Analyst Admits Open Source Will Quietly Take Over 304
ZDOne writes "In a few years' time, almost all businesses will use open source, according to analyst Gartner — which has up to now been fairly cautious, or downright negative, in its previous predictions about community developed software. '"By 2012, more than 90 percent of enterprises will use open source in direct or embedded forms,' predicts a Gartner report, The State of Open Source 2008, which sees a 'stealth' impact for the technology in embedded form: "Users who reject open source for technical, legal or business reasons might find themselves unintentionally using open source despite their opposition.'"
That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:4, Insightful)
"despite their objection"? who are these people who "object" to using free software and why? No one objects to email and the web, but they are largely run by free software, as is pointed out in the fine article by Taylor. This position and the way they take it for granted is baffling. Do the majority of people really care what business model their software is developed under? Are there really people who would pick up their pitchforks if confronted with Firefox? Do non free software companies really enjoy such mass support that people would never bother to look at options that could save them hundreds of dollars up front and all sorts of pain down the road?
"technical skill required to use it"? My two year old can click a mouse and my whole family uses GNU/Linux without missing a beat and has for years. Our TCO has been far lower thanks to free software - we use hardware much longer, don't have to pay hundreds of dollars for fundamental software like text editors and things just work.
Gartner people understand things are on the way but really the tone is hostile.
Re:that would be nice (Score:4, Insightful)
The assertion that there's very few tasks left is equivalent to saying that progress has almost finished.
Of course, your point is well taken: useful things that are already written but are falling out of date will surely be re-implemented by somebody else, better, given time; and then the original source code won't be so useful.
There's no advantage to propietary (Score:5, Insightful)
MSFT was trying to sell litigation fear over Linux, all the while the BSA was handing out hundreds of thousands in fines. Maybe there's an IP risk for Linux but positively there's a risk of a BSA audit. I've never been in a Windows shop that would survive a 100% audit without finding something out of compliance. Even the Death Star security shops.
Product activation, DRM, dongles and a dozen other ways the proprietary model has shot themselves in the foot. If you need capacity on an open source platform, just stand it up. Fast and uncomplicated.
And the only machines I trust on the internet are my Linux boxes.
I'm starting my new businesses on Linux from the ground up. All the money I would have spent on software can now go to more productive expenses...like booze and strippers. Okay, that's not true but it's nice to have the option.
Unless they're deductible.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like this means corporate America will fully embrace or even prefer open source products. It just means that LAMP solutions will be installed in nearly every company.
What is good about this is that it "pops" the bubble: open source software can successful. But I don't know that it says anything about whether it's an optimal solution for business. I think that's case-by-case.
I think what this is really proving is that there is a certain point at which a software product becomes a commodity. A word processor is a word processor, and for the most part, a browser is a browser. Certainly, a web server is a web server, and doesn't even differentiate on UI. Any changes to the basic template are going to be pretty incremental.
Open-source isn't exactly what you'd call the fastest or most direct method to produce a product. Nothing replaces real dedicated, paid resources. However, if it can create a usable product by the time the market turns largely into commodity, you're pretty much guaranteed adoption.
When they're all basically the same, free looks mighty good.
Services DO provide real cash flow (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, services! Services really do provide real cash flow. In fact, business like service so much they often prefer to convert to that model when they can. Service is an incremental cash flow that keeps on coming. Selling software is a one time sale.
Sure, you can sell upgrades. But you can also sell maintenance, management, and consulting service. You can even sell installation service (unless you make software that installs itself).
The risk of service work is not this lack of ramp up that you claim. Instead, the real risk is a higher level of competition. That is, you'll have a lot of others who can provide the same kind of service, including support service for open source software. Another risk is that if you identify a need to make improvements, you won't invest money in that effort since you can't use it as market leverage. By contrast, a service can be to sell the work of customizing the software to meet individual client needs.
Certain Software Companies Would Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Geez... are you the only one who has not heard Microsoft practically screaming in pain this last year?
Re:So how does one make money in this market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, these guys [ibm.com] don't have cash flow, serious projects or research.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose some software development companies "object" to open source code (especially to opening up their own code), because it threatens their business model.
On a side note, the nice thing about searching for "open source" applications as opposed to "freeware" applications, is that open source applications do not have trial periods. Try searching for "freeware tone generator" on Google and see how many trialwares there are. Now try searching sourcefoge for the same thing.
I hate trialware.
Re:The news bias needs to change... (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you "admit" a prediction? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about an adjective like "thinks", "suspects", or "predicts".
Nobody is admitting anything here.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
What I've found works best on such people, is not the open source angle. Sure that's great for us geeks, but the main thing I express to them is that Linux is free. Next time they wanna update? It'll be free. Unforunately this normally only works for people with older computers (and hence an older version of Windows), as those with new ones generally got a modern copy of Windows with the computer.
Every so often you get lucky with the "but there's no spyware" on Linux angle too.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most users really don't care how the software is developed, as long as they can learn to use it and it does what they want.
Most people would rather pay for support if/when they need it and get the program, updates and patches free, than to pay for the software, then have to hope that the company is willing to support the program at that time.
Personally, I'm happy to pay for non-open software if it allows me to export the data into an open format, even if it's just a decent XML defined one. It doesn't matter much to me whether it's handled like moneydance or crossover office. Either way I can leave if I don't like the service with minimal headaches.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:5, Insightful)
After a while, though, it turns around. Frustration sets in, for the Windows user as well as for the VB programmer. A lot of the things you want to do simply don't work. Or are hard to pull off. You start to see the shortcomings in your OS (or language), you look over to the other guy and see how easily he can pull off what would be a major feat for you (try to do a full HD backup and compress it at the same time in Windows, something that's a very trivial matter with dd and bzip in Linux, or compare it to any kind of pointer operation in the programming analogy).
You start being pissed at your system (or language), you start envying the guy you belittled earlier for his choice of the "needlessly complex" tool. And generally, you'll be dissatisfied in the long run.
That's pretty much how I see it. Yes, the learning curve is still a bit more steep for Linux (although it has mellowed out a DAMN lot, especially with the advent of udev which makes the "now, which chipset do I have..." guessworking no longer the primary source of frustration during setup), but you'll be frustrated the first month of usage, then it's like floating on air. Not the other way 'round.
Incredibly bogus headline (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That's not what he says. He says that in four years, 90% of business will use open-source directly or in embedded devices. So in four years, if 90% of business have one guy with an Android phone, he will be right.
I don't see why I even come to Slashdot anymore. I used to like it because it was less bullshit than Digg, but now it's the exact opposite. What the fuck are the editors doing these days? Every other article I read is a quote taken out of context to mean "OPEN-SOURCE WINS EPIC LULZ."
Reasons? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for legal and business reason - that will be a sure way to be left behind and get excessive costs mounting without any gain.
One problem for open source in the future will be patent trolls. Maybe it's time to go troll hunting and see if they have collected a stash of gold that can be put to better use.
Re:So how does one make money in this market? (Score:3, Insightful)
I switched long ago from the attempt to sell my software to handing it out to prospective customers and offering them a service deal on top of it. In short, it was maybe the best decision I made so far.
In my trade, i.e. computer security, trust plays an important role. So being able to hand over the source to the tools I offer is a big bonus, because few competitors do it. Being able to see the source (and compile it yourself if you are really paranoid) means, though, that you can 100% verify that there are no hidden tricks. It supports my image as being upright, honest and most of all trustworthy. Also, the mentality here dictates that when you get something for free, you at the very least have to listen to the person giving it to you, and people are generally very fond of getting gifts. Old habits can be something wonderful.
Now, few companies have the necessary manpower to actually use the tools sensibly. And that's where I can come to sell my service. And not only once, because security is not a product, it's a process. Keep repeating it to a customer and he will finally catch on, he will hire you and rehire you on a steady base. He will ask you to come in for another audit in half a year, and maybe even more often. As a "free" service, I leave the tool there (if wanted, usually it is), to monitor for "strange" activity, which in turn has created a few more contracts because nobody could interpret them sensibly, i.e. again they needed me to make sense of the readings.
In a nutshell, selling the product would have been a one time benefit. Yes, maybe a larger one than the relatively small prices I charge for the individual contracts. But it creates a steady base, and a much more personal one, too. Again, this may be a speciality of my country, but here it's important who you know, and who knows you. Especially when it comes to something as sensitive as security. Companies don't just open the yellow pages, the managers ask their friends where to turn to. When you sold a product, you're nobody. But if you have been there a few times, made contact with the people there and made a few presentations, you stick in his mind, and you're the "Mr. IT-Security" for him. And he will recommend you to the next company.
In short, that's something I could have never achived with a "simple" product. It is maybe different for some vanilla product like a text editor or some business tool, where you are not meant to become part of the entire solution (I mean, hell, what do you need the IT guy for anymore to use the text editor he wrote?), but it does work extremely well in my case.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sound you hear in the background is laughter coming from the vicinity of Redmond. Our software caused your database to fall down and go poof, and with it your whole company because you couldn't fulfill your orders? Gee. Too bad. Responsible? Read the EULA, dunno who, but certainly not us.
Logical fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you consult Mr P.T Barnum:
"There's one born every minute"
Reliable and uniform? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reliable and uniform -- not the words I would have have used in context of windows administration. The problem with windows administration (and I mostly mean 3rd party server software, but also Microsoft stuff) is that often the GUI is the only sane way to do things -- the cli interface, if it exists, is an afterthought. So automating anything is impossible or hard and debugging problems becomes a game of guesswork.
Yeah, that may be an unfair extrapolation from my experience that includes some fairly bad software vendors and it might even be outdated (as I haven't touched windows in years). Still, that is one of the reasons I prefer not to have anything to do with Windows, at home or at work.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:2, Insightful)
Very succinctly said. Anything that is hackable* or complex has a learning curve, but it's worth it. I have another example to throw out. If you get past the initial steep curve of emacs**, it is quite a wonderful tool. I'm sure the same can be said for vi[m] and have no interest in hijacking this into a flamewar. In the past, I used anjuta and other IDEs. Being able to quickly split the screen to see code side-by-side in emacs is wonderful.
I'm sure you could do the same in IDEs but I have yet to find one that doesn't require a mouse. And I typically do run emacs in x-windows. It's just that a lot of things are faster with the keyboard instead of the mouse. CLI versus point-and-click is yet another example.
* I use hack in the traditional sense above being able to, what I call, tinker.
** this applies to microemacs as well which I actually use
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what else brings maintenance costs down? Not having to hire clickers because you have sane software! You may be knowledgeable in Windows, you are profoundly ignorant of Linux, but you are not a good sysadmin. Because you think having people doing the work of computers is something that shows the superiority of your platform of choice. Of course large tasks require teams, of course you have to make it work and this is how its done. But don't come to a professional forum proud of holding your system together with chewing gum.
Yes, sysadmins delegate. When you delegate to the computer, you're doing it right. When you delegate to humans, you're doing it somewhere between half-wrong and wrong.
Furthermore, the very distortion of your perspective that led you here is the result of the use of your baroque, under-engineered, single-user platform. Finally, the notion you propose of a Windows God running a large business system's is hilarious. A Linux God, MAYBE, and that's because *nix was designed for such use. You might as well claim a mechanic god can fix all the cars in the world. And btw, i know enough Windows administration to assure you that occasional trips to the registry are unavoidable, Mr. Windows Admin.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Software almost always comes with NO GUARANTEES, wether you pay for it or not (read the license agreements)... And the supplier is under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to fix any bugs.
With proprietary code, you have a single vendor who *could* fix the bug for you, but they are under no obligation to do so or to charge you a fair price for doing so. They can turn around and refuse to fix the bug, or charge you a billion dollars for doing it, leaving you with no other option.
By contrast, open source code can be fixed by multiple parties, assuming you bought a supported package of open source software from eg RedHat you can go there first... Failing that, you can *always* pay third party programmers to fix the bugs for you.
While your requirements are completely valid, the logical course of action with such requirements is open source.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should you be forced to obtain support from the same company who wrote the software?
You want supported open source software? Give IBM, Sun, HP, SGI, Novell, RedHat, or many other companies a call.
And since theres multiple vendors, there's competition, and competition is good for the consumer.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's be honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you not realize that nobody ever pays you to work on an OSS project until the project itself is sufficiently successful to attract either commercialization of support, or corporate use as a lynchpin product?
But you're right. I did munge the free-as-in-beer software development process with open source. There's nothing preventing a revolution in paid, open-source software...except for the fact that it's only been demonstrated to be somewhat financially viable, and only in a handful of arenas.
Re:That's Positive? Positively clueless. (Score:4, Insightful)
And even then you end up on a wining position.
In the first case you would have a relaxed upgrade path (hey, we all know all privative-licensed programs are always a breeze to upgrade, don't we?) *but* the software *still* will have the bug: remember that the case was about a privative-licensed software whose owner didn't want to provide a bugfix vs. an open-licensed software whose primary provider didn't want to provide a bugfix.
In the second case you still would have two valuable options:
1) Provide the bugfix to the upstream vendor *even* if it didn't want to produce it itself. The upstream vendor might want to patch the main line after the hard work is done (after all, it will probably benefit their other clients).
2) Assess a cost-benefit analysis: is the bugfix valuable enough for all the hassle of patching new versions? If it is valuable enough, you still win versus the option of no bugfix at all, and if it isn't worth the effort you still are no *worse* than in the very begining.
So, again, even using arguments from closed-source minions open source arises as a win-win proposition.
"The danger of customizing your open source product is the same danger that companies face modifying products like SAP"
This is quite off-topic, but HA! is SAP what you are talking about? Is there any company that uses SAP as-is? Heck, is even SAP meant to be working out-of-the-box in any case? Of course upgrading will be expensive but in the case of SAP it is out from a well thougth strategy where SAP is more focused on SAP itself and its consultants, knowing they work by their side about getting enough gullible CxOs to make their day. SAP is *all* about being expensive and CxO marketable.