The curious (mis)perception of open-source support

Forrester finds that European enterprises cite support as their biggest reason for not adopting open-source software. This has persisted for years, with support (or, a lack thereof) consistently listed as one of the top reasons that enterprises throughout the world avoid open source.

The ironic thing is that open-source companies primarily sell support, not software. So...while proprietary-software vendors sell licenses with support as an afterthought, enterprises don't seem to question that they're going to get support. At the same time, open-source companies sell support with licenses as an afterthought...and enterprise buyers worry that they won't get support.

Huh?

Ultimately, I think this is a question of the relative maturity of the open-source market. Buyers equate the size of their vendor with the availability of support, and most open-source vendors are still tiny compared to Oracle, SAP, IBM, and Microsoft.

What they may be missing, however, is that a dedicated open-source vendor that makes its money selling support may well be a better source of support than a large vendor for whom support isn't its primary revenue stream.

I don't want to suggest that open-source support is always better than that provided by proprietary vendors. Oracle, as just one example and despite widespread grousing, consistently wins awards for its support.

No, I'm just suggesting that stifling your company's open-source adoption because of a perceived lack of support is silly and outdated. Welcome to the 21st Century. Open-source vendors provide support as good or better than their proprietary peers. Really.

[alegr]

Here it is: a proprietary software vendor (just like hardware and system vendor) wants to reduce number of support calls, because it doesn't bring profits (even paid support is below cost). Because of that, they're designing the software to require less babysitting from the vendor, to allow any grandma to install and use it. The business model is "sell and forget".

If OSS didn't require babysitting, the vendor would go broke. Because of that, single click installation is not very common thing there. They don't care much about that, though.

[The_Decider]

LOL

Does any piece of software require more support and babysitting than Windows?

At least you are consistently insane.

[jeyno1]

Well, I have to disagree with your GenY point about the virtues of open source cf. traditional software commerce. I agree that it is certainly last year's fashion statement - but do you really think that in the mainstream, support revenues are a secondary consideration? Take IBM or Oracle for example; the maintenance revenue they receive is a major factor in their commercial plans... they will always make far more money out of maintenance fees for the software they originally licenced than they ever did from the sale transaction. There is billion-dollar business opportunity in keeping the worlds transaction based economy alive. Where do the dollars in open-source appserver technology sit by comparison? Any mature company - in any industry - realises that repeat business is where the majority of your business revenue comes from - and in the total business case, that license fee that got you started disappears. So why open source? It's a question of your politics, your culture, who do you trust, and when your lifestyle's on the line who would you pay to keep your investment working - to keep it current, to keep it returning value - and ultimately, whose responsibility do you want it to be for it to work.

[The_Decider]

What does politics have to do with a software license?

[xapeters]

Hi Matt,

Good article. I might add that support from Open Source Communities is usually much, much quicker. Users that post to our forums generally get a response within one hour. When is the last time anyone opened a support ticket with IBM. I have waited days to get a response only to find out that it got lost somewhere between here and India or ?

Jeff Peters
www.xaware.org >

[xapeters]

Hi Matt,

Good article. I might add that support from Open Source Communities is usually much, much quicker. Users that post to our forums generally get a response within one hour. When is the last time anyone opened a support ticket with IBM. I have waited days to get a response only to find out that it got lost somewhere between here and India or ?

Jeff Peters
www.xaware.org >

[daniellphillips]

I prefer open source because:

1. Open Source apps use open standards
2. Open Source apps, in most cases, allow for integration via open standards.
3. Open Source companies do not usually force their vendors to support only their software... Adaptec.
4. Open Source companies usually provide interfaces for integration with multiple vendors - not just Microsoft.
5. Open Source companies are primarily built off of open source software.
6. Open Source companies usually provide applications that run on closed and open operating systems. (Just look at what DimDim is doing - providing Mac support. Zimbra is a great example)
7. Open Source use social applications such as blogs and forums to provide detailed analysis where they are with new builds and software bug fixes.
8. Most open source apps provide a public forum to discuss issues and limitations as well as their resolutions. Most closed source apps are very secretive when it comes to offering info.
9. Open Source vendors usually allow negative comments in forums (they don't delete the comments they don't like)

OK, I'm done :)