Those who find this paper interesting may also be interested in the other documents available on David A. A short presentation (briefing) based on this paper is also available.
This paper has become long, there is now a supporting database of OSS/FS (FLOSS) quantitative studies that you may find easier to use.
Others have come to the same conclusions, for example, Forrester Research concluded in September 2006 that “Firms should consider open source options for mission-critical applications”.
Vendors of proprietary products often work hard to find numbers to support their claims; this page provides a useful antidote of hard figures to aid in comparing proprietary products to FLOSS.This paper been referenced by many other works, too. The following subsections describe the paper’s scope, challenges in creating it, the paper’s terminology, and the bigger picture.This is followed by a description of the rest of the paper’s organization (listing the sections such as popularity, reliability, performance, scalability, security, and total cost of ownership).However, no numbers could prove the broad claim that FLOSS is always “better” (indeed you cannot reasonably use the term “better” until you determine what you mean by it).Instead, I’ll simply compare commonly-used FLOSS software with commonly-used proprietary software, to show that at least in certain situations and by certain measures, some FLOSS software is at least as good or better than its proprietary competition.
An appendix gives more background information about OSS/FS. A short presentation (briefing) based on this paper is also available.