Tiemann: 'Honeymoon is over' for software lock-in

In the midst of an engaging Times UK article on the rise of open source, Michael Tiemann, president of the Open Source Initiative and a Red Hat executive, declares that proprietary software has outstayed its welcome:

A few days ago, I was visiting several banks in Canary Wharf and the city. On television the entire day was one apology after another from banks whose fundamental business was trust and reputation.

We are now living in a moment where claims of reputation are not sufficient to ensure delivery. We are using source code instead of reputation as a means to grade who is doing what.

The honeymoon period for proprietary software is over. It remains a struggle for many executives to even begin to justify their investment in IT...Ten years ago, I believed that there were reasonable exceptions for when to use proprietary software. I have since come to believe that proprietary software has no advantage, even for the most specific applications.

It used to be believed (by myself and others) that open source couldn't tackle niche applications, as there wouldn't be a financial incentive or sufficient expertise in a given field to mount an open-source approach. But that thinking was wrong. We just didn't know it yet.

It's very likely that open-source vendors will increasingly intermingle proprietary code with open-source code in order to improve their top and bottom lines, but I agree with Tiemann: the era of top-to-bottom proprietary lock-in is over. Even Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says so.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

[jaxstephens]

This is all hype. So you're telling me open source is going to program and maintain the line-of-business application that runs the business I'm currently an IT director for? In the small niche market that we serve--PEO (professional employer organization)?

Sorry, but the company that makes our software now does so for a profit, and they keep their source code secret for fear of it being ripped off and used by someone else in the relatively tiny industry. I just don't understand how open source fanatics (for lack of a better term) can begin to claim that all software needs will be met with the open source model. You say, "But that thinking was wrong. We just didn't know it yet." It makes me want to smack my forehead in frustration.

[msjonker]

Is it surprising the leader of the Open Source Initiative would say this? That's like quoting Steve Ballmer on the necessity of using Microsoft software.

There's a comfortable medium between using open-source and closed-source. Everyone knows it exists, its nothing new. Nothing is absolute, and anyone that makes statements like those above is pushing their own agenda.

[Savio.Rodrigues]

>but I agree with Tiemann: the era of top-to-bottom proprietary lock-in is over.

It seems Tiemann does not qualify his views with "top-to-bottom"...I would agree more with your "top-to-bottom" view than Tiemann's view that proprietary software is dead...gasp! did we just agree ;-)

[jabelar]

I have certainly had many projects where I build software inhouse because the proprietary stuff was not a good fit. But in the case where it is a good fit, I'll definitely use proprietary as the business terms although more expensive are also more reliable. But then again, ultra-proprietary can be dangerous as well. I suppose that looking at my IT purchasing decisions and opinions, I would say that I use proprietary for common, well fitted purposes, and use custom (often built on open source) for everything else. There is no need to be a zealot one way or another -- for every decision you should look at both.

[staalmannen]

Proprietary lock-in is a very definite danger where you can be held hostage to your software vendor. This is exactly what has happened among academic institutions who have adopted Invitrogen's Vector NTI through its free-of-cost academic licence. All of a sudden, they have chosen to charge for the new licence (for version 11, version 10 is discontinued and licences are not renewed). Data not exported before the licence is expired is lost in the database files. (see blog discussion: http://bioinformatics.whatheblog.com/?p=27 )
This is when you realize that the only way to be sure of lasting production systems is through open source, and the specifically copyleft, projects.
In this particular case there is a GPL alternative: http://gentle.magnusmanske.de/ , but it definitely needs some more improvement before it can be adopted by the majority of the molecular biologist that suffer from lock-in at the moment.

[daftkey]

"In this particular case there is a GPL alternative: http://gentle.magnusmanske.de/ , but it definitely needs some more improvement before it can be adopted by the majority of the molecular biologist that suffer from lock-in at the moment."

This seems to be a pretty common problem, though, with Open Source - applications that are generally immature, even those that have been around for quite a number of years (why, after nearly a decade, is there still no non-linear solver in OpenOffice's spreadsheet?).

So now, you have a choice - you can ask for the functionality you need.. to.. someone.. who might know how to program it.. Or you can learn how to program yourself and add the functionality yourself.. Or you can fork out the cost of a new license.

Which is a better use of your time and money? I guess it depends on what you mean by "needs some more improvement" and how difficult that improvement would be to make.

[ian.waring]

@staalmannen: think your need is open (and ownership of your own) data, not necessarily open source...