"Is open source software more viable now with the economy in a downturn?
It’s a question that I really wonder about. I don’t think the cost of software is much of the total cost of deploying and using, much less building software, but that’s something that can be hard to argue with the people writing checks for software licenses. I think many of them see the people as a fixed, sunk cost and their time as “free.” I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I do see an argument there. If I can save $50k on licensing and I have you spend 1/2 your time writing something that works there (if you make $100k/yr), then maybe there’s a decent trade off."
This paragraph is not clear for me. At the last part of this paragraph, I suppose, the author says that some companies save money by purchasing the less expensive software (or even use a free soft), which has not all that functionality, that has an expensive one. The customization of this software takes more time, and the company loses several man-hours, but sometimes it is a good choice.
But I don’t understand the first part at all (“I don’t think the cost of software is much of…”). Does the author think that the total cost of deploying and using is the least part of software cost? But it does not make sense. Perhaps, there is another meaning of “much”, that I do not know…