Comments on: Open source and the future of vendor-free IT

It turns out that open source liberates IT from greedy vendors. Why is this a bad thing

[russ danner]

Almost everyone I've spoken to in the last year implementing critical projects based on open source software has opted to go with commercial products that have the support system behind it. At JBoss world this weekend I heard this over and over -- customers were choosing JBoss because it had the Redhat ecosystem behind it.

The fact that IT can do its own integration is a huge strength in the open source approach. It's almost impossible to go it alone with closed source. I believe the customer should have the choice. When it comes to actually doing your own integration? Well, that's a business question -- not a technology question. If companies are creating opportunity for themselves or slashing costs by doing their own support and integration, I think that's fantastic. However, from where I stand, I'd rather have my developers focused on value add components. I want them creating opportunity for my business -- not installing, integrating, and maintaining infrastructure. We're not a huge IT shop. We have a handful of bright stars we want for focus like a laser on domain specific needs.

It's an interesting time for service integrators in open source -- there is still quite a bit of room for more players. I keep close tabs on several of the SI(s) here in the US. Several that I watch are averaging contracts of half a million and up, and don't have time to take all the leads that come their way. There is enough demand that Open Source SIs can choose their customers. It haven't met a single open source SI who is starving for business.

One last thought -- open source not only allows IT shops to bring the whole game back in house if they want to but it also allows them to partner with other IT shops. My business is not technology -- its publishing and supporting the needs of an organization with a global membership. We don't compete with technology per se. When it comes to technology, or at least 90% of the technology, I believe the winning strategy is partnership with similar companies, vendors, SIs, communities and so on. Open source is the only game in town that supports this strategy.

[dvfreelancer]

This is part of the reason I left a big consulting company to strike out on my own. It may not always be practical to run a vendor free enterprise but it's certainly possible to stay out of the trap of a dysfunctional vendor-lead relationship by utilizing open source.

You should be seeking out vendors that offer the value services you need, not entertaining presentations by consulting companies and software reps trying to sell you something. That's the tail wagging the dog but all too familiar in many organizations.

I've worked for at least one of the companies mentioned in the article and I can tell you that's absolutely true. Many times those companies are using open source back-end systems but are not promoting those solutions to customers. Because the margin is bigger working with proprietary vendors. I got tired of it. All the fun stuff in IT is happening in open source. And I believe open source presents a value proposition to many companies that's being overlooked.

[r_h_p]

I own and manage a niche SI/consultancy that advocates the use of open sources and have been doing so for the past three years.

The likelihood of getting clients depends on their size. SME's are likely to outsource and are happy wit the cheapest option. OSS goes far in this arena.

Our client base is corporate (carrier grade telco solutions & financial services) and OSS is often frowned on by anyone other that the CFO. It takes a really mature CIO who understands the value presented by long term partnerships to deliver value, to wade into OSS waters.

To make the journey more pleasant from a risk point of view, the solutions are delivered on OSS with commercial backing and SLA's for 3rd level support. The BIG SI's have taken a similar approach, but they are truly feeding off solutions in this space without contributing their changes back into the public domain. This is a shame.

But in principal true OSS is social in nature which will always have some serious clashes with capital initiatives.

A true arena that OSS can flourish in would be the public sector. It is the environment where OSS initiatives can get the support and earn credits that can put them up against proprietary solutions. But smart software sales people seem to be getting the best out of most civil servants.

Based on the quality and innovativeness of OSS, I would hope that governments (some have) understand the savings on spend in terms of IT can be made by going OSS and commodity hardware. These are borne two fold: licenses and vendor lock in.

This be told: Its very possible to build a successful business using OSS. We have done so. The client benefits at the end of the day, and they continue doing business with us. We return the favour by passing on the knowledge and committing the changes back in the public domain.

[amadensor]

Notice that it does not say consulting is not available, just that it is not being used. Perhaps this is at least partly because open source solutions tend to be easier to deploy, not having a vested interest in keeping their VAR's in business.