I'm not so sure that this is a surprise.

I admire Bill Gates and Microsoft in many ways. Far from a techie visionary (Gates is nothing of the sort, he has always been a follower technically and of trends - note his initial dismissal of the internet and that he initially purchased many of his subsequently successful products from other companies), his true achievement is to bring good business practice to software and show people how to build a strong market position and make a lot of money out of software (a bit like Murdoch in media/publishing). Good luck to him for this great achievement.

However, this doesn't mean that I think his products are much good or value for money compared to alternatives or that, from a consumer's point of view, I want to support his near-monopoly in various areas. Hence I use a Mac and few Microsoft products on it. I find alternatives usually superior and cheaper and by buying them I encourage further competition. This is entirely rational - many companies have multiple suppliers for the simple reason that it keeps other suppliers honest, even if it sometimes less convenient.

Could it be that free-marketeers come from, or have an appreciation of business, where cost saving is necessary. Most businesses constantly look for ways to reduce cost and open source software can provide huge savings - just compare Open Office with Microsoft Office, the use of which could save even a small enterprise thousands.

By comparison I suspect that most people working for "left" leaning think tanks have gained their experience within the public sector which has no concern about cost.

Don't the various components of the establishment tend to cleave together?

not entirely relevant, but amusing nonetheless

At COMDEX recently, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive, but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

8. Every time a new car was introduced, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again, because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

Microsoft products are right for some people in some uses. As it happens, to maintain a site such as those you mentioned, you're better off with something else than Microsoft's products... they are too expensive and provide little added value over gratis alternatives (that's my view, anyway).

Microsoft is a complex issue. They deal with a lot of governments are they are not shy about trying to outlaw their competition on silly reasons (e.g. open source is cancer/communism, etc.). On the other hand they are being persecuted because they are a successful business.

The lefties gravitate to the big is beautiful theory. Big government, Big Ideas, Big solutions from the top handed down from the philosopher kings to a grateful masses.

MS is their fantasy of what big government could be.

Blair loves Gates, they both think Microsoft is the future. All the love-ins they have at No. 10 are horrific.

An e-Government run on Windows is a nightmare.

Microsoft is used by those who know of nothing else but are happy to accept what is offered.

Open Source takes an inquiring, open mind that says "there might be something better, cheaper, faster or easier than what is offered (MS)".

I rest my case.

All very interesting, but probably not the real reason. If you check out Netcraft's survey at:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
you'll see that Apache has a huge lead in web servers.

An e-Government run on Windows is a nightmare.

I take someone else has been using the Inland Revenue website ! I presume it runs on MS IIS as it doesn't like Firefox in the slightest.

I take someone else has been using the Inland Revenue website ! I presume it runs on MS IIS as it doesn't like Firefox in the slightest.

Rumour has it that 'feature' of IIS was slipped into the latest patch as Firefox usage rocketed. Power...

The left is stupid. QED.

I realise this isn't pretending to be a serious survey, but that doesn't make it any more meaningful. The idea that most of these people either know or care what OS their website is on is laughable. They almost all will use third (or 4th or 5th) party providers. Basic website hosting is such a heavily commoditised business that decisions are made almost entirely on price and features, not underlying technology or strategy or anything else.

Do you think the fact that almost all universities use free software, and have done so far longer than anyone else, mean that they are massively cost-conscious outfits with an appreciation of the benefits of free thinking and free markets? Or is it that they have no cash spare, and like playing with weird geeky stuff, and hate Microsoft?

I have never, ever, found a correlation between personal politics and technology preferences. I detect a slight correlation between bland apathetic people and path-of-least-resistance choices, which often means Microsoft.

I also know, from experience, that money follows money. Entrepreneurs who foolishly involve themselves in the technical side of their business, like to buy from other people who they see as successful businespeople. Freesoftware doesn't count as that, so I've known them be skeptical on that basis. But sometimes, the low price tag is irresistable - it varies.

Big companies still have considerable resistance to free software, largely because they can't figure out its risk profile. This has more to do with the lumbering herd-like nature of large collective institutions such as big companies, rather than the beliefs of any individual in them.

jbs,
If it were merely an artifact of Apache's share of the market, you would expect to roughly equal distribution between the two groups.
Where this survey falls down is in rigor. It is not an exhaustive list and could be laid down to selection bias.
I note for example, that CATO is not listed. They happen to run on Apache, but the fact that they weren't listed tells me that there are many groups that are clearly on one side or the other that were not polled.

IT dept. != organizational philosophy.

I would be much more interested in usage patterns among individuals, as it correlated with political views (or vice versa), than "think tanks".

Bill Gates is essentially the Thomas Edison of our current age. Less technical perhaps, but n equally good businessman and promoter.

So far as who prefers which OS and software, sean morris has a point. Those that like centralized decision making may like MS, but at the same time, many of these smae folks have a distaste for 'the man'.

I use open source firefox and thunderbird. Not because they are better or not, but because I am cheap and they do what I want for free. The fact that firfox does some things better, some not, than IE is beside the point. Thunderbird has no calendar feature, but since I do not need that for personal use, I do not miss it.

OpenOffice, on the other hand, I think is NOT better than MS Office, but arguments can be made either way. But free OO compared to a couple hundred dollars for MSO, no contest.

Another factor with who uses what software is who to blame when something goes wrong. If you use software licensed from MS or other vendors, you have someone to whine to when there is a problem, and to call for support. With a lot of open source stuff, you need to maintain your own support staff. With MS and others, that staff is reduced, and maybe eliminated.

You also have someone to sue if something goes wrong. Lawyers and Insurance companies love that. Keeping the corporate legal department happy is a big part of any executives job.

So open source can be cheaper to aquire, but not always cheaper to run and maintain, and can have issues elsewhere.

The Mises site runs on MS and so do all the sites I have and look after for others. The reason I use MS is that I know how to use it and have the tools. I could learn php, etc but I'm already familiar with asp and asp.net. There is no difference, if you look widely enough, in pricing. It is purely a technical choice.

I'm not a fan of MS but I was until about 5 years ago when they introduced .net to the developer community.

I do not know about non-profits (well other than a few anyway) but many SME's who are involved in network infrastructure do very much care about the cost difference. They also care about the high reliability and the flexibility. The latter is not so important to the non-technology organization because unless you have a certain level of in house expertise you won't really be able to use it.

It has been my experience that libertarians are much more common amongst the techno-elite than in other walks of life... so for that reason alone I find the thesis of this article not so surprising

I'd guess a matter of whether groupthink and allowing others control over your life is palatable to you. In my experience, most libertarians are emotively as well as philosophically disinclined to surrender any personal sovereignty.

Hate to break it to GM, but I've had several of their cars, and they already run just about like that list.

Besides, if they were as good as computers, I could drive to the UK in a couple of minutes, browse around as long as I wanted, leave whenever I got sleepy, and be home in bed a few minutes later without ever having to change out of my sweatpants.

Old farts always look for the comfortable option.

Here in the US, the state of Tennesee has just announced that software will be one of the business assets subject to property tax, on a five year depreciation schedule. This should result in a significant shift to open source software if it shifts the balance past the tipping point.

Free marketeers are more likely to reject Microsoft because they want the best deal and are willing to search for it. Non-free marketers want to be told what to do and be compensated if they choose wrongly, so if they make the wrong choice they don't have to worry too much. Someone else must be to balme.

Free marketeers are more likely to reject Microsoft because they want the best deal and are willing to search for it. Non-free marketers want to be told what to do and be compensated if they choose wrongly, so if they make the wrong choice they don't have to worry too much. Someone else must be to balme.

tomWright - you are a fool. Tell me, where can one find the price of IE? Or Outlook Express?

I'm not sure what area you work in, but please show me where a company that has several servers doesn't have any support staff. EVERYBODY needs support staff when you have MS servers running file and print, web servers or the dreaded Active Directory/Exchange nightmare. Often the Unix/Linux guys can support the Windows servers as well. The reverse is not usually true.

As for support contracts there are plenty of companies willing to take your money for support - and they don't have to be the vendor either. In fact with outsourcing to for example IBM, one complains to IBM about the shoody Windows security (been in that boat) and not to MS. Several VERY large companies are in this situation.

The legal option. Well when Taiwan was knocked off of the internet due to the Slammer visit, could they sue MS? No. Maybe you should read that EULA next time you install an MS product - you may learn something.

The only thing holding back Open Source is the amount of money MS has in the bank. Their commercial and marketing machine must spend millions each year just in making people happy - I was at TechEd last year and the layout was MOST impressive.

Corporations are by nature conservative. I have suggested open source software to our management a couple of times. They scratch their heads and look scared.