Comments on: The open-source mandates are coming

Open source may have once been a nice to have, but it's about to become a mandated "must have."

[Zukuzu]

What is interesting here is that only Fortune something companies can actually afford open source. They can hire good IT stuff to finish usually half-backed open source software. They're also snobby enough to think that their requirements are so unique.

So how much did you get paid for this astroturfing? Money...perhaps a new laptop? Here's some good advice for you Zukuzu (assuming your not trolling), don't buy into the FUD!

[halfNakedPappy]

There's plenty of good IT talent out there well versed in open source. Most of them, however, do not reside in Microsoft shops. My experience with open source is a bit different from yours. The majority of the products I've used have been of very high quality (Apache, Tomcat, Hibernate, MySQL, Java, Groovy, Grails, Open Office, Ubuntu, PostgreSQL, Hadoop, Eclipse, Netbeans, etc.).

A lot of these companies, and not just the large ones, also have requirements for which a proprietary package will meet 80 - 90% of their needs. If the company wants more compliance than that, it's best to go open source where they can modify it to their liking or take their pick from a group of consulting firms able to modify it for them.

[Matt Asay]

While I disagree with this contention, it *is* the case that Fortune 500 companies are the vanguard in adopting open source. But that's OK: they always are with new technology. Their work will trickle down into the SMB market, so that eventually everyone will get the benefits. In the meantime, Microsoft owns the SMB, because Microsoft does a good job of a) distribution and b) making software relatively easy to use and relatively easy to afford. But open source will get there, too.

[mattflaschen]

Really, because I'm a "poor student", and I've been using FOSS for years. I wonder when I'm going to get my huge bill?

[mattflaschen]

Matt, there is no way Fortune 500 is at the vanguard of anything, least of all FOSS. When smart small businesses like Cygnus Solutions started offering FOSS solutions (and even smaller businesses and users started adopting), huge companies laughed in their face. It was only much later that they began to figure it out.

[fazalmajid]

The conditions were the same in 2000, and open-source products like Postfix/Cyrus, MySQL/PostgreSQL or Samba were certainly already robust enough, yet no mass transition to open source happened then.

The difference now is that in many companies CIOs' delusion that they belong in the executive suite were punctured. CIOs now report to the CFO. When the CIO is a baron defending his fief, perversely expensive proprietary software becomes an argument for preserving budgets and headcount that equate to prestige in the corporate hierarchy. All of that is gone now.

I believe the single biggest advantage of open source products in the enterprise is not so much the negligible to nil acquisition cost as the fact you can make support organizations compete for your business and thus not be at the mercy of price-gougers like Oracle. Then again, it mystifies me how Red Hat can get away with charging $2K a pop for RHEL (including at my company) when superior alternatives are free as in beer.

[tm_anon]

Red Hat can get away with it for the same reason MS and so many other proprietary vendors can get away with the same types of things. The suits in charge see higher cost as higher value.

While that's not always the case, when you have a perceived value of something and you see another company with a much lower price, you start to wonder why that price is so much lower. It's unfortunate, but it's true.

Besides that, Red Hat has bought a name for itself. While other companies may offer service at the same quality, the suits simply haven't heard their names.

[someguy999]

Once again this guy will tie any post or news article into a way of promoting his own company and use what was once a respectable new source for his own personal marketing tool.

[Matt Asay]

I think you should check the volume of my posts against the volume of mentions of Alfresco. Once you've done that simple math, I suggest you return here with the answer. If it's 1% or greater I'll give you a cookie and call you "Good boy!"

[Zukuzu]

This is a blog section of CNET so an author can publish any thoughts here.

[jessiethe3rd]

What's funny is this idea that the cost of software revolves around the actually cost to purchase. So many open source hordes, Matt Asay included, define free software as some type of revolution where "free means free" and you "get everything free!" Who are you going to call when your server goes down and you have some type of issue? Who are you going to call when your Open Office is not acting right? Whose neck are you going to choke? Are you going to run around like a dog chasing his tail? No - you'll call up the vendor of "free" software or hire an army of developers to "modify the code to your liking." Software that cost replaces bodies that support - that's the end result and again, why is paying people to do the fixing better than having someone's neck to choke and support you?

Open source is good for companies like Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, SAP, etc it forces them to create more and more beneficial software and think long and hard on how it will present higher ROI at lower TCO. Fact of the matter is, Open Source needs commercial software... why? Because that's where the money is going - developing new ideas and new ways to do things. Sure - you have a fantastic community creating ideas but honestly... what exactly is new and exciting about Open Office versus say Office 2007? The argument is it is free... not that it interfaces with active directory, a robust messaging server, and a document management solution to extend collaboration, document revision control, and presence technology. People are looking at better ways to communicate and having a bunch of ad-hock, disjointed, patch solutions that require serious consulting work to get it right from the start is not saving anyone any money. More "best of breed," "free solutions" with no standards leads to higher support costs. I have seen several organizations cannibalize this mentality and they pack the house with $100,000 a year developers and no standards. The costs overrun, the projects drag on.... They spend more time spinning around in circles than actually getting things done. CFOs aren't stupid... they may not understand tech but they do understand the cost of bodies versus the cost of software. If you can get it 80% out of a box why in the heck would you spend countless hours building it?

Sure - free is great but what business objectives is Open Source trying to creatively address? I see more "we can too" versus actually creating compelling reasons to switch. I see more, "we are free" upfront... low entry point with a high support cost in the back and no real long term vision. As IT budgets shrink it'll be interesting to see more and more people seeking to replace standards with pie in the sky "just good enough" mentality. "Just good enough," doesn't hack it when the competition is partnering and looking at ways to be creative about how they grow.

Why do Fortune 500 companies run software by companies by SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM? They want to focus on the business versus building software.

[odubtaig]

...and yet Fortune 500 companies are still finding this cheaper than the maintenance costs (which you conveniently forgot to mention _all_ closed-source software companies charge) from closed-source vendors while having the option to change vendor while still using the same software which forces costs down through competition.

I'm also wondering, if I'm running all open source software, why do I give a monkeys if it can't connect to AD. I'm not running Windows Server am I?

[glamourati]

Boy cnet is hurting these days in the news realm. Sad.

[JadedGamer]

You need to learn the difference between news and blogs. And learn FAST.

[glamourati]

Just curious, do you know Matt Asay? Also, what makes you think I don't know the difference between news and blogs?

[ajhoughton]

> that software products that can be developed and distributed cheaply

So that about covers "Hello World". How about all the other software you use day-to-day? Do you *really* think it can be "developed cheaply"? If so, perhaps your definition of "cheaply" differs from many of the people who will read your article?

The great irony, I have often thought, of Open Source (or its close relation Free Software) is that much of the development work is actually funded?whether directly by software companies or indirectly via the salaries of their employees?using money derived from the sale of proprietary software. This of course exposes the greatest flaw in your argument, which is that without the profits from proprietary software, it is highly likely that a great deal of Open Source development would simply never happen. So if, as you postulate, Open Source were to come to dominate in all markets, it is quite likely that it would stagnate as the number of people working on it would, necessarily, fall.

Even in the case of your own company, Alfresco, the fact is that many of your customers will be software companies or related businesses, and that many of the tools that you have used to implement your company's products will have been funded, as I said, using money derived from the sale of proprietary software.

Essentially I think you're failing to see the Big Picture here.

[pentest]

Really?

Linux lives off of proprietary revenue?

Mysql?

Apache?

[AaronCT123]

I keep hearing about this "subscription" basis and thinking "I'd much rather pay a lot up front for an OS and use it for as long as I want/until it makes sense to upgrade than to pay some monthly/yearly fee."

[pentest]

With proprietary models you pay in many different ways: upfront, support, and when the company that you are subservient to decides to change things so if you don't pay up again, you won't be able to play with those that get suckered, and after all that, yet another support contract comes due.

It is a nasty treadmill where the customer is completely dependent on the maker of the proprietary software.

It is not that way in open source, the customer is on equal footing with the vendor.

[Dango517]

I suspect and "open source" user around here somewhere. Wonder where he/she is? Anyone smell a bias? I would swear I smell bias.

Anyway, here's the point...... (A quote from article above) "because licensing costs are killing them.".

Some FYI. Microsoft recently [u]removed[/u] a web site that was used to tout it's PC produces over the use of "open source" and replaced it with one for "open source" server/business products. (Hmm , could this be phase one of an "open source" rebuttal? )

Wonder where we, the Internet and all of the computing world would be if it used nearly all volunteer developed "open source" .products?

Here's how well the open source community is doing with there current distribution efforts of PC OSs.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8

A good guess might be ............ they're being about as successful with the business community.

The real deal here is ........... "the economy stupid". Yep, and you thought your vote didn't count.

[pentest]

Your bias smells worse because it has no basis in reality. Just talking points.