On the BBC, a report why Christian Aid charity are still using Closed Source (Windows) rather than Open Source. I’ve nothing against Windows- horses for courses mind. But it’s the reason that the techy guy gave!
…But Steven Buckley, who runs Christian Aid’s common knowledge programme, prefers to buy software from the likes of Microsoft. Is this not odd for a charity?
and
He also explained that what is seen as one of the advantages of open-source – that the core code can be examined by anyone – could actually work against the charity.
“We are a funding organisation that ships £90m around the world – the last thing you want to do is open up your systems to anybody to have a look at to deal with bugs,” he said.
Except guess what the Christian Aid website runs on? It runs on Linux… D’oh!
3 Comments
Hi David
CAid does run the web sites on Linux. The organisation never claimed that they didn’t use any open source. The story was actually about using the most appropriate tools for the job.
As it happens, when the new CAid websites go live in January, they will be running on a MS platform.
I think my objection goes a bit deeper. He was objecting to using Open Source because it could “open up your systems” – the evidence shows that there is really no difference between open and closed source as regards exposure to vulnerabilities.
Closed source systems are not more secure through obscurity. In fact, in encryption (which I bet is used somewhere along the way by Christian Aid), the opposite is true.
Actually he wasn’t really objecting about open source opening up systems or not – that was a question asked by the interviewer which received a quick response from Steven. The main thrust of the peice was in fact that open source is not a panacea and in some instances it is more appropriate for an organisation to use MS software than it is to use OSS. Remember the thrust of the interview was about how Christian Aid use productivity software in the field to help staff reach quick decisions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.