The Benefits of 'Vendor-Free' Open Source IT

mjasay writes "IDC has released a report looking into industry adoption of open software. In the study, analyst Matt Lawton stumbles across an intriguing trend: IT departments do most of the services around open source, rather than third-party consulting companies. While IDC believes this is a bad thing, the data in the report suggests otherwise. 70% of the enterprises surveyed did their own implementations, while roughly 90% supported their own open-source deployments. This might be a cause for alarm if the projects weren't so successful: 70% of the projects were deemed to be of "Critical" or "High Importance" compared to other IT projects and 90% plan to maintain or increase their investment in open source projects. Could it be that open source is liberating enterprises from an unhealthy dependence on vendors, and that early results suggest that this will be a Very Good Thing for the success of IT projects, many of which have failed historically."

Good news for those going into IT

[neapolitan]

Very interesting thesis of this post. In my line of work (health care) there is a lot of in-house development of patient care record systems, as there is not a dominant standard at this time.

I've found the following:

  - You get smarter, more resourceful people when they are not MSCE drones, but actually programmers that are able to solve a problem, not just relay it up the chain or find the checkbox in the configuration GUI.

  - There is much less waste in a way, and more in another way. Specifically, implementing a solution often involves talking to a single person about a problem with the database, not finding the "Oracle consultant guy" who then can talk to the "Microsoft guy." With a department that has its own development, these things seem to go faster and there is less separation of functions.

  - However, many hospitals / organizations duplicate functionality, which is the "more waste" that I talk about. I mean, many, many businesses are the same and need email / web server setups plus a few business-specific apps. This is all duplicated by each organization. Training a consultant is even more globally efficient in this regard, who can take his expertise and start multiple implementations without (expensive) retraining.

Overall, I think this is great news for smart people going into IT. You will be sought after to lead a company department, and all of those license fees can now contribute to your salary + additional savings for the company. Would you rather earn $x from being a MSCE admin, or $5x managing a vertical open-source system with much more intellectual stimulation? I'd take the latter.

Re:ATCS

[ozmanjusri]

So were on sourceforge can I download an Air Traffic Control System?

Here [sourceforge.net] and Here [openatc.com]

Re:Conclusion Not In Evidence...

[daveb]

90 percent of respondents are planning to increase or keep the same (very healthy) level of investment in open source. Clearly, if the projects weren't working out, we'd see this number come in much lower.

I've worked in healthcare IT (admitidly in a differentcentuary). The idea that bad projects would lead to a change in behaviour is a really nice fantasy. The reality is more like continually banging your head on a brick wall, when it hurts bang some more to see if it lessens, repeat.

Vendor Solutions Just Take Too Long

[nuintari]

Vendors assume you are ignorant of their products, especially as how it pertains to your own environment. Try it sometime, call a vendor and say, "I'd like to order 2 _vendor_ _model_, with X numbers of these add-ons, can I get a quote?" You won't get a quote for anything you ordered if the price tag is over a couple hundred bucks. They will happily sell you the little stuff, but the minute you order a large product, you become an idiot to them, who has to be walked through a slow and tedious process of "carefully examining your situation to ensure we find the right fit." yeah, shutup asshole. I researched this a ton, I know what this product will do, what I need it to do, I have found your 'right fit,' just quote me a price and lets get on with this. I do not need a four way phone conversation between you, the manufacturer's sales guy, and two techs explaining me a pile of stuff I already know. You are not going to sell me a product that is 10 times my expected price, I am not an idiot, when I said I wanted model Y, I meant "I want model Y!" not, "I am an idiot, and if you sweet talk me hard enough, I'll by the YY2000eleventyOverpoweredDontNeedItonlyMoronsBUyThis model"

So yeah, fuck Vendors, we do 99% of our stuff in house, we are a FreeBSD shop with a ton of custom code. I like it this way, it keeps me off the phone with sales guys and snobby support techs. When it breaks, I fix it, not pick up the phone and pray they aren't having a high call volume.

Re:IT support costs go down but auditing goes way

[ratboy666]

Of the Operating Environments you mentioned, source is available. The last "hold-out" was Microsoft -- even they make source licenses available now.

HP: see http://licensing.hp.com/slm/swl/view.slm?page=source [hp.com] (VMS, Tru64)

Solaris: completely open-source, see http://opensolaris.org/os/ [opensolaris.org]

IBM: not sure about them -- older releases of IBMs mainframe OS came with source, so I expect that z/OS comes with source. I *haven't* personally seen the source for AIX.

In general, OSs have ALWAYS come with source; back in the early '80s, for example, Digital VMS came with source (by default on microfiche AFAIR). The "closed source" OS was debuted by CP/M, and carried forward by MSDOS.