FLOSS for the same reasons and you need to learn how to communicate to non-nerds the different aspects of FLOSS so that they can then connect with the part that most clearly resonates with them. For some, the ideas of intellectual freedom and sharing are what will bring them over to FLOSS. For others, it will be purely a decision of technical superiority or ease-of-use that wins them over. However, unless you can clearly and concisely map out the FLOSS landscape, which few seem to be able to do, you only end up sowing more FUD. Some will say you can do both or that the two are inseparable, but I strongly disagree. It's not about what YOU think, it's about being able to communicate ideas to others so that they can make their own decisions. When talking about the non-profit world in particular, we need to get our act together in how we communicate the concepts of FLOSS to those not already a part of the community.
How appropriate that you use the word "community". That's _exactly_ how I've been looking at Free Software advocacy for the non-profit I work with. I know that community is important to these folks, and a solution that _has_ a community will be more interesting than a sterile "product". The opportunity to grow local talent and to contribute something back (whether a patch, or a simple HOWTO, or advocacy) is likely going to resonate with many.
Moreover, community development is a stated goal of the non-profit I work with. We're looking at developing a publicly accessible computer lab, to help students and seniors gain computer literacy, as well as to facilitate all sorts of programs and services (job searching, for example). My thinking is that if folks can get exposed to and comfortable with Free Software in the lab, it'll be comparatively easier to make available for purchase cheap, refurbed PCs with the _same_ software installed. Low-end systems can be purchased for a song these days. Free Software simultaneously removes the cost barrier to entry while nurturing a community of support. (Yes, I'm thinking 'pie in the sky' right now; but without such thoughts we won't get very far from the status quo!)
You have a lot of good points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Art, you've helped me crystalize some of my own.
Cheers, Scott