Why choose proprietary software over open source? Survey says!

As part of my interview with Dean Drako of Barracuda Networks, he mentioned to me some survey work Barracuda has done. Barracuda talked to 228 enterprise customers and asked what advantages open source has over proprietary software, and vice versa.

The answers were a bit surprising:

(Credit: Barracuda Networks)

First, open source's price tag is clearly an important driver. Yes, open source is much more than free, but it's often the first thing that captures the interest of an enterprise prospect (and, unfortunately, sometimes it's the last thing they forget).

But it's not just a question of price. Fifty-seven percent said that source code access matters, while 41 percent cited community code review as an important benefit of open source over proprietary software. Clearly, source code matters, whether the customer exercises such rights by proxy or directly.

Other things like bug fixes, which have been shown to be dramatically superior in open source, get taken for granted a bit. But take them away for awhile, and I would imagine that their importance would get called out by open-source users.

(Credit: Barracuda Networks)

What about proprietary advantages over open source? Sixty-five percent cited a lack of vendor professional services as an inhibitor to open source (meaning, qualified vendors to provide the services, like an Accenture or Wipro).

There is some truth to this, though its veracity is fading quickly. Every major system integrator is actively providing some open-source services, and every one of them with which I'm familiar (SAIC, Accenture, Unisys, CSC) is rapidly expanding its expertise well beyond Linux to cover open-source databases, middleware and applications.

In other words, I believe this is more of a perceived problem than reality.

The second biggest advantage--that proprietary software is easier to adopt--captures a moment in time, but one that is also in retreat. The politics of proprietary software will keep it entrenched for many years, but it's becoming harder to justify the bloat and expense of proprietary software. One has to be an ardent partisan indeed to maintain the proprietary status quo in the face of so much evidence that the expense and bother is wasteful.

Interestingly, neither open source nor proprietary software score well on "IP protection." Either they're both equally good, or they're both equally bad. Either way, they don't seem to offer distinct advantages, one over the other, according to the customers surveyed. The same holds true for security and code quality. It's aces between the two.

Looking at these numbers, I'd prefer to have open source's advantages. Professional services and automated updates are easy to provide. Source code access and community code review, and at market-beating prices, are not. If they were, more proprietary vendors would offer these benefits. But they don't.

Advantage, open source. It can do everything that proprietary software can do, and more.

[Ed_Dodds]

Part of this is a marketing focus challenge

If OSI or similar modified their logo and created an FOSS Professional Services Guild badge firms with OS Pro Staff could easily build more market awareness.

[baileysmoth]

oh ffs, it's simple

It comes down to one simple thing. Software Companies who write proprietary code hire sales and marketing people to go into third party businesses and make the product more appealing while open source software communities sit around crying about how nobody uses them.

[reedhedges]

OSS vs. Software Vendors

The most interesting thing to me about that survey is that the top items for open source are advantages of open source itself; by nature proprietary software cannot offer those advantages. The top advantages of proprietary software in that survey are actually advantages (historically) provided by proprietary software vendors. So it's an opportunity for OSS companies to provide those services.

[avanabs]

Survey reflects study I did at prior employer, BUT

It also leaves out some fundamental differences between Open Source community TCO (yup...licenses are expensive, but often only 7-8% of the TCO) and the TCO for commercial products.

For example, all the things that make up RASP are seriously missing in (most) community projects...effectively putting the customer in the position of becoming their own integrator and software vendor. If you don't need these capabilities, great...but if you think you are getting the equivalent of the person centuries of commercial development for free, then remember there is no such thing as free lunch!

OS utilization can work out really well if you carefully consider the whole picture, but all too often the soft costs associated with taking on all the missing parts gets ignored in the enthusiasm to save on license costs.

In one recent study, the "free and open" software packages actually cost significantly more even in the first year...and MUCH more over the 4 year life cycle.

The benefits of OS can be in fact huge, but ignoring the real costs associated with the entire project can become a career defining decision.

[fak3r]

How about support?

My argument is that with open source the expensive 3rd party support contact can (should) be replaced with in house expertise. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://fak3r.com/2007/09/24/software-support-must-evolve-with-open-source/" target="_newWindow">http://fak3r.com/2007/09/24/software-support-must-evolve-with-open-source/</a>