Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Linux Business

Analyst Admits Open Source Will Quietly Take Over 304

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the i'm-the-juggernaut dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Analyst Admits Open Source Will Quietly Take Over

Comments Filter:
  • by gnutoo (1154137) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:34PM (#22970402) Journal

    "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.

    • by Your.Master (1088569) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:42PM (#22970442)
      Wow. Twitter is actually making sense. Look out for pod people :).

      I can see why they would avoid specific instances of open source for these reasons -- e.g. using source code from GPLv2 licenses. But I'm not aware of any good (or even reasonably bad) reason for any company to avoid open source as a whole, on principle. Not Apple, nor Microsoft, nor Exxon-Mobil, nor Wal-Mart. A sole proprietor might have some misconceptions about security or a "nothing good is free" (as in beer) attitude, but this is hardly an enterprise.
      • by Divebus (860563)
        Maybe Gartner meant Microsoft's version of open source. [slashdot.org]
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by neomunk (913773)
        I've noticed that a few of twitter's alter egos DO, in fact, make sense.

        Twitter man, listen. You could be a valuable member of the slashdot community (way more valuable than my in-and-out self) but give up the multiple personalities, and for all of our sakes, AT LEAST stop having full conversations with yourself. I believe in you and your ability to contribute. We all get hit with mod-trolls sometimes, just take the hit and move on. You'll get MY mod points for insightful, interesting or otherwise posit
        • by nschubach (922175)
          I agree, though... I don't see any proof that these are the same person. Hell, it could be four college roommates who all share the same mentality or a group of people that just click.

          Outright calling them out without proof is like declaring your own "War on Terror" paramount to what our idiot politicians are doing grouping them into some kind of stereotype.
          • I've been trying to write a coherent reply, but slashdot's new piece of shit comment system has lost the last three I wrote. The short, short version: twitter ~ Macthorpe ~ inTheLoo ~ gnutoo. 8/9 threads Macthorpe comments in, the others do. 8/13 for inTheLoo, 5/10 for gnutoo, 9/18 for twitter. Slashdot has half a million users and only a few hundred post in any given thread - this is extremely unlikely to be a chance occurence. Just throwing the data out there...
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @01:56AM (#22971024)
        You'd be surprised how often you have the "free equals worthless" assumption in key decision positions. It is sometimes hard to get it into the skull of MBAs that this can work out. They are far too used to offers that are too good to be true, so their train of thought is: "Free, more stable, more secure? Ok, where's the catch? Because if it was, why would anyone still buy software that's less secure, less stable and has a price tag?"
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anne Thwacks (531696)
          why would anyone still buy software that's less secure, less stable and has a price tag

          I suggest you consult Mr P.T Barnum:

          "There's one born every minute"

        • by jez9999 (618189)
          "Free, more stable, more secure? Ok, where's the catch? Because if it was, why would anyone still buy software that's less secure, less stable and has a price tag?"

          Support? Seems obvious when you point it out.

          Also, having a price tag can /sometimes/ lead to better software. Photoshop, Visual Studio w/ .net, and some other pieces of software are genuinely better than anything OSS can come up with (I said better, not irreplacable).
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Bert64 (520050)
            Why should you pay for the software *and* the support?
            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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zappepcs (820751)
      I'm in the middle of converting 3 people to Ubuntu from windows environments... they are having no problems adjusting at all LOLOLOLOL, once they got over the shock of having to ASK to install any software, they have been fine. I keep them locked down so they can't do any harm and always install anything they want if it is not malware. They just use it, don't care what it came from or the ideology behind it. They just want it to work like the games console, or the microwave. So far a small hiccup on the iPo
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851)
        I'm planning on doing basically the same thing for my parents. My dad was quite upset with XP recently, he was upset by how slow and finicky it was. Sort of caught me by surprise. I'll probably put Ubuntu or possibly Debian on, assuming that Crossover office is going to do the trick.

        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 fr
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrsteveman1 (1010381)
      Businesses certainly do see the value in having access to source code and being able to modify it to add necessary features or fix bugs quickly, but that interest does not extend to the sort of "everything is free to pass around like friendship bread" concept people have about free software. Most people simply don't care about the freedom to modify software and redistribute it for free, because most users can't even read code in the first place.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden (803437)

        Most people simply don't care about the freedom to modify software and redistribute it for free, because most users can't even read code in the first place.

        What's worse, is that many just don't understand that there IS such a thing as source code and that binary code CAN'T be modified. For the average clueless nut that I meet, if I tell them that "Linux is open and you can change the code, but Windows is closed source so you can't modify it.", then they go into a tirade about "Oh my little son Billy is 11 years old and is always changing around our little Internet. He's a genius with them. You must not be very good if you're can't change around stuff on Wi

    • by MBC1977 (978793) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:37AM (#22970734) Journal
      I don't think its that simple. As an experiment I wiped a spare machine of Windows 2000 (which my 10 year old daughter was so fond of) and installed a copy of Ubuntu 7.10 on it. After 1 month of struggling with learning the machine, she won't even touch that computer. I'm not downing the OS though, but my point is, I am willing to pay for software (and probably so is many others) that is easy to use. A lot of you may say that Windows sucks, and that may be true (Vista is defintely not winning brownie points with me entirely), but a lot of people find it simple to use. This is not to say Microsoft is the world's best software company, or anything close. But what Microsoft and other for profit companies do better than FOSS systems and software is provide easy user interfaces, which can be learned fast. Anyone who has used any version of Windows, can fairly (with a 2 - 6 hour learning curve) get up and running with little to no hiccups.

      And while I'll tough it out (to my extreme dismay) and learn Linux and other free systems, truthfully, I just don't like them. Simply because most of the time they have a "programmer's" feel to them and not a "user's" feel. On a postiive note though, going back to the Ubuntu OS, I do see promise and potential, and I don't say that lightly.
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @02:09AM (#22971084)
        I am fond of comparing Windows vs. Linux with the argument of VB vs. C in languages. In Windows, as well as in VB, you can quickly start getting stuff done. The learning curve is quite gentle, and you have quick success getting "something" up and running. And while the guy with Linux is still trying to get his networking up (or that C programmer tries to get that message loop sorted out), you're already surfing, playing and listening to music (or, in VB, you already have a nice looking interface that you patched together with a few easy mouseclicks).

        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.
      • by AJWM (19027)
        Well, if we're going to throw anecdotal evidence around... ;-)

        A few months ago I activated the Linux partion on each of my twin 9 year old boys' computers that I'd created when I set them up (older P-IIIs that had Windows on them), and set it up so they could dual-boot.

        They love it -- they were already using Firefox and OpenOffice on the Windows side, so that's the same. They got addicted to some of the built in games (especially SuperTux). They'll occasionally boot up in Windows for one of their old "edu
      • My daughter is 11. I installed Edubuntu [edubuntu.org] on the "pony" she got for Christmas, her first computer. She loves it, Edubuntu has plenty edutainment software for her to play with. I highly recommend Edubuntu for children and educators.
      • by m2943 (1140797) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @11:44AM (#22973220)
        I don't think its that simple. As an experiment I wiped a spare machine of Windows 2000 (which my 10 year old daughter was so fond of) and installed a copy of Ubuntu 7.10 on it. After 1 month of struggling with learning the machine, she won't even touch that computer. I'm not downing the OS though, but my point is, I am willing to pay for software (and probably so is many others) that is easy to use.

        So, you're saying you're taking an eight year old computer and you erase the operating system that your daughter likes and replace it with one that you yourself hate, that she has never used and didn't ask for, and that probably doesn't run any of the software she likes or is used to. And then you force your 10 year old daughter to use it. And because she complains about that, you conclude that Linux is less usable than Windows.

        Your "experiment" tells us nothing about the relative usability of Windows and Linux. All it tells us is that you really aren't very smart.
    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:37AM (#22970736)
      LOTS of people would object to "free" software, if it drove their business model into the ground!

      Geez... are you the only one who has not heard Microsoft practically screaming in pain this last year?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        Geez... are you the only one who has not heard Microsoft practically screaming in pain this last year?

        I got that sound on my MP3-player, it makes wonderful soothing background noise when I'm stressed out.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gfogus (1087935)
      I believe the author has some confusion about open source. Software development companies have positions on the openness of their own code. Most other companies just want software that works for a good price.

      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 appl
      • I suppose some software development companies "object" to open source code (especially to opening up their own code)

        Exactly, whether it's Kerberos for Microsoft or Darwin for Apple, proprietary software companies never had any problem using/integrating open source code into their own products as long as it didn't force them to open their own source code to others.

        That's why this opinion by this analyst at Gartner is so misguided. Open source code has already quietly taken over everything. And the analys

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mpe (36238)
        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.

        You tend to find the same thing on sites specifcially carrying Windows "free" software. There can be all types of shareware, nagware, crippleware, trialware, free only to certain types of user
    • by nguy (1207026)
      Are there really people who would pick up their pitchforks if confronted with Firefox?

      Well, Ballmer throws chairs. Other Microsoft employees may pick up pitchforks. Firefox and open source to them represents the end of their stock price gravy train, the end of the era when they could produce any kind of turd and the industry would just fall all over themselves to buy it.

      Actually, Microsoft's shoddy software has made a whole cottage industry of software developers, consultants, IT managers, and service pro
  • A good start (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LaskoVortex (1153471) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:35PM (#22970410)
    It would be nice if some people who wrote some cool legacy programs released the source on those under an OSS license. I could think of half-a-dozen super cool ones in my field alone.
  • Use != Take Over (Score:4, Informative)

    by timeOday (582209) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:40PM (#22970434)
    Every enterprise "using" something just means it has over 0% penetration. Just because somebody in the company scripts in Perl (which is open source) doesn't mean it's taking over.
    • I think from the definition put forward, It may be that everyone is using open source to some extent. Even if you're using Windows, IIRC, there is some BSD code in there. A lot of home routers are based on some open source code. Having an account on a web service using LAMP components might count. I think Nokia is using a Linux-based OS, and Apple relies heavily on open source stuff.
      • Some? Quite a bit actually is from BSD.
        Massive chunks in fact. ;)
      • by Ark42 (522144)

        I think from the definition put forward, It may be that everyone is using open source to some extent. Even if you're using Windows, IIRC, there is some BSD code in there. A lot of home routers are based on some open source code. Having an account on a web service using LAMP components might count. I think Nokia is using a Linux-based OS, and Apple relies heavily on open source stuff.

        I think even my Samsung 46" LCD TV "runs" Linux. I only suspect that from flashing the firmware to enable 1:1 pixel mapping at 1080p through HDMI, but most people with such a TV simply wouldn't know they are "using" open source software to simply watch TV. I'd bet my Dish DVR runs some sort of Linux or BSD OS as well, but I haven't even checked into that.

  • So... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...Does this mean 2012 will be the year of Linux on the desktop?
    • It's on my desktop for ~8 years now. So i dunno, for me the year of Linux on the desktop has quietly passed, i don't even remember it.
  • Why should I believe them now?
    • Because they say what WE like to hear!

      C'mon, statistics are only good when they tell you what supports your point of view, get with the times. Listening to both sides and making up your own mind is so retro.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:57PM (#22970520)
    If all or most software is going open-source, how does a software company make money?

    Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow. What I mean is enough cash flow for serious new projects and research. Service work has a relatively low profit margin because there is no way to "ramp up" as it were. You need people to do work and their time is limited. Once a piece of commercial software is developed it can continue to provide profit with only maintenance costs. Plus you can sell upgrades.
    • by Skapare (16644) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:24AM (#22970642) Homepage

      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.

      • by nschubach (922175)
        Not to mention, that once you have a stable working copy of something, you usually don't have to go out and rewrite the whole thing over again just to add a new feature. This reduces the cost to code the entire project since a lot of the grunt work is already done.

        Open Source relies on the the "it just works" mentality in software. I know that sounds backwards with some people complaining about certain apps usability, but when you write a piece of software that does a job (and does it well) there's really
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcrbids (148650)
        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.

        O
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kenja (541830)
        Here's the problem however. The small developer (guy in his living room writing cool software) cant offer services. What I keep seeing with open source is guy in living room makes cool software, big company takes it and sells services. Not really a "bad" thing, but not that good for the people making the cool stuff in the first place.

        Other models such as Adobe Flex do work well with open source however. But I would prefer to find a licensing model that doesn't require the initial creator giving up all fu
    • Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow. What I mean is enough cash flow for serious new projects and research.

      Yeah, these guys [ibm.com] don't have cash flow, serious projects or research.

    • - You can sell open source software e.g. with a manual .
      - You can make open source game, where only server fees are collected. Or you can sell the game with a paper manual and a nice box.
      - You can sell tailored software, which is provided to the customer as open source, e.g. the customer pays only for the programming work. I used to do this in my previous job all the time, except the software was never open source. But it would have not make a difference to the company to sell it as open source.
      - You can se
    • Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow.

      You might want to tell IBM's management, as they think most of their revenue comes from services, much of it derived from open sourse related activities.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      Quite the opposite!

      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% ve
    • Oooh, a low profit margin, worst thing in the world.
    • If all or most software is going open-source, how does a software company make money?
      Don't say services because services don't provide real cash flow.

      The company that supplies me with wealth tokens gets them exclusively from support and services. Development is a cost for them, which is paid for by the revenues raised by Technical Support and Professional Services (Customising our software for their needs).
      And we're not alone in that, there's a little known company called IBM that makes most of it's money through consulting services, sure they do a bit of development and are fairly good at throwing it back to the community, but development is a cost.

  • by aztektum (170569)
    Given that the majority of the Internet is run on open-source today, I'd say this is a fairly accurate assessment.
    • I thought that the surprising part of the post was the word "quietly". I guess they never heard of /.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:02AM (#22970550) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TooMuchToDo (882796)
      You would write off strippers and booze under the "Entertainment" portion of your taxes. Keep receipts =)
    • I'm starting my new businesses on Linux from the ground up.

      I've recently started my own business as well. It's all Linux of course, however, it's difficult to get it one hundred percent open source. Take for instance webbased software that I create. It has to look good on IE. That's one step down the dark, dark path.

      Then imagine some people start working for you. You want to force them to use a Linux desktop? People are most productive with whatever they like to use -- so that's going to be a hassle as we

  • Quietly? (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:04AM (#22970566)
    Is that the sound of chairs splintering I hear?
  • Let's be honest. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wordplay (54438) <geo@snarksoft.com> on Saturday April 05, 2008 @12:23AM (#22970638)
    We're talking about widespread usage of a very limited number of the total open source projects out there.

    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.
    • Very limited number of open source projects?

      Go sign up for a shared hosting account if you dont already have one.
      Then have fun counting the number of individual projects are involved with it.
      It may take awhile so get a cup of coffee before hand. ;)
      • by Wordplay (54438)
        It's still a small percentage of all the ones that exist. And the ones in widespread use don't cover every core business software need.

        My point there is really that for-pay software will still be dominant for some software types, some business software included. I wouldn't look towards businesses going 100% or even mostly% open-source anytime soon.
  • What the Open Source community is really lacking at this point is news they do not want to hear. The news that filters through to /. is basically like the news as it ends up in China; passed through a dozen filters so that no one will find it disagreeable, and it will promote the glory of the republic. This is not a constructive way to deal with the world. Self-delusion leads to arrogance instead, where extra effort might be needed. I am not trying to be negative here in any way, I wish the Open Source comm
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DMalic (1118167)
      Much of the historical technically minded development community has predicted the ascendancy of open source software for some time now. Like most analysts, Gartner has not generally agreed. Now they appear to be changing their tune. I would expect a sardonic laugh from said community.
  • Using open source != open source taking over. You might have a piece of software or two that happen to be open source and work well. The rest may well be closed source. That's not open source taking over, that's open source being used for various purposes.
    • by nschubach (922175)
      Lets say you have this open source application. It's free, there are no costs associated to forced upgrades, and it sits on your machine and does what is intended.

      Why would you need to look at anything else? Slowly, people will look at Open as a good thing. They will remember that ___ application is running on that machine over there and it's been reliable. That one application just changed their outlook. Now they consider it more and more. With more and more open source, comes different businesses an
      • And for certain things, that's fine, but open source isn't all good, and sometimes there are no suitable alternatives but closed source. I use some open source software, but most that I've tried is quirky, buggy, hard to use, and/or piss-poorly documented. Some things will catch on, others will remain for geeks by geeks.
        • by nschubach (922175)
          True, but isn't that the same for everything? Eventually, someone will get it right and it will stick (and I'm sure it will stay for a long time.)
  • There was a story about a year and a half back about them switching to Aruba Networks wireless infrastructure. Guess what Aruba Networks routers and AP's run? That's right, Linux.
    • Not to mention what their website uses.
      Yep. Linux.

      Well the Akamai portion of it.
      It does most of the work anyway. :)
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by t1n0m3n (966914)
      The Aruba access points do not run linux. The Aruba mobility controllers do though.
  • I've worked for several networking startups. Every one of which has used Linux as the OS for the device.

    The large enterprise customers which bought it didn't need to be aware of the Linux under the hood. The management interface was a simplified CLI or Web-UI. But it was Linux.

    In some companies, they asked us to not mention the Linux OS in the box, as that would create support problems for them. They just called it an embedded system, and it didn't raise alarms.
  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @01:09AM (#22970860) Journal
    What's with "analyst admits"? Like he knows something?

    How about an adjective like "thinks", "suspects", or "predicts".

    Nobody is admitting anything here.

  • Complete report (Score:4, Informative)

    by Selanit (192811) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @01:12AM (#22970868)
    The linked blog article is okay if you want a summary, but if you'd prefer, you can check out the complete document. Here's a PDF link to Gartner's full analysis: The State of Open Source 2008 [gartner.com].
    • by Selanit (192811)
      Nuts. Posted before reading the whole thing - that's got some analysis highlights in it, but mostly it's a list of larger reports you can purchase from Gartner if you want.
  • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @01:35AM (#22970948)
    I'm a consultant, so I tend to be exposed to a lot of different non-software companies in a given year. Which is to say, companies that use computers and software to solve the problems of their business and not as their primary product.

    All of them are running Windows and Office on just about every machine they have.

    However, most of them are also using at least one Open Source tool to fill some need. For many of them, that's something like Subversion running on a Windows server and Tortoise installs for the devs to go with it, but still, they're using it.
  • After years of Microsoft and their "buddies" doing everything they can to perpetuate their monopoly the truth is finally breaking through. Linux and many other open source programs are starting to take their place.

    We've got several years of Microsoft and their "friends" doing everything they can to prevent this from happening - or trying to make the change to open source look like something that Microsoft was planning or has a part in.

    Ultimately, the market will sort this out and choose the software that

  • by wicka (985217) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @02:11AM (#22971092)
    "Analyst Admits Open Source Will Quietly Take Over"

    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)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @02:26AM (#22971134) Homepage

    "Users who reject open source for technical, legal or business reasons might find themselves unintentionally using open source despite their opposition.'"
    I just fail to understand the technical reason argument for not using Open Source. If an open source application alternative doesn't exist it's more of a practical reason than a technical.

    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.

  • by The_Dougster (308194) on Saturday April 05, 2008 @03:19AM (#22971302) Homepage

    I slammed together a really quite sophisticated robotic scanner controller processing unit for my own company, which I will now shamelessly plug in case any of you need to get custom 20-ton steel castings, give us a call, heck you never know. WHEMCO [whemco.com]

    My unit uses the V4L Linux kernel API to run a frame grabber unit. I don't know of any way to run it under Windows except writing some kind of customized TWAIN driver or somesuch bull that will never happen. My Linux system works *right now* and has been demonstrated to company executives who said things like "this is fucking amazing!"

    I ordered some hardware to build the actual prototype, and IT has shut me down. They are whining about all kinds of things like "who is going to support it?"

    Hey, when I welded together the robot arms, IT didn't ask me who would "support it." Why should it be any different with my brainbox unit. Face it, those guys will *NEVER* be able to write or understand anything like this. If the program has a cos() call in it, they are done.

  • "Analyst Admits Open Source Will Quietly Take Over"

    "By 2012, more than 90 percent of enterprises will use open source"

    Come on, there is a BIG difference between these two affirmations. Using SOME open source does not mean open source will take over anything.
  • There's nothing in the linked article that implies Gartner said anything about open source "taking over".

    "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."

    A company may have 3000 Windows systems running Office and one Linux-based router, and they will be 'using open source in direct or embedded form'.

    Except that they're too late. I doubt there's a business in America that isn't using open source, one way or another. Even if they have nothing but Windows in-house:

    C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\nslookup.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\rcp.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\rsh.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\vmnetdhcp.exe: $Id: inet_addr.c,v 1.1.1.1 1999/11/22 00:57:05 edward Exp $ Copyright (c) 1983, 1990, 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
    (oh, and what the hell are the "technical, business, or legal reasons" to reject open source?)

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...