'Free lunch' and open-source support

Sometimes "free" is not so free.

I recently discovered this when a large, global system integrator (SI) deployed Alfresco Labs, our free and unsupported product, for a large client in Europe. The SI wasn't a partner of ours, and as the client soon learned when its deployment stumbled, the SI wasn't capable of providing enterprise-class support on the product. Yes, it knew the product well enough to deploy it and get paid over $50 million for its trouble, but when the deployment hit a glitch, guess to whom the SI came crawling for help?

It's not just my company. I know of another global SI that has deployed well over 100 Mule ESB instances, without buying support through MuleSource for its clients for a single one of them. If something goes wrong with those installations, the enterprise clients are going to end up paying a premium for the SI to figure out how to resolve the problems on the client's dime, never mind potential indemnification issues.

Not all SIs act like this, at least not all the time. My own company works closely with Satyam, SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton, and others, and Accenture sells supported instances of the Spring Framework, but this is the exception to the rule for the large SIs, many of which seem happy to deploy open-source software for their clients without buying support or production-grade versions of the software.

Such SIs seem to believe that life has started raining free lunches.

This is a myopic way to do business, as the large SI in my initial example found: in that example, spending $50,000 (in the midst of a $50 million project) would have saved the SI the embarrassment and cost of trying to support a product that experience proved it didn't know nearly as well as it thought it did. The SI risked the success of a $50 million project to boost its margins by $50,000, only to find that one problem with the software ended up costing it and the client far more than $50,000.

If you're an enterprise looking for a strong SI on a project, here are a few things to consider:

1. Be sure you know what software it will be deploying for you. In the case above, the SI's client had no idea it was deploying unsupported Alfresco. Had it asked, the end-result might have been very different.
2. Be sure your SI is a certified partner. Just as you wouldn't buy proprietary software from an unqualified source that couldn't support you, don't buy open source from an unqualified source that will likely be incapable of assisting you if the deployment goes awry.
3. Be sure your SI gets you a support contract. I buy Microsoft software through it or its certified partners because I then know I'm going to get what I expect, and can call for support as needed. The same holds true for open source. Buying open-source support makes sense in most cases, as the source of the code is going to be able to support it better than an SI that has no direct relationship with the code or the company/community behind the code.

Yes, I'm biased in this, as my company offers support for an open-source project, but it's what my experience has taught me after doing this for nearly a decade. There is no free lunch, and there is no free (as in price) software. You either pay to acquire it or pay to deploy it or both.

The great thing about open source is that it allows you to choose how you want to pay, and whom. I actually think it's a great thing that customers can get our software without having to rely on us - it means more choice and flexibility for customers, which is what open source is all about. In the examples above, the problem is that many SIs don't invest the sweat equity to understand open-source products well enough to actually support them. In such instances, buying a support contract is the safest (and cheapest) way to go.

[Sortova]

Matt, did you really mean to say "without buying ... production-grade versions of the software"? This seems to imply that the community versions are less than production-grade, and the only way to get the "real" software is to pay for a commercial license. That, in turn, implies that the community versions are somewhat crippled, either intentionally or by omission, which I don't think was your point.

[Matt Asay]

No, that wasn't my point, but it certainly came out like that. I just meant the commercially supported versions of these products. It's the company behind the product to which I was referring, not the product itself.

[jrepenning]

Several people, including Larry Augustin, noted at the Europe Open Source Think Tank that the European market seems to prefer these SI relationships, rather than direct vendor relationships. I wonder if European SIs provide better support than American ones? Or maybe, does the European open-source community provide more effective incident-level support than the US?

[alegr]

Then what would happen if SI didn't have problems? You would still be out of those money.

[fazalmajid]

I can understand your frustration with the integrator trying to grab the entire value blanket for itself, but your recommendations show you are just trying to reproduce the proprietary software model of seeking a position of power over the customer and over distribution.

One of the most attractive characteristics of open source software is precisely that you are not tied to a single vendor for support, and thus not at the mercy of the likes of Oracle and their capricious price increases. If the only way to get Alfresco to work is to to buy support from Alfresco or an officially blessed partner, you are just as bad as Oracle or Microsoft. I would go as far as to say if I were currently considering Alfresco and happened to read this column, I would probably kill the project.

This does not excuse the integrator - they misled their customer by claiming a level of expertise they did not in fact possess, but any system that requires users of software to get approval from the vendor cannot reasonably be called open source software smell test, and illustrate why Stallman makes some goof points when he harps about Free software as opposed to Open Source.

[mikalg]

You are surprised by the choice not to purchase support on Open Source projects such as this? Really? This to me shows little understanding of what actually drives inclusion of a vast number of open source software in a large number of markets/positions.

Simply put; you cannot "advertise" open source as FREE (a word you use in your blogs constantly, and consistently) and then expect people to not understand that you don't really mean FREE.

Open Source has long been supported by knowledge bases, and free support forums/groups. Community is another word/method of support listed on every single Open Source project I have ever seen (including your examples).

Still puzzled by the choice not to purchase a support "package"?

I am not opposed to Open Source, in fact i find it a great source of free software. I must admit I have never/would never purchase a support contract for any open software i have ever used.

Why? If the software works well enough for my purposes... I use it. I never run any open source software as a production solution unless I have tested it thoroughly, and it meets all of my needs. Admittedly, there are few that I do use on a day to day basis.

Open Source has, for me and many others, allowed MINOR additions of functionality to existing enterprise software. The FREE nature of these additions is the reasoning behind deploying it. Consider it icing on the cake. Coupled with the fact that for any given additional function, I have literally dozens of choices of FREE software I can try before I buy (Oh wait, I never have to buy) I can pick and choose the best for my needs.

Considering the additional software I speak of, is generally not all that important to my day to day operation, I have no problem waiting for the occasional knowledge base answer to my issue. Again; FREE.

FREE is what drives the Open Source market. It isn't better software, better support, the fact I can do whatever I want with the software. Lets be real, and state the actual fact:

Open Source is synonymous with FREE software. is this "politically correct"? Likely not, and I will have denizens of the Open Source movement crawling all over this statement.

Sorry, but I call it as I see it. I, and every single person/group/business I have EVER worked with agree with my statement. FREE! So, I am NOT SHOCKED that you find large numbers of instances where people choose not to purchase support on Open Source projects/software.

I know what you WANT Open Source to mean to me and countless others. It's just not the case with us. With all of the language used in "advertising" Open Source...is it really any wonder?

I don't know if the ship is too large to steer in the direction you want it to go, but it would require a great deal of convincing (or an OUTSTANDING product with some convincing) to change my mind on this.

Look at it this way: Is an Apple desktop better than a Windows desktop when considering longevity? Which desktop would last longer/built better. Fact is the hardware is darn near identical. Yet, a large number of people would SWEAR that the Apple product is better made, has better components, and lasts longer. All of this based upon PERCEPTION fostered by word of mouth and clever advertising.

It's open Sources own fault in general. You have fostered the notion of FREE...because it is SO appealing. Its LESS EXPENSIVE is another quote. If I don't HAVE to pay... I likely won't. Many others will not also. That is all.