Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Technology

CIOs Looking At OSS 259

Posted by Hemos from the learn-more-about-it dept.
bigmouth_strikes writes "There is an interesting article entitled "Your open source plan" in the latest issue of CIO. The article is about opens source software and its place in the enterprise systems market and the article shows the change in attitude over the last few years. OSS is being considered in most large corporations and CIOs are seriously looking into alternatives to expensive proprietary software and Microsoft's licensing schemes. The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIOs Looking At OSS More

CIOs Looking At OSS

Comments Filter:

  • How many CIOs own Microsoft stock? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greg151 ( 132824 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:22AM (#5528973) Homepage Journal
    I have always wanted CIO's to disclose their ownership in MS or other tech companies prior to making purchases of technology. This would keep them honest brokers to the board of directors and the stockholders in the company. They need to know if their decisions are based in a conflict of interest. ( However, if enough of the stockholders or board members are also owners of MS, they might try swaying the CIO that direction.)

    • Re:How many CIOs own Microsoft stock? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:10PM (#5529271) Homepage Journal
      Carry that a step further.
      • epiphany: market realizes OS software is the future. Critical mass required.
      • sell-off: NASDAQ chopped in half when Warren Buffet says: "Bill, I love to golf with you, but this is business".
      • market goes into Microsoft post-partum depression.

      Could I afford a portfolio, I doubt there would be any Microsoft in there...

    • How many CIOs subscribe to PC World? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:18PM (#5529344)
      I have always wanted CIO's to disclose their ownership in MS or other tech companies prior to making purchases of technology. This would keep them honest brokers to the board of directors and the stockholders in the company. They need to know if their decisions are based in a conflict of interest. ( However, if enough of the stockholders or board members are also owners of MS, they might try swaying the CIO that direction.)

      I have always wanted CIO's to disclose their subscription status to PC World and other "technology-lite" publications, as well as whether or not they watch c|net on cable, prior to their making stupid statements. This would keep everyone aware that they are technologically illiterate and obsessive jargon monkeys. They need to know if their decisions are based on something they read in an advertisment. (however, if enough stockholders or board members are also idiots, they might try to use the latest buzz word too.)

      • Re:How many CIOs subscribe to PC World? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:26PM (#5529431) Journal
        You hit the nail on the head with this one. If I hear one more CIO use the word "infrastructure" without actually defining what the hell they are taling about, I'm going to go postal. I hear some of these idiots talking completely out of their asses about things they don't have any idea of. Then after they spin their web of bullshit, they ask the people who do the REAL work to "make it happen". Ten times out of ten, it all winds up being a nightmare and the CIO blames the real workers for not making his "vision" come to pass. Even though his vision couldn't be executed by God himself. That's it though... most of these guys read PC World on the shitter and then go into work the next day saying something like:

        "I think we need to optimize our infrastructure by calling in consultants that can build a new architechture for us with rising profits and total lower cost of ownership! To do this we need to stick with Microsoft since they KNOW infrastructures and architectures."

        Blah blah blah... stupid monkeys.

        • PC World that bad? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
          They randomly screwed up and sent my younger sister a year subscription, despite me protesting that she had never signed up. I flipped through a couple of them. Granted, PC World is pretty full of holes and inaccuracies, but AFAI could tell, it's aimed at the home market, not execs.

          Now, Forbes is another story...
          • It's great for someone who is new to PCs. But CIOs should not be reading it. It would be like seeing your airplane pilot boarding with a "Flying the Boeing 747 for Dummies" book. It doesn't instill confidence in the crew... ;P
            • My point with the post was that now "Open Source" has entered buzz-word status among the jargon moneky crowd.

              If somebody is saying a switch to opensource is 'cheaper', I question their knowledge. Some things are cheaper, but have other costs (more expensive staff, user retraining, etc). If they go with OSS, they should be doing it to exploit the strengths of OSS, not just because its all the rage on Slashdot.

    • Like it or not, most investors probably own some Microsoft stock. Even if the CIO hasn't invested in M$ directly, I'm sure he has some stake via a 401K, pension plan, or package of mutual funds.
    • All employees of publicly traded companies must inform the company of every stock trade they make. Mutual funds are excluded from the trade list. The SEC requires this to (in theory) prevent insider trading. So the company does know what they own, but executives aren't using this information to judge CIO decisions. (FYI - I'm a software developer at a publicly traded investment firm.)

  • Audience (Score:5, Insightful)

    by king_ramen ( 537239 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:23AM (#5528980)
    "The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."

    Is this to say CIO's are not techincal? Any CIO who is worth his / her salt should be able to understand technological issues at a profound level.

    Is yours?

    • Re:Audience (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:40AM (#5529090) Homepage
      Maybe CIO Magazine is not read by real CIOs but by wannabes, similarly to how Just Seventeen is not read by seventeen-year-olds.

      • Re:Audience (Score:3, Funny)

        by zulux ( 112259 )
        Maybe CIO Magazine is not read by real CIOs but by wannabes, similarly to how Just Seventeen is not read by seventeen-year-olds.

        I read Seventee as well!

        I sort of think of it as "The Barly-Illegal Soft-Porn Magazine."

        Mmmmm.... 'nutn like a hot Clearsil add to make a guy happy.

    • CIOs with actual technical knowledge? What kind of bizarro world are you living in? I've met a couple of CIOs, and the only technology they had a good grasp on was the voice-mail on their cell phones. CIOs today are deal-makers, not technical wizards. They play golf with salesmen and blow the company's money on expensive application servers.

    • Re:Audience (Score:5, Interesting)

      by digitalhermit ( 113459 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:13PM (#5529302) Homepage
      I've worked at some large companies before. There's a prevailing attitude among many of the managers that "technical" knowledge should be separated completely from "business" decisions. It's not exactly that the nuts-and-bolts procedures are below them (though it can appear that way), but that they believe that efficient managers must not cloud their decisions with technical jargon. That is, business decisions are distinct from the process.

      This leads to situations where a person who's relatively ignorant about technology and its merits can make decisions about the company's IT infrastructure, based only on vendors claims. So they add a layer of management below them, ostensibly to act as evaluators of technology and to report up to senior management. But shit flows downhill. Pretty soon you have middle-level, lower-level, and even *technicians* who want to abstract the nitty-gritty details.

      At some point you need someone who can say, "This is shit." (Insert witty story about how this phrase becomes, "This product will aid growth and guarantee success in the market")

      • Re:Audience (Score:5, Informative)

        by Spunk ( 83964 ) <sq75b5402@sneakemail.com> on Monday March 17, 2003 @02:36PM (#5530429) Homepage
        At some point you need someone who can say, "This is shit." (Insert witty story about how this phrase becomes, "This product will aid growth and guarantee success in the market")

        Copy located at http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/books/845/shitha p.htm [fortunecity.com]

        How shit happens

        In the Beginning was the plan.
        And then came the assumptions.
        And the assumptions were without form.
        And the plan was completely without substance.
        And the darkness was upon the face of the workers. And they spoke among themselves saying: "It is a crock of sh_t, and it stinketh."

        And the workers went unto their supervisors, and sayeth: "It is a pail of dung, and none can abide the odor Thereof"

        And the supervisors went unto their managers and sayeth unto them, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none can abide it."

        And the managers went unto the directors and sayeth, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none can abide its strength." And the directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another: "It contains that which aids plant growth, and is very strong."

        And the directors went unto the vice presidents and sayeth to them, "It promotes growth, and is very powerful."

        And the vice presidents went unto the president, and sayeth unto him, "This new plan will actively promote growth and efficiency of this company, and certain areas in particular."

        And the president looked upon the plan, and saw that it was good.
        And the plan became policy.
        And this is how shit happens.
    • It was my submission and I agree it's not very clear... I meant to say that the article is targeted at an audience that may be at a lower level of OSS experience.

    • Re:Audience (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sounder40 ( 243087 )

      Any CIO who is worth his / her salt should be able to understand technological issues at a profound level.

      No, CIO's should not be technical. That is not their job. They have technicians working for them that should understand all of the technical issues, and should clearly and without bias summarize technical issues for the CIO. The CIO's job is to understand the mission of the company, understand the IT costs of doing that business, and should, with the help of their technical staff, make decisions

    • Management as a discpline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @01:42PM (#5529961)
      Lots of managers (including two CIOs I know) argue that management is a discpline unto itself and knowing how to manage is enough; technical knowledge enough to make decisions is learned or imparted through employees or consultants.

      I buy this to a certain extent, but I've also seen CIOs make horrible technology decisions because they didn't trust their own people, were misled by consultants, or just plain made decisions because they *thought* they knew. I'm pretty sure the latter is a big culprit, as are CIOs that drag in consultants who disagree with their staff and create a huge we/they problem. And then there are bottom-liners who manage to the bottom line, "trimming costs" as a sign of "good management."

      I also think that an organization has to be structured in such a way that good, consultive management can work. Frequently it's not structured that way, management doesn't trust employees, employees don't trust management, and the whole process of decisionmaking gets flushed down the toilet.

      I personally think that effective management requires a lot of experience in the field you're managing AND a solid management training background. Past "Experts" now in management can certainly micromanage or get into situations where they override their technical people simply because "in their day" things were done differently.

  • OSS in my workplace (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Giant Ape Skeleton ( 638834 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:23AM (#5528981) Homepage
    Speaking from personal experience, every project I have been involved with for my employer over the past year has been either partially or (in most cases) completely built on Open Source applications.

    And the inperative to go OSS has come, surprisingly, not from us admins and developers, but from tech-savvy Management types, who understand the value of OSS and can read the coding on the wall :-)

    • Re:OSS in my workplace (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stevens ( 84346 )

      Speaking from personal experience, every project I have been involved with for my employer over the past year has been either partially or (in most cases) completely built on Open Source applications.

      Hear, hear! Where I work (investment industry), they were hostile to open source two years ago, even begrudging the use of Perl. We'd been sneaking it in.

      Last week I had a meeting where I made explicit that the dev crew defaults to open source solutions, and will only get a vendor product when the OSS do

  • It reminds me the Hello World joke... (Score:5, Funny)

    by borgdows ( 599861 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:24AM (#5528986)
    "The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."

    *** High School/Jr.High

    10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
    20 END

    *** New professional

    #include

    void main(void)
    {
    char *message[] = {"Hello ", "World"};
    int i;
    for(i = 0; i
    #include
    main()
    {
    char *tmp;
    int i=0; /* on y va bourin */
    tmp=(char *)malloc(1024*sizeof(char));
    while (tmp[i]="Hello Wolrd"[i++]); /* Ooopps y'a une infusion ! */
    i=(int)tmp[8];
    tmp[8]=tmp[9];
    tmp[9]=(char)i;
    printf("%s\n",tmp);
    }

    *** New Manager (do you remember?)
    10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
    20 END

    *** Middle Manager

    mail -s "Hello, world." bob@b12
    Bob, could you please write me a program that prints "Hello, world."?
    I need it by tomorrow.
    ^D

    *** Chief Executive

    % letter
    letter: Command not found.
    % mail
    To: ^X ^F ^C
    % help mail
    help: Command not found.
    % damn!
    !: Event unrecognized
    % logout

  • Here it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:26AM (#5528999)
    Sayeth the Article:

    Free is good. CIOs who don't come to terms with this revolution in 2003 will be paying too much for IT in 2004.

    Just like the music industry is in the middle of crumbling, the pay-for software industry is also about to start the long downward slide into irrelevance. IBM and a few other big corps know it's coming and are preparing. They're already well into the conversion to selling their services in association with the software rather than the software itself.

    This means that the last hurdle, the hurdle that both Microsoft and OSS developers need to look at most closely, is desktop productivity apps.

    Does OpenOffice compare to OfficeXP or Office2003? How about Outlook? Can OSS build a mail client/PIM that plays well with Exchange servers? Can OSS build a layer to confuse Outlook into beleiving that an LDAP server is really an Exchange server?

    It's going to be an interesting few years as the software markets begin to shift.

    • Re:Here it comes... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Beatbyte ( 163694 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:36AM (#5529059) Homepage
      Can OSS build a mail client/PIM that plays well with Exchange servers?

      SuSE has the server, Ximian has the client. ;)

      I've been Evolution exclusively since it was released.
      I've never used the Exchange compatible server from SuSE but have heard nothing but good about it.

      • Re:Mad Hatter project is more interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @01:21PM (#5529805)
        How does SuSE's offering compare to Exchange when it comes to calandering? From what I've read, it seems like that kind of functionality requires the use of a web interface.

        While I like the idea of a web interface if one is going to use a seperate calandaring application, it hardly compares to the integration of Outlook and Exchange.

        There are plenty of good Open Source solutions for email. And Evolution is an excellent client (its my favorite). But we're still missing a good, integrated, shared calandaring solution. It may be in work now and something that'll show up in the future. But as far as I can tell, its not here yet. And that means there is no replacement for Exchange.
    • Just like the music industry is in the middle of crumbling, the pay-for software industry is also about to start the long downward slide into irrelevance

      And when it finally happens, don't bitch that you can't find a programming job in the US for more than $10/hour and the jobs that are there are so few and far between that you'll be flipping burgers at Burger King so you can continue to live in your parent's basement. I could work for free all-day-long, too, but I like being able to eat.

      I find it amazin

      • Actually my experience has been just the opposite. Free Software makes it affordable to create a customized solution that is built from a base of commodity Free Software parts. This is excellent news for in-house development staffs and small-time developers. All of a sudden we can produce custom solutions that cost less than the one-size-fits-all solutions available from the the huge software development houses.

        Yes, this is bad news for Microsoft, Oracle, BEA, and the rest of the commercial software gi

      • Just like the music industry is in the middle of crumbling, the pay-for software industry is also about to start the long downward slide into irrelevance

        And when it finally happens, don't bitch that you can't find a programming job in the US for more than $10/hour and the jobs that are there are so few and far between that you'll be flipping burgers at Burger King so you can continue to live in your parent's basement. I could work for free all-day-long, too, but I like being able to eat.

        I find it amazi

    • Re:Here it comes... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cygnusx197 ( 606856 )
      What's keeping our company from using OSS is the "little things".

      We don't use it because it won't sync with our blackberries.

      The question is, can OSS keep up with the hundreds of niche usages that are minor things, but renders it useless to enterprises?

  • Actual News... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:26AM (#5529001) Homepage

    My god an actual proper article on OSS and how it is winning. THIS is also to everyone out there who pushes MySQL and its ilk. These are the people who need to be convinced and this lays down HOW they need to be convinced.

    These people don't care about this cool feature or that cool feature, its TCO that concerns them, so cheap today != cheap tommorow.

    Unlike most OSS is winning articles I've read recently this actually approaches it from the right side... the money men. If the CIO commisions a system on OSS that is great, if next time he specifies OSS then it really has made it. Until its the default with these people however its not the major player.

  • A danger (Score:5, Insightful)

    by forgoil ( 104808 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:26AM (#5529003) Homepage
    OSS (or more exactly in this case, the linux distributions) are not just a great bargin at a low price, there are also the cost of upgrades and maintenance. There is nothing that says that a company can upgrade to the newest versions of everything all the time, and who supplies fixes to a large set of dated versions?

    This is one, of many questions, that needs to be answered before "Free software"/OSS can be used problem free in any commercial environment. I am sure I will be shot down quickly, but I rather see these issuses taken care of than starting yet another flamewar.

    On a slightly related note. I would hope that all companies that saves a bundle on free software could set aside a part of their profit and donate it to the projects behind their software. OSS/Linux/etc needs more people who work with it for a living after all.

    • Re:A danger (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      There is nothing that says that a company can upgrade to the newest versions of everything all the time, and who supplies fixes to a large set of dated versions?

      And this is different from Microsoft EOLing their products and forcing people to upgrade (for a fee) ((for a larger fee if you waited too long)) for continued bugfixes and patches?

      This is a problem for any software, unless you contract a company to provide support for you in perpetuity. In which case, why not just hire a programmer to maintain y
    • This is what support contracts are for, and why, if you need long term support, you go with bigger/well known companies, like RedHat, IBM, SAP, Oracle etc. Just look at this paragraph from the article:

      But in 2001 and 2002, major vendors such as Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle and Sun announced in various ways that they would begin supporting open-source products. IBM is leading the push. "We will guarantee the same [service-level agreements] for Linux that we do for proprietary OSs," says Dan Frye, director of

    • OSS (or more exactly in this case, the linux distributions) are not just a great bargin at a low price, there are also the cost of upgrades and maintenance. There is nothing that says that a company can upgrade to the newest versions of everything all the time, and who supplies fixes to a large set of dated versions?

      Good points, but I think this applies more so to closed than it does to OSS. Consider the case of quark and that they did not port there stuff from Mac9 to OSX. This left a large number of co

  • Gartner Group is at it again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by plover ( 150551 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:27AM (#5529004) Homepage Journal
    Of course, the magazine has to get the opinion of the Gartner Group. Here's what V.P. In-Charge-Of-Shilling-For-Microsoft George Weiss has to say: "[Companies want to know], 'Where will Linux be a year from now, or two or three years from now? And who can guarantee that for us?'" Weiss says.

    I think that's exactly what's wrong with the Microsoft world. Why does it have to "go somewhere"? Do we need Linux.NET? Linux COM+? Linux ActiveX? Linux MTS? How about a stable platform, that doesn't shift like sand beneath our applications? How about the promise of a platform that remains constant as expected?

    • Where will SCO be a year from now, or two or three years from now? And who can guarantee that for us?
      Or any proprietary company that gets "bought up"?

    • Re:Gartner Group is at it again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:48AM (#5529126) Homepage
      It has to go somewhere because going nowhere is called dying. If you don't move forward you will be left behind by your competition as they continue to innovate, refine, and improve.

      And while I disagre with what Mr. Weiss said (there are several companies or groups that can tell you where Linux is going -- but probably only one or two (Redhat and IBM) can express it in a way that a C?O would grok), it is a valid question to ask.

      Constant as expected? So you're saying there are absolutely zero bugs or security holes in Linux right now? And that it has everything you could possibly want, so there's no reason to continue development on it, right? Guess we better tell the Kernel devs, GCC devs, KDE/Gnome peeps, and XFree86 group that they need to find something else to do now because it's "perfect".

      Get real. Companies want a stable, well supported platform but they also want to know where it's going -- because it's freaking expensive to change platforms. Companies want to know that the platform they chose right now will be supported for a decade, and that it'll be the platform they chose again in a decade. And don't say "well, you have the source! You can make it do whatever you want!". Yeah. Right. It's a smart business plan to move away from your core competencies and spend resources on something like that.
    • I was speaking at a conference in Europe last year and was invited to participate in a Gartner Group roundtable with several large companies.

      One worried executive asked, "Do you think we should ..."

      The response was, "We don't make recommendations, we just raise issues that you should think about."

      Still, no company openly ignores the analysts, as the analysts will start dissing them by raising more and more issues.

      Industry analysts, like economsits only exist to make astrologers look good.
    • I think the reason this mindset exists is because Microsoft has blurred the definition of what an OS is. According to MS, the OS is a hardware abstraction layer, plus a 3D graphics library, a web browser, media player, etc. All of those things can and probably should be solved in user space. I think once we realize, as plover suggested, that the OS should be pretty minimalistic, we can get past the "go somewhere" mentality. We need a fast, stable, secure OS, that keeps up with current technology/hardwar
  • Interesting article. I had a chuckle at the comment about a lack of strength on the lack of "big Enterprise strength applications" with OSS. How silly. I have used some of these Big applications like ERP, and they stink. How could OSS be worse? I can see only opportunities for improvements.

    • Re:You shall be assimilated (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      OSS is worse because there is no one to take the executives golfing. That's terrible. Who wants a system like that?

  • in reality (Score:5, Informative)

    by ciryon ( 218518 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:30AM (#5529025) Journal
    Still there's a huge different looking at OSS and actually migrating from microsoft systems.

    We've had reports like this in sweden for a while but unfortunately it seems as it's just a cool thing to say for the incompetent CIO "yeah we're looking at linux. once it gets better we might switch.". In my experience there are many bad CIOs that are trying to cover their incompetence by claiming they know something about OSS.

    Ciryon

    • Re:in reality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by luzrek ( 570886 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:52AM (#5529148) Journal
      Corporations ussually switch from one platform to another when it comes time for a massive upgrade. In the case of the Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue (recently covered on slashdot) they descided to switch over when the window 95 computers they were using became so obsolete (and broken) that they were unusable. Then, cost ended up being the determing factor when desciding which new systems to get. I think that the figure was 600$ per computer for closed source and 200$ per computer for open source. From the article it looks like KB switched at the cash-register level because OSS was the only solution which met there requirements for cash registers.

      One of the main issues for companies (and some consumers) is minimizing recuring costs. OSS solutions offer the best way of doing this since you are not vulnerable to extortion (err.. purchasing upgrades).

      • If I were running a company (which I am not!), I think I would rather spend money on people than on software. This seems like a selling point for OSS. You don't pay for a fancy box, a licence, advertising, and all the other horseshit, you just pay people who are going to solve your problems.

        You have to pay for people anyway, with Closed Source (r), so why not only pay for that. IT should be thought of as a service, and not as a product.

        Anyway, if I was running a company (which I am not!), this is the k

    • Yes and No. This same scene was repeated in 1985-1992. At that time, everybody used IBM or Unix systems on the desktop. As PCs came along, they were regarded as jokes and many CIO's said that they would have nothing to do with them. Later, CIO's said that they were looking at them, but probably would not switch. However, they did switch while trying to keep it quiet. These ppl had the idea that the compitition would switch if they knew about it. So they were hopeing to have the PC on the desktop longer with

  • from the article (side bar 3) (Score:4, Funny)

    by phrantic ( 630202 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:38AM (#5529074)
    Who Are Those Guys?

    The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who are working for you right now

    Worried about trusting your infrastructure to a bunch of shaggy college kids who might bolt at any moment for a yearlong backpacking trip to Switzerland? Don't worry. Even if every one of them left for the Alps tomorrow, 90 percent of the open-source community would still be checking in to one of the community's Internet hangouts (SourceForge.net and Freshmeat.net are the most popular) to see what's new.

    Yeah right, like I have time to ski, or that I have any hair left, shaggy or otherwise....well except for the palms of my hand but I don't count that...

    • The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who are working for you right now

      It should have read - The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who used to work for you until you laied them off in your stupid cut-backs to artificially increase your bottom line.

  • I don't think it's just being considered (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deadsquid ( 535515 ) <`moc.diuqsdaed' `ta' `xsa'> on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:38AM (#5529075) Homepage

    I think it's safer to say it's gaining in popularity, and because of the cost savings involved is now starting to come to the attention of the executive management.

    I've worked (and continue to work) with or for a number of large corporations, and OSS has always had a place there. The big difference is you're starting to see a few more core applications and/or platforms replaced because the commercial apps are generally overkill and cost an arm and a leg to support and maintain.

    People have always used Perl to automate batch processing. There are a whole lot of smaller custom applications that use MySQL instead of (ack!) Access or MS SQL Server because it does the job. There are a number of shops I've seen that use Nagios for monitoring because it meets their needs. OSS is out there, has been there for a while, and is now moving out of the closet and into the light.

    Now that it can have such a positive impact on the bottom line in tight times, corporate execs are starting to realize there are significant gains to be had. It'll never replace commercial software, but it can certainly play a very complementary role.

    Tradeoffs exist, but the communities which typically support OSS can usually (I've found) provide better support coupled with faster workarounds and patches than going through a vendor. It's not perfect, but most of the time it works.

    It's nice to see that people are finally taking the attitude that you CAN get fired for buying Big Blue. About time we get back to right tool for the right job. Here's hoping those same CIO's will see the benefits of giving back as well, and releasing useful mods/patches back into the community.

    • Hasn't it been proved that because of the learning curve, and because of the higher cost of linux administrators that it's actually more expensive to run Linux servers than Windows. And XP is not that unstable. And Redhat 7.3 crashed playing the games that actually came in the distro, on my athlon 1.2ghz with a Geforce 4 and half a gig of ram.
      • You have to hire System Administrators no mater which operating system you are running. Provided the company is big enough. While it might be possible that *NIX SysAdmins are better than MS SysAdmins (now this is 100% flamebait), and therefore should be paid more, I don't think they are.

        From recent experience, OS + OfficeSuite costs put the break even point for hiring a part-time sysadmin for GNU/Linux systems at around 30 computers (in private business), asuming that in the MS version the cost for admin

        • Actually Linux administrators are paid more, because there aren't very many with a minimu of 5 years experience in the work world and that's what my company requires, so we over pay linux geeks for some reason. The guy came in the first day wearing Sandles and a T-Shirt, I sent him home to find proper shoes, a dress shirt and a tie.

  • The OSS business plan. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dthoma ( 593797 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:46AM (#5529112) Journal
    1. Produce high quality software and sell it for a reasonable price.

    2. Treat your customers with respect.

    3. Profit!

  • TCO skepticism (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kidlinux ( 2550 ) <<duke> <at> <spacebox.net>> on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:46AM (#5529113) Homepage
    There has been a lot of articles [slashdot.org] and a lot of speculation [slashdot.org] as to whether the TCO of Linux is any better than that of Windows. But I found this quote in the article interesting:

    "And CIOs who have implemented it [Linux] report huge total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) reductions. "

    Straight from the horse's mouth. CIOs are saying it, and a (I assume) reputable source of CIO news is reporting it. That settles the argument, as far as I'm concerned.

  • Open Source version of Oracle? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ibirman ( 176167 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:51AM (#5529138) Homepage
    This is great news:

    Last summer, Oracle released an open-source version of its database to run on clusters of Linux servers--a popular way for CIOs to transition big, power-hungry applications and databases from expensive hardware like supercomputers and high-end Unix servers to groups of cheap Intel servers running Linux

    Where can I get my copy?

  • The recession is open source's best friend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrneutron ( 61365 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:53AM (#5529149)
    With ever-tightening budgets, open source is getting a firmhold in many companies that would have bought closed source retail software during the fat budget years.

    I've had a number of open source-based projects greenlighted (intrusion detection, vulnerability scanners, virus/spam blocking SMTP gateways, etc.) that would not have been approved if we had to pay large operating system or software licensing fees.

    • It also helps when smaller companies see that when the most influential computer company in the world--IBM--has invested heavily in Linux development, it means that Linux is pretty much ready to tackle serious, high-volume computing needs.
    • Yep, the economy having tanked is the real reason that OSS stands a BIG improved chance at displacing MS-entrenchment.

      Back in the Y2K craze and even immediately thereafter, management wanted to migrate to MS stuff because the people who can install, run, and maintain MS stuff cost a lot less money to hire and retain. Back then the real knowledgeable system professionals who knew their stuff cost a great deal more money, and were harder to hire and keep than an MS monkey. Management has known full well all
  • "We just had a security and penetration audit last month, and the only systems the auditors weren't able to penetrate were the Linux systems," he says.

    gasps of shock and surprise. the same company replaced 40 windows web servers with 4 running linux/apache. I'll take one competent linux admin over 10 drooling idiots any day.
    • try hacking my windows server. Just because these companies apparently hired stupid Windows administrators doesn't mean anything. I garantee that a windows 2000 Advanced server, set up properly, is unhackable.
      • the point, to put it delicately, is not that a windows machine cannot concievably be rendered reasonably secure. that may be possible. but microsoft has sold it's products on the ability to hire mindless boobs to operate them. the fact that microsoft can't secure it's own windows systems just goes to show that even a reasonably competent administrator would be challenged to maintain a basic windows system. i'm sure most of the world's windows admins aren't as godlike as you.

      • try hacking my windows server.
        Does the name "Gary Hart" mean anything to you?

  • where will linux be? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @11:58AM (#5529191)
    Everywhere.

    The big question is where will Microsoft be? It will be on the same old limited platforms trying to pretend that old PC style architecture is ideal for every computer application.

    How long will it take before MS realises that people are not exactly rushing to follow it's lead?
    • Linux is already at the place where it can do the most good: high-end high-volume critical-uptime machines.

      That's what you get when IBM spends US$1 billion to port Linux to run on AS/400 and S/9000 big iron. =)
  • How many CIOs do you know who can even mount a floppy drive in *nix, MUCH LESS make (intelligent) purchasing decisions?

    I like *nix as much as any the other slashdotter, but let's admit that *nix poorly implemented in an environment is WORSE than doze properly implemented.

    Imagine how devastating it could be for a company if a CIO implemented OSS with the wrong expectations? (Wanting EVERYTHING free, promised the corporate masters the moon, etc.)

  • Ok, first, deciding to use Open Source software is a non-descision. You should be using the software that best suits your needs in terms of cost/benefit. If that's Red Hat Linux, then fine. If it's MacOS/X, fine. If it's Windows XP, fine.

    What you really need to be asking is, how can participating in Open Source help my business? As an example, it's been said many times, but bear repeating: most of the lines of code written in the world are written for internal projects within a company and never see the light of day. Many companies don't release such code because it's a one-way operation. You release it, your competition uses it and you get nothing in return.

    Now that the OSS model is blossoming, it's possible to create micro-markets for software that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. Anyone who starts this process will soon discover that there's something amazing that happens almost immediately. Code gets cleaner (the old "well if someone's going SEE this" reflex), documentation gets more extensive, people start thinking about modularity and interoperation. New ideas start moving around and soon, you're partially funding a very efficient software micro-market rather than fully funding your own in-house effort that just evolved over time as a tumor on your business.

    You can now start to do things you would never had dared. You can investigate large systemic changes that would have been too costly before. Bug fixes happen faster. Software starts to be *released* in a reasonable way (heck, you might even have a reasonable handle on what features are upcoming and when to expect them).

    This is the true power of OSS. Replacing your desktop or server OS is just a side-benefit.

    • I can tell you first hand what happens when you don't share changes to a Free Software project, and it ain't pretty.

      Several years ago I needed software to create some specialized graphs for a manufacturing Intranet. Since I was working in Perl at the time I downloaded GIFgraph, and took a look at it. It did about 90% of what I needed, and was cleanly written, so I spent a couple of weeks and added the features that I needed. Several of these features were the type of thing that just about anyone making

  • What a good article. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sQuEeDeN ( 565589 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:11PM (#5529280)
    What a well-written article. If only all the articles on slashdot could be like that: Clear, concise, full of details, and it had links to other sub-articles for public consumption if the reader was interested. Plus, they provided loads of evidence. (also they have lots of "it worked for me" stories, probably to ease the jitters of reluctant cios.)

    I'd have to say, you know the article wasn't full of BS when they said, flat out, that MCSE's don't know anything useful. Yes!! That alone showed how they were cutting it straight. Then they went to rag on VB people too, and I was gleeful. Also made me glad to see the consulting companies are letting windows-only people go. Makes me feel like I'll be able to get a job soon enough, heh.
  • Quoth the article:

    Jeffery was vaguely aware of the roots of this community, how it began in 1984 when a cantankerous software programmer named Richard Stallman wrote some brilliant software designed as an alternative to the Unix operating system. It was software that anyone could use and change and distribute--as long as he promised to share any changes he made with everyone else. In 1991, a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds added a complex kernel to Stallman's and others' programs to instruct

  • Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kidlinux ( 2550 ) <<duke> <at> <spacebox.net>> on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:15PM (#5529324) Homepage
    For the time being, it's not direct competition between Linux and Windows that's going to be the deciding factor of who'll be the victor. It's competiton between businesses:

    "Free is good. CIOs who don't come to terms with this revolution in 2003 will be paying too much for IT in 2004."

    In 2004, businesses who are using OSS will have an edge over those who are not. So I think we'll see most, if not all, businesses getting as much use out of OSS as possible, just to remain competitive in the market. What may happen is a more intelligent form of the dot com era. Investors will start investing more in a business making use of OSS, but won't be investing just because said business has the slightest relation to OSS. They will be investing in an established business who is making use of OSS to increase profits and is therefore more competitive than others.

    Competition between the OSes is not completely irrelevant, however. Free is a good thing, but not when what you're getting for free is useless. And that is what makes Linux great, it has the best of both worlds - it's excellent software, and it's free.

  • The trick is to get them to try it! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alkarismi ( 48631 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:16PM (#5529331) Homepage
    I agree with the article fully, it's been our experience here in the UK that companies are much more willing to consider Open Source. We are talking with some _significantly_ sized UK firms - the real trick is to get them to trial some projects. Once 'the penguin has landed' it inevitably spreads.
    I'm glad that the point was made about TCO. We have noticed that _whatever_ the intellectual debate over TCO, when you _actually deploy_ in any decent sized business, TCO benefits are huge!
    With the benefits of an actual deployment - the advantages of Open Source are clear - it's only those standing on the outside looking in that have doubts - the long term conclusions that Open Source will take the Enterprise is inevitable.

  • You all are missing a great new market... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:17PM (#5529336) Journal
    I've talked with a few companies that are looking to move away from Windows to Linux. The main reason is that they are fed up with the new licensing terms and the cost. It's a very very big line item in their expense budgets these days and they see no end to it. They felt helpless after Microsoft pushed through many licensing changes over the years, the first being the end of the concurent licensing several years back. Each change makes many business owners feel impotent because they have no alternative but to pay up -- until now. Businesses do not like to lose control of anything.

    Now they have no illusion that this is all going to be free or easy. Not a one of them was against shifting a good portion of their licensing fees to consulting and support costs. For example, I explained the advantages of Redhat's advanced server and the annual cost for support, plus costs for consulting support, and none of them were the least bit concerned about that aspect (not to say there are not other concerns, like current IT staff resistance for example).

    It's the bottom line here. If they can reduce their overall costs for IT, it gives them a competitive edge. If your company can get a slice of what remains, all the better.

    There's a market brewing here, and with all good new markets, only the wise can see it coming. Here's a chance to steal some market dollars from Microsoft.

    • Bang on the money.
      We're finding that firms are becoming conscious of the breakdown of their IT costs:
      1. Hardware
      2. Licensing
      3. Support

      In fact with Open Source deployments 1. goes down, 2. is _vastly_ reduced, and 3. is merely swapped to someone who supports Open Source. Overall result - lower costs.
      • Although every situation is unique, I would disagree with support costs being the same. Not in the beginning. Whoever switches is going to take a bit of a hit on support to make the transition along with retraining. But with some care, the transition costs can still come in under their overall licensing costs for the year and then future years are where the savings really start to kick in.

        It's important, if you are a consultant, not to oversell it. And, if you are a small company, target only small compan

  • OSS pushed thanks to IBM? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:23PM (#5529399)
    I think the reason why larger companies are investigating the possibility of using Linux and other Open Source software is the fact biggest supporter of OSS is probably the most influential computer company in the world: IBM.

    Given IBM's US$1 billion plus investment in porting Linux to run on AS/400 and S/9000 big iron machines, no wonder why the Fortune 500 crowd is taking notice. Look at what IBM has pulled off so far--the official web sites for the Grand Slam tennis events (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open) are all run off IBM hardware and software, sites that proved it could hold up under extremely heavy loads.

    The big loser in all this is Sun Microsystems. Sun's still major reliance on Solaris will get Sun hammered the in long run from the high end by IBM big iron running Linux and from the low end by Dell x86-based servers also running Linux.
    • Absolutely.
      Up until a year or two ago we had to spend a large amount of time at initial presentations convincing companies that Open Source was a credible alternative to proprietary software. More often than not we get a 'if it's good enough for IBM, it's good enough for us' type response now, so much so that we take for granted that the prospective new client is convinced of the credibility of Open Source.
  • I was hired at (start next week) at a "Microsoft" shop. I have some experience in that, and also a fair amount of linux/mac/opensource stuff too. The trend I'm seeing is that people who know both are in a good position to get a job: they represent flexibility for management, who have in-house talent with knowledge of "the other option" and can use it to leverage themselves against a vendor during price negotiations.

    Are they going linux tomorrow? Probably not. But their web-servers are ALL IIS, and Apache sure looks more and more attractive with each new iis problem that finds it's way onto CNN.

  • I'm more or less a CIO... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mantrid ( 250133 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:33PM (#5529490) Journal
    Well I don't have the title, but I am 'the' computer person MIS/IT/DB Manager etc... for a fair sized process manufacturing business (pushing $100 Million). We are getting bent over left, right, and center by licensing, Microsoft, ERP software, you name it.

    We feel trapped in the MS web and would love to break out. We spend $200K easy on licensing costs annually easily...so here's my thinking.

    Is there not some way we could use this money to hire a Linux programmer and a Linux admin guru or some combination of consultants, etc and start getting our butts off of the MS shaft? I don't mind Windows on the client so much. I can handle leaving Finance with Excel, but Open Office could replace much of that. I'm sure something could replace Exchange etc... And as for the ERP side, well it's fairly complex but at least if we had an option for something that could run on Linux with say, Oracle or whatever (at least be flexible) database backend...

    Where the heck would I start with all of this? I am a Windows/DOS guy, but I don't mind learning Linux...it's just a matter of getting started.

    Ugh, maybe this should be an Ask Slashdot question...
  • Listen, Mr Exec: this stuff is cheep. It costs you nothing in licenses and you can use it for free. Like all software it is raw material, so be prepared to invest in making it work. But it is about the best raw material out there, and it is (did we mention this) free, costing exactly nothing.
    It is a powerful argument and one that the OSS community should not be shy of using. Forget the discussion of 'free as in beer' and 'TCO'. Microsoft did not earn their billions from TCO but from plain license sale
  • The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."

    Why is it that the people making sweeping technology choices at companies don't understand the technology?
  • Of course, now that more people are using Linux, hackers are getting better at hacking it. Everyone agrees, however, that good software is safer than bad software.

    isn't it wonderfully diplomatic how they avoid mentioning the "bad software" by name. we all know that win admins are the ones planning their firefighting, while the rest of us just plan our new deployments. at least these guys are eating the dogfood [netcraft.com] they are shouting.


  • Discussing the pain and resentment CIOs are expressing over the new MS licensing scheme.
    http://www.cio.com/archive/031503/showdow n.html

  • This was an interesting article, but without referring to the source, it's worthless. The author -- for some strange unknown reason -- thought it was too much work to include a reference to the actual study. This spurred several valid criticisms about possible skewing by people who responded to the article on the article's page.

    I've looked up Evans Data Corporation and have actually found the source. Apparently, most /.ers were too happy jumping up and down in joy to actually bother with this small detail.

    SOURCE: Linux Development Survey, Vol. 1 2003 [evansdata.com]: http://www.evansdata.com/n2/surveys/linux_toc_03_1 .shtml

  • That corporate suits are starting to see the upsides of OSS great, but are they willing to contribute? For example, say a company realizes that they can save ten million dollars over ten years by using open source software. Will they be willing to spend one million of that by hiring a programmer to "give back" to the open-source community over those same ten years? PERL is a great start, many companies have donated to PERL development because of the money PERL saves them, but what about just bringing on ful
  • Back in '02 my CIO put out an RFP on OSS. He found that the ROI was better than for an MS NT solution. Despite the ROI shown by the OSS RFP, we went with MS NT because it was easy to get some MCSEs on H1s to handle WINS, DHCP, and DNS on MS NT. RH put together a nice OSS proposal along with HP, but in the end MS and IBM won out.

    -- The above story is fictional. The TLAs have been changed to protect the guilty.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close