Comments on: Open source's evolving marketing message

Open source has a much broader message to sell than freedom.

[hymanroth]

OSS is simply the most efficient software development model. It allows people to assemble software from pre-existing components, which means they can focus on adding value rather than re-inventing the wheel.

The freedom fighter aspect of OSS smacks of radicalism is not useful.

It's all about efficiency and pragmatism.

[saintseminole]

So very true. For years, I struggled in vain to convince family & friends to use all the downloaded open source stuff I had, telling them it was better, simply because it was free and open. But they didn't have my same sense of outrage at the "big corporations" that were somehow my enemy.

But now, those same people are telling me: "Hey, I downloaded Firefox the other day. It really works, and does what I want it to do."

So yes, this is the way the war will be won. Open Source will win only if it's actually better.

[odubtaig]

Yes, features are important, but I'll let you know when I no longer have to explain to people at length why Word files don't open properly in anything else (no, don't quote OOo at me).

This is why we live in a world where an international bank ends up running two computers with a KVM switch under every desk just to support the legacy systems.

Users and companies care a great deal about open computing, just not before the lack of openness makes itself a major inconvenience. Then they care a great deal.

[fazalmajid]

You have it backwards - it is not Open Source but rather proprietary software that needs to justify itself. Corporate purchasing inertia is making the transition slower than it needs be, but eventually most companies will require commercial software purchases to go through an exception process rather than the other way round.

[fazalmajid]

You underestimate the resonance of the freedom argument in the corporate marketplace. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of Microsoft or Oracle's sharp licensing practices knows how valuable it is not to be at the mercy of your vendors. Only the most inexperienced or short-termist IT professional will ignore the potential of lock-in for expediency's sake. Well, consultants may - as Demotivators put it, if you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be had in prolonging the problem.

In other words, from the point of view of the CIO, it's not about freedom, it's about power and control.

[gstein67]

There isn't any real change here. "Open Source" has *always* been about pragmatism. "Free Software" is the now-becoming-archaic terminology.

Licensing is just a reflection of these two philosophies, and are a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves. I've spoken for years about Apache's philosophy of openness, sharing, and meritocracy. Our license was designed to match the philosophy -- not the other way around.

[odubtaig]

Riiiight. How old are you?

[PeterVescuso]

It?s refreshing to see the new open source pragmatism Matt has described getting more notice these days. My company, Black Duck Software, has seen this new pragmatism first hand in the growing number of companies that are coming to us to help them manage the use of open source in ?multi-source? development environments where open source and closed source are combined to create new application and services.

Companies that have been using OSS are using more of it. And companies that have never considered OSS before are now joining the trend because the benefits and the resulting competitive advantages can't be ignored (and there's nothing like a recession to force change, is there).

Ideology has its time and place. But we?re living in an intensely competitive global economy. Developers strive for success of their projects and their companies. Greater use of OSS will play an increasingly important role in helping businesses and organizations grow and thrive in the global marketplace.

[jessiethe3rd]

Open source free... cost effective. Yes that it - try and capitalize on a down trend economy to mix up the message. I think that's a great change in marketing but to be honest I also think that companies (and individuals) enjoy the following:

Spending as little time managing the beast - you need support? TCO for proprietary software is better.

Standardization on a single platform - the cost to support disjointed systems is a very high cost... Most companies spend 80% of their IT budget just managing and maintaining versus actually developing solutions. This is the tussy that has put most of IT departments right under the CFO - they are an operational cost center - they provide no value to the business because they service the business and maintain the software. I personally think this whole marketing strategy will only work to marginalize the value that IT brings - especially in tough economic times. Instead of driving the value of the platform you'll be focusing on how do we cut cost... something that at the end of the day Open Source will lose out on because user community support cores mean more fingers in the ****.

[odubtaig]

So, exactly how much does your job depend on Open Source failing? I only ask since that's the biggest load of crap.

[bogdanbiv]

See my arguement on why Freedom is always a long term goal for most people and why most people prefer the short term advantages of software products. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/freedom_enabler_not_feature
Granted "cost reduction, performance, and IT efficiency" are short term advantages and they always win against freedom, which seems a distant and impossible goal.