Six Barriers to Open Source Adoption 387
securitas writes "ZDNet/CNet's Dan Farber describes the six barriers to enterprise open source software adoption. Briefly, the reasons are 1) Lack of formal support, 2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'), 3) Lack of roadmap, 4) Functional gaps, 5) Licensing caveats and 6) ISV endorsements. The article makes an interesting counterpoint to Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons for open source adoption."
which (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:which (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:which (Score:5, Insightful)
A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.
I hear you! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that MS has got everybody fooled that simply updating the OS from 1 version to another is "porting" their systems. I never understood how MS has got away with it for so long. Look at the IBM AS400. Most companies have had 10 year old plus software running on these things and simply "upgrade" by "restoring" the old software from backup and continue on their merry way. We just moved and entire company from one box at our location to another box at the new company overnight! and they kept running on monday morning...try that MS!!!
Re:I hear you! (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about other large companies, but many tech companies are using some Solaris/Linux work stations with most of the web servers and databases running on UNIX or Linux.
It seems like many of the smaller companies that are using the domain con
Re:which (Score:3, Insightful)
That's pretty typical; throw money (if you have it) at the problem by purchasing product that everyone else uses (safety in numbers philosophy). If a critical file doesn't get through on time or
Re:which (Score:5, Insightful)
If they start encrypting their protocol communications they could be protected by the DMCA as well (scary thought).
Regardless of these issues...I find the velocity behind OpenSource right now, is better than it's ever been. And, I think more and more IT management types (like me) are using OpenSource solutions to save money for thier companies.
Re:which (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:which (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:which (Score:3, Informative)
number 1 reason (Score:3, Insightful)
1. support
2. installation
3. deployment
4. documentation
5. deploying updates
The initial cost of software is not a big deal to companies because they spend many times more than that after the software is purchased.
Re:number 1 reason (Score:5, Informative)
1. support
Novell, IBM, and HP are teaming up to offer 3 pronged support options (including training) for Linux and the products that Enterprises will run on top of it.
2. installation
... the demo is cool to watch) with the new version of Zenworks from Novell. Installation support is offered by Novell, HP and IBM.
Not only will installation be covered, but so will migrations away from Windows ( automagically
3. deployment
Also covered by Zenworks with its new integration of Ximian's Red Carpet.
5. deploying updates
Again, Red Carpet and Zenworks offer solutions to this.
Re:number 1 reason (Score:3, Insightful)
1. support
Have you used the (offshore) support that comes with shrink-wrapped software? Give me a break. In addition to the mailing list that every software package comes with, the mailing list that the authors reads, if you're interested in paying someone for support, try IBM.
4. documentation
O'Reilly?
2. installation
3. deployment
5. deploying updates
These three can be done on a massive
Lack of.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.
Re:Lack of.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they contribute to the project and help set the roadmap if they are so concerned.... or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing anything to it?
Re:Lack of.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lack of.. (Score:3, Interesting)
People are interpreting my statement in odd ways...
What YOU say you do is pretty close to what I say that CIOs (or people they designate) should do... become a part of the project and let them know what their experiences and/or needs are and THAT will help set the direction of the project in itself.
I doubt many CIOs even ca
Re:Lack of.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a BULLSHIT argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Now all of a sudden there is XP Rebloated or something shoved into this fantasy roadmap and longhorn has wandered of god knows where. Yup MS has roadmaps alright. It just doesn't follow them. But I suppose they are usefull you can read them and what is on them is EXACTLY what will NOT happen.
But why do they fall for it then? Because people are stupid short-sighted lazy and greedy. Roadmaps are nice things to show in powerpoint presentations to management when they are wondering why that huge IT budget still isn't delivering solutions that just fucking work.
"At the moment there are some problems wich we are working with but Look, a chart here says MS will fix it all no later then tomorrow". Kinda sad that grown men and women still don't get that one.
Most of the other arguments are bullshit ones. One not mentioned but still often used is "Opensource has no guarantees, no one I can sue" this is apparently used by companies without lawyers. Since any lawyer will tell you that sueing MS is pointless. Windows destroyed your data? Though. Of course this is true for all software for some reason. If I buy a truck and it explodes destroying my factory the truck manufacturer will have to pay for it but software seems to be a "you bought it, your risk" kinda product.
Oh well, off reading the rest of the comment. Kinda intrestting to keep track of them. Have you noticed people switched from the old "I don't use linux because I like my soundcard to work" to "I don't use linux bacause I like my digital camera to work"?
Re:Lack of.. (Score:2)
That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.
Actually, a lot of -projects- do have roadmaps. Do they want a grand unified roadmap of everyone? I'd rather hope not, since that'd restrict the flexibility of the OSS community in general. For one thing, a roadmap would prevent code fork offs, which even though I don't like them, they can be good. (A lot of the time a significant portion of the code comes back to the other/original branches)
Re:Lack of.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you need a roadmap? If you're a proprietary software company, your roadmap tells your customers where your product is going to be years from now. With open source, those same features could be available to you in weeks or even days from the time you express interest in such a feature. So having a "roadmap" is frequently pointless unless your project has specific long term subprojects that will take months or years.
What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.
Re:Lack of.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If product ABC is MY open source project, then I'm VERY interested in what the CIO of Coca-Cola is looking for, because if he uses my product he's likely to come back to me for support, services, training, and give me lots of money for those.
I recommend every open source developer (in the U.S. this will vary in other countries) go get themselves an EIN [irs.gov] and incorporate. Then ABC Development Inc. sells support and services for product ABC.
Re:Lack of.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's that, too. Here's a great example. A few weeks ago someone working with $RADIO_STATION in $MAJOR_CITY contacted $OUR_OSS_PROJECT because the project was "almost" right (see my original comment above) for something they wanted to do.
The developers, including myself, worked over the course of the next few weeks to make changes, add features, and fix bugs relating to what they wanted, and right now we're in the final testing phase before it goes live (oh yes, it's quite user-visible).
We probably won't make any money off this unless they choose $A_COMPANY_ONE_OF_US_WORKS_FOR for dedicated hosting, but it will give us a massive amount of exposure, which will lead to people like the CIO of Coca-Cola contacting us.
Then again, we're eliminating any possibility that they'll ever choose any $MICROSOFT_PRODUCT[] ever again for anything, and that for some of us is payment enough.
Re:Lack of.. (Score:5, Informative)
Lack of roadmap, huh. Tell that to mozilla [mozilla.org] or open office [openoffice.org] or MySQL [mysql.com] or Gnome [gnome.org] or perl [infotrope.net] or
Fedora [redhat.com] I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Of course, I prefer a different term than "roadmap" -- vaporware.
Re:Lack of.. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Buy one version of our product today
2) Purchase 'the latest version' upgrade every year or so for the rest of your life.
3) We profit $$$
A few more reasons... (Score:5, Informative)
server room so as to protect their jobs when they have limited skill sets and no real interest
in learning
anything new.
Re:A few more reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
And still a few more.... (Score:3, Insightful)
12. Most OSS is horrible. It's free, and people still pay to use Microsoft products. Think about it. I say this as a Firebird user and part-time Linux user. Most of the apps are incredibly horrible.
13. Installing or tweaking Linux is still incredibly cumbersome, and next to impossible for someone who hasn't used it for years. T
Seventh problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The third one is kinda silly imo, since it's (obviously) true for anything, and if you're going to pay for a plug & play system then you're no longer really buy software, you're buying services and theres plenty of places you can go for that, and why should you care what the back end is?
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Interesting)
7) There's nobody to sue if it doesn't work.
Not that they ever sue Microsoft or Adobe or Lotus when their crap doesn't work, but I've heard that excuse more than once.
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seventh problem (Score:3, Interesting)
> usefull in office politics.
Actually, if my team went over a deadline because we were 'powerless to fix something', we'd get fired and rightly so. Management isn't interested in problems, it's interested in solutions. At least it was everywhere I've *ever* be working at. If you encouter severe problems/bugs, you can usually convince the PHB to change the deadline.
Just my 0.02.
I learned something today (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Interesting)
People get nervous about things being "free" because they think they're being sold the Brooklynn Bridge. People in general have a very good sense of what a friend of mine used to call "down-home cynicism". If you don't give them the catch, their imagination will run wild. If you're honest that the license is free, but the ultimate costs are not I think people will gladly accept this.
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, off-the-shelf software has a well-defined cost (the sticker price), and has a phone number or web site that I can go to if there are problems, making it much easier and time-efficient to deal with these things.
There are two principles that I've experienced in my career about successful software that I see many OSS proponents ignoring or unaware of. The first principle is that the vast majority of computer users (and this includes people who make the decisions about what to use) don't care how their computer or software works, they just want it to work right now . The second principle is that, given the choice between a product that always works, and which costs $100/hr for support, or a product that breaks frequently, and costs $100/yr for support, 90% of people will choose the second product, because no one trusts the claims that the first product always works.
In my experience, the OSS that acheives success outside of the OSS community usually follows the first principle, by installing quickly and easily, and rarely requires editing config files or reading documentation to use. I can't think of any OSS that does a good job on the second principle (not that I'm claiming it doesn't exist).
Re:Seventh problem (Score:5, Funny)
Windows XP costs $299. Linux costs $699. Therefore Linux is better.
Re:Seventh problem (Score:3, Interesting)
You: "Yes, that's $699 per copy. Made out to Computers Association for Shell Hawking. Actually, just make it to the acronym: CASH"
Re:Seventh problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company wants a good IT department they will listen less to large companies like Microsoft and more to their IT staff, clients, engineers, educational institutions, and various employees throughout their own company. Why listen to a company that wants to take money away from your IT staff and your company to produce products that are made to work for ALL their clients? I pick on Microsoft for one main reason, they shattered the idea of what software really is. Treat software like just another process in a company, not a product that your company uses. This is an idea I bet Microsoft fears the most. Open source carries this idea, and therefore open source software is also their enemy. Another problem is only the educated really understand what open source software means. Microsofts strategy is now to reshape the idea of open source to the masses and the corporate world in their favor. In the end, its about control. One of the largest barriers to open source software is therefore Microsoft (and others, SCO etc.).
Re:Seventh problem (Score:3, Funny)
Just tell your bosses that it will cost $1-million to upgrade everything to Linux. Do that, then retire.
Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA. (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh... look again (Score:2)
right at the end of the editor's post.
Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA. (Score:5, Insightful)
But poorly. To re-write his article in a more readable form:
1) Lack of formal support
Support from IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, HP, etc. make it clear that this is no longer an issue. The thing is you have to decide who your vendor is going to be.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
All of his concerns boil down to: if you don't select a vendor, you're on your own.... well, duh.
3) Lack of roadmap
Again, the concerns boil down to: select a vendor. That vendor will have a loose road-map as modified by the needs of their vendors, partners, customers and internal goals. This is the same as any company.
4) Functional gaps
He comments, "The current market for Linux is dominated by low-end edge server applications" and he's dead wrong. The problem is that you can easily go out and look at the Netcraft survey and say "this is what's running" and when you're writing for a Web magazine, the Web seems like the whole world. Thankfully, most computers in industry have nothing to do with the Web.
From personal experience I can tell you that he's way off base, even on the Web, but the large-scale adoption of open source has been in a) the infrastructure that runs the Internet, not just the Web b) the scientific community c) government bodies around the world including the US d) education e) semi-embeded devices such as PoS systems and PVRs.
5) Licensing caveats
He cites "confusion about the various open source licensing schemes", which again requires the simple answer: talk to your vendor. Your vendor is responsible for making sure they have the right to sell you the software you're using. If SCO or anyone else sues you (including authors of the software you are running) you point firmly and your vendor and say "I dunno, ask them." I recommend picking a vendor with 800lb low-primates for lawyers for this very reason.
6) ISV endorsements
He writes this one off quickly and effectively.
My $0.02 (Score:5, Informative)
The IT staff I work for like open source because vulnerabilities for the software we would like to use are found seldomly and when they are found they are fixed quickly, not to mention one program doesn't interfere with the others too much. But management listens to slick salespeople from crappy vendors and we end up with products that won't work with the latest security patches to Windows, and now we are left vulnerable on so many fronts because our proprietary software won't work with the updated and 'secure' versions of Windows. My coworkers could care less about how often the products need updating, as long as staying secure doesn't break our systems, Windows is failing for us in that arena.
Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.
Re:My $0.02 (Score:2)
I don't think there is a word 'seldomly'. My Apple spell checker says there is not.
I think your rhetoricalness is dramatically overexaggerated.
English is Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
More reasons for than against. (Score:4, Interesting)
Being locked into using a software suite due to the secrecy of the file format and the costs are two of the major ones.
Working in software development.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"lack of formal support" (Score:2)
It's really hard to continue listening to anyone (especially some knowitall exec, even it is from Oracle) that still brings this forward as a general problem with Open Source. It might be a problem with individual packages, but as an overall argument against open source it just shows ignorance of the subject matter, IMHO. After that argument all following arguments become suspect.
Left off item #7 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Left off item #7 (Score:2)
I was going to go with this one till I realised that most (all) managers don't real
Re:Left off item #7 (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, when people dedicate so much time and energy to open source software, it's really not surprising that when faced with a corporate behemoth aiming to destroy everything they've worked so hard for, they might get a little emotional about it. It's easy to turn up your nose and write it off as fanaticism, but I'll take "built with pride" over "built for a paycheck" any day. It delivers better quality product.
Apple fanatics put Linux zealots to shame (Score:4, Insightful)
As the new owner of an iBook, I have had a lot more to do with Mac owners lately, and let me tell you: Linux zealots can't hold a candle to an enraged Apple fanatic -- take for example the death threats [arstechnica.com] this guy got when he did a parody of changing his PowerMac G5 into a PC. Linux users just don't get that excited, certainly not over hardware.
But then, everybody seems to think Mac users are some sort of peace-loving hippies, and the Linux people are radicals. Guess Steve Ballmer running around and calling us anti-American communists does have an effect after all.
Re:Left off item #7 (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a hobby.
So fuck off, use your Windows, AIX, cha-cha-cha, and leave us ALONE!
I don't understand, and have never understood, what the big deal about "Linux adoption" is. Happens to be a fine kernel -- and I certainly don't mind if people use it, even make money from it. My contributions were/are never with commercial intent -- simply "this is good, I like it, maybe you will like it too".
So let Dan Farber preach to business. It isn't my job to tear down any "walls to adoption". Really, as a hobby programmer, I don't care.
Now, many companies DO see the point (to them) of using this "open source" stuff. And many don't. Personally, I work for a company that DOES use linux in an embedded role -- works better for me.
Sure, any hobby will attract "Rabid, frothing
And that is why OS vendors are essentially doomed. We do this stuff for fun, and we don't care. Can't really leave it alone. It becomes very hard to compete, given that the cost of distribution is almost 0. (Imagine, someone who can lovingly hand-build cars, and then can turn around and give the final product away for no cost! And, can produce AS MUCH product as any big auto maker! That is the "competition").
If the big software mills COULD produce much higher quality goods at reasonable cost, we wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation.
If (for example) Solaris or Windows really were hyper-secure and had a record of no breakins, AND didn't crash, then, sure, I (you, we) would be a fool to not use them in a business context. And there would be no discussion (NO, NONE, NADA) of "Linux". (or OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.)
But they aren't. Tough luck for the OS vendors, but the "hobbyist" system is just as good (arguably better in many respects). So, OS vendors, suck it up.
OS vendors have a few choices:
1 - Fight
Sure, give us a better product. I am waiting for "Longhorn". Might be worth it (see above).
2 - Switch
Novel with Netware, IBM with Linux. Phase out your un-competitive products, and back Linux. Why not? Sell something other than an OS (services, hardware, support...)
3 - Leave
Go into a different business. OS vending won't cut it.
Adapt or die.
Note that the question is never "Why should I switch to Linux from
So, ask yourself, WHY isn't AIX, Solaris, Windows superior enough to Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD so we wouldn't have this talk?
'cause you know what?
With the current state of affairs, *even* with my "fuck you" attitude, OS vendors are basically screwed.
Demand more!
Ratboy
you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
And the number one reason to Open Source use by the masses.....*ba da ching!* Users! If a user has trouble hitting "Ctrl-Alt-Del" to log in its gonna be a while untill they will be handed a new operating system.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the full article.
Dan Farber's pic (Score:3, Funny)
He makes good points, but update the photo, man.
Lack of roadmap (Score:2)
Best of Both Worlds (Score:5, Informative)
1. Build "beefy" Windows 2003 Terminal Server with apps that existing Windows users "have to have"
2. Install favorite Linux distro on all workstations
3. Install rdesktop [rdesktop.org] on all workstations allowing access to legacy Windows apps
4. Wean users to Linux applications at comfortable pace
5. Nix Terminal Server
Change #1... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Change #1... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Best of Both Worlds (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that if you already have Win machines, they double as TS client licenses so just don't toss your existing Win CD's before installing Linux.
If you provide enough usable apps on the Linux installs then during the migration process your users should not all be using the TS at the same time so if you go by connection, you wouldn't need as many lic
OEMs not selling preinstalled machines (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO this is THE biggest barrier.
Corporate exposure will bring balance (Score:5, Interesting)
Example corporate environment: financial departments have to make it work with their various file transfer and encryption applications, your reports people need their database building and access tools to work better, help desks have to make Mozilla running on Linux work with SAP and PeopleSoft (and the little misc processes that they rely on), the graphic arts department starts lobbying Adobe to support it, scheduling and forecasting departments find quirks in it when running their custom workforce management apps, your business applications group wants their development tools to work like the ones in Windows, etc, etc.
reason number 1, definitely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reason number 1, definitely (Score:2)
6 Pack (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Lack of formal support
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels. Not to mention 1000s and 1000s of user created documentation.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.
3) Lack of roadmap
Yes, so one is not constrained. This creates co-operative competition. I.e. I use your code to make a better product. If I don't agree with your roadmap, I start a new fork. This makes open source software development far more successful than the closed source monolithic alternative.
4) Functional gaps ;) ).
They are changes. Not gaps. You have the choice with OpenSource. Not with, say, Windows. (Not trying to bash Windows
5) Licensing caveats ;) ;) )
Read a typical Microsoft EULAs. See how many rights have you got. (Not trying to bash MS
6) ISV endorsements. Independent Software Vendors: Who listens to them anyway?
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]
Re:6 Pack (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels. Not to mention 1000s and 1000s of user created documentation.
This is totally unacceptable to the business world, and you should know that by now. With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question. With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.
Are you going to argue that Windows patches don't improve the product? I mean, really, they're not that bad. WinXP SP2 (which I'm running at work) adds some useful enhancements like pop-up blocking, a better firewall, and several other real, tangible improvements. Even though it's in beta it hasn't broken any of our apps, nor has it opened us to "zillions of worms." We've never had a worm invade our network due to good perimeter security and locked-down workstations and servers.
3) Lack of roadmap
Yes, so one is not constrained. This creates co-operative competition. I.e. I use your code to make a better product. If I don't agree with your roadmap, I start a new fork. This makes open source software development far more successful than the closed source monolithic alternative.
Sorry, but businesses don't operate like this. Companies expect roadmaps, plans, and so forth because they have to plan for these things down the road. You apparently missed the point of the article writer, who pointed out that companies by and large dislike the chaotic environment of open source simply because it's chaotic. This "creative co-operation" mumbo jumbo doesn't wash in the board room.
4) Functional gaps
They are changes. Not gaps. You have the choice with OpenSource. Not with, say, Windows. (Not trying to bash Windows
No, they are gaps. There are some things you cannot do with open source that you can do with proprietary software. Mostly its because of a lack of industry-standard software on the open source side of things. This is changing, though slowly. When we can run Photoshop and AutoCAD on Linux natively and have it supported by their respective software authors, then we can consider it. Until then, GIMP and whatever AutoCAD clone Linux has just won't cut it. Gaps.
5) Licensing caveats
Read a typical Microsoft EULAs. See how many rights have you got. (Not trying to bash MS
Look at the current SCO furor. Right or wrong (I personally think Darl McBride is the antichrist), SCO's creating trouble for open source adopters. Linus himself recently commented that he considered intellectual property rights to be the single biggest threat to Linux over the next year. This kind of uncertainty doesn't sit well with businesses.
6) ISV endorsements. Independent Software Vendors: Who listens to them anyway?
Although this may have been intended as humorous, what you've revealed is how little of an understanding most Slashdotters have of how companies make decisions. Until the greasy-fingered, long-haird geeks of the world figure out how businesses work, they're not about to listen to you.
Hypocritical companies (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a model of hypocrisy. Roughly translated, it means: "we probably won't buy support from Open Source providers anyway, but we're not going to let that stop us from complaining if the support isn't there."
Astroturf (Score:2)
Period.
Accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
I download PHP and some other tools to get a web site running, wham, something doesn't work, research, research, finally find some note that one author made a change to one module that breaks PHP support, but the PHP folks say it will be fixed in the next version.
You think that's gonna sell in the real world? How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?
Now, how can I sell this idea to a company. Broken is good because hey, we have the source and we can fix it?
Sell them ASP instead. (Score:3, Interesting)
I see this kinda argument you have all the time. Oh MS is better since it has guarantees. Yet in practice it never seems to work. Make that call and all you get is a phone bill.
But quit frankly I don't really give a
Roadmap not a barrier... (Score:2)
People seem to take innovation for granted. I think the true innovators aren't doing it to reach a goal, they are doing it to make things easier for themselves. In the process, they just happen to make something many people like. Think BitTorrent.
While I think of M$ as a car on a road, I think of OpenSource as
Evidence of the winds of change (Score:4, Interesting)
He is full of crap and CIO's are idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull, I use thttpd and haven't needed software maintenance ever. Same with xitami, same with perl version 5.whatever I pick. Its not every freakin package that needs to be updated with Open Source stuff, but I do get the latest pureFTP because they are security fixes, but how many of those are there compared to IIS patches?
Lack of Road Map
That's funny, I haven't seen a TODO file with any MS product ever, this is pure FUD, most FOSS projects have a much more clear and open "roadmap" than any commercial product except when a commercial product wants to derail sales of competing products, then they announce exciting new features just around the corner...
Functional gaps
He doesn't even make a case that this is a problem, which it is not. As repeated here and other places many times, innovation happens at small commercial software companies and through FOSS projects and then is bought/stolen by MS and released to the oblivious IT Management World as MS innovation and they are none the wiser.
Licensing caveats
Please, read groklaw, or take the opposite stand - IBM says GPL (like copyright) works and SCO doesn't own jack.
But, it's clear that software development and business models are changing as a result of open source code.
The only thing that is changing is that there is an Open Source OS and now F/OSS is cool, hip, trendy, buzzworthy, etc. I have to go RMS on him and say that these IT Management level idiots never had a clue about how much of their business ran on lowkey, "not cool cause its not linux" FOSS - bind, sendmail, qmail (we don't like that Dan doesn't have an explicit license that we can poke at, waah!), postfix, mailman, php, perl, *BSD, etc, etc, etc. Now their all "concerned" because there is no formal support - if they knew that their Oracle guys got answers from the Oracle newsgroups and mailing lists and never from the "support" that they are paying 10's of thousands of dollars for, maybe they would have a clue that paid software support is 99% bullshit.
Bottom Line:
Open Source has issues, blah, blah sell trade rag advertising, blah, blah, blah.
Roadmaps to Nowhere (Score:2)
"3) Lack of roadmap"
Hmmm. Right. Because Microsoft's .NET roadmap has proven to be a real winner. Where would we have been without that roadmap?!? Whew! "We're betting everything on .NET! Oh... never mind."
So many of these roadmaps seem to be little more than packets of high grade "smoke up your ass". They're like parsley. Nobody can figure out why it always seems to end up on the dinner plate, but dammit it better be there. We can't tell if it has a chance in hell of being viable, but we'd better s
Here's one -- Dependency Hell (Score:3, Interesting)
So with an operational system, I decide to go mandrake (don't like the idea of a network install with SUSE and wanted kde-friendly over fedora). Installed it, configured the network connection, rebooted...BOOM, suddenly network connection goes out. Another search on help boards suggests turning on ACPI from somewhere in drakconf. Hunted it down and am in the process of restoring files backed up from my old RH installation.
Just a few minutes ago, I got a segfault from kopete when I was trying it out just for fun. Thinking to install gaim to see if I can get THAT stable.
I love the Open Source, folks, don't get me wrong. However, I lose a bit of cred when I start talking about how tough it is to bork a Linux install. It ain't the viruses and worms -- it's the politics (lack of KDE support in RH), the scattered help sources, incompatible distros, and multiple package sources that end up borking other packages as part of a dependency hell.
Sorry, had to vent -- been mucking with this thing for two days now just trying to restore. On a good note, the 2.6.3 and KDE 3.2 seems pretty quick so far. Much quicker than RH9 was, anyway.
You want Linux adoption? We just may have to dumb it down so much that we take the fun right out of Linux. In short, most people won't jump through that many hoops just so they can run Linux.
Dependency Hell Is A Solved Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to suggest these things to your bosses, be prepared to live with the tradeoffs. You can have stable software that's nice, but you'll pay the price in that it won't be shiny and new. Or you can have the new stuff, but be prepared to play "perpetual beta tester".
Any Linux install is easy to fuck up, if you try hard enough. You obviously tried very hard to fuck yours up, and did a good job of it. If you're suggesting Linux to a professional admin, hopefully they'll be a little more clue'd in about how their system works than you are, and will be able to deal with their system properly. As an example, I run Debian unstable on my desktop, a system which is known for having bugs pop up from time to time. But I know how to deal with them and it's never ever amounted to a reinstall, and only about twice in the last four years has it even interrupted my workflow. As another example, Gentoo allows you to completely fuck up your machine if you want very easily, and yet tons of people can't stop gushing about how easy it is to use. If you know how to deal with potential problems, Linux is an amazing choice, mainly because those problems are relatively transparent compared to something like Windows.
Oh, and I don't know how it is for Fedora or Mandrake, but in Debian, the majority of the docs that you'll ever want are located in
Gaps (Score:2)
Remember OSS coders: Be sure to gap all functions at .040" to ensure proper data ignition and to prevent code knocking.
Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source software typically doesn't make any promises, so there are none to be broken. But where there is a roadmap, in my experience the open source projects do a better job of meeting it than proprietary software does. Still often behind schedule, but typically not by as much.
Although not as vile as the typical anti-open-source journalism, this is nevertheless just a FUD story.
Eric
Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this point is just showing their exceutive lazyness.
For those with a logic and drama background (Score:2)
I Agree! Almost. (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, not all open source products suffer from those "barriers", and many closed source products do.
Lack of formal support? Damn, most of the packages my company purcahsed don't have any formal support. I remember one commercial software package we bought for about $100,000: the sales guy sold us some support, charging us 10% of the initial purchase price annually. But that support was ineffective. When we found major bugs, they took many months to address them (if ever). And finally, when the vendor was bought up by a 3rd party, the product was abandoned and is now truly unsupported. Bummer for the CIO, who now has to go to the plate to fire up a $1 million replacement project.
Re:I Agree! Almost. (Score:3)
CIO: Wasn't my fault, CEO. Those damn bastards at $VENDOR got taken over by $SHITCO, and you know how $SHITCO is when they take anything over. I'll need another $1M and another 2 years to finish the project. By the way, how's the wife, kids, and handicap?
CEO: Damn, that sucks. I hate $SHITCO. Here's a million bucks. Wifenkids are good, but I'm looking forward to getting some time away from 'em
Need a roadmap to a VM (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a valid criticism, but only when compared with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world.
FOSS projects have roadmaps, but there's no strategy at the level of platforms or information systems in general - each project is an autonomous part of the IT elephant. This means that no one can rationalize and coordinate between projects.
Is this a problem?
It might be. Look at Dotnet vs. Linux + Java or Mono or PHP. If MS got their act together they could simplify the Dotnet world a lot, offering a consistent and complete environment for information management. Meanwhile, we'll still be dealing with such mixed bags as file permissions, database permissions, htaccess files and Java security policies since these are all separate projects with no prospect of rationalization or consolidation.
Fortunately, at least with present MS management silos, this is unlikely to happen, however the general air of complacence concerning the unstoppable march of FOSS is probably misplaced.
What matters is what IBM, HP, Sun, Apple push (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source is growing in the Enterprise and rightly due to the aforementioned vendors adding OSS components, if not systems, to their vendor price list.
Mindshare takes time and advertisement from sources people traditionally find credible.
What needs to be improved is the Documentation processes that will only make adoption of such Systems, along-side paid consulting services, Reality.
Open Source challenges not only the creative aspirations of developers but also the disciplinary aspects of making such visions understandable and easily consumable by the constituents it is meant to aide
Corporate customers could solve most of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I know that for many of us, our primary business isn't business as such, but most of us probably aren't averse to cutting a deal for a fair price. We're just not too interested in jumping through hoops for free.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Counterpoint article from CIO Magazine (Score:3, Interesting)
custom kernel?? (Score:3, Interesting)
uhh.. It happens all the time dan.
People's linux or IBM's linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
What do we end up with? A flavor of linux which the enterprise world is willing to accept - level-headed, release-engineered, supported.
And what happens to the grassroot linux? The lonely hacker coding for fun into the night. The reckless sysadmin replacing a windows group server with an old box runing samba. The enthusiastic team making up yet another distro. Who will take care of them? Will linus keep accepting their lowly patches? And even if he does, will IBM and Red Hat pay much attention to his kernel anymore?
I think that having Linux the kernel well-accepted and established is the worst thing that can happen to Linux the social movement.
6 Reasons for not using calculus (Score:5, Funny)
Just try and find out who's responsible if you use calculus to design a bridge and it fails.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'),
Not much change since we went from using fluxion to differential notation 300 YEARS AGO!
3) Lack of roadmap,
Nobody seems to know what innovations will be forthcoming in the next release. It's almost as if Newton and Leibnitz were dead.
4) Functional gaps,
What can you say about a tool that solves hard problems with 'Monte Carlo simulations' sheesh
5) Licensing caveats,
Do you have a copy of the TOU?
I've never even seen it! Is it OK to reverse engineer Green's theorem?
6) ISV endorsements
I haven't seen a single Fortune 500 company advertisement that even admits to using calculus in making their products, much less endorsing it.
What are you talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Windows servers are for the AD purpose only or as local servers in branches. So, yes, the workstation is a Windows XP station, but, it's not because it is well supported, standard or anything else, it's just because it's the de facto standard for this kind of usage.
Each Linux node is much more critical than any other Windows XP workstation. Would you pick it, if those 6 reasons were true? I mean, as a Bank?
Is he serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true. Microsoft and IBM fix bugs the minute I report them.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
True enough. Microsoft lets me upgrade in my own good time, and never forces me to adopt new software on their schedule.
3) Lack of roadmap
Yep. Hate to say it, but proprietary companies follow their roadmaps; I can set my clock by them. During the wait for Linux 2.6, I had to close up my business!
4) Functional gaps
Expensive software from companies both large and small does everything I could possibly need.
5) Licensing caveats
Yes. The only power a proprietary license grants is the right of the vendor to audit my business at my expense, and the right to send the BSA after me. The GPL and BSD licenses grant me nothing comparable.
6) ISV endorsements
Just what I look for when setting up my databases.
Is this really how a Fortune 500 company CIO thinks?
Implications of OSS are good (Score:3, Interesting)
solutions to specific problems (a person decides to solve a problem so he writes some code and makes it available; I find I need to solve the same problem),
portability (same app running on different boxes with different OSs), and
learning opportunities (I want to understand something better; open-source means Free Information).
I always recommend open-source solutions when making proposals. People may have to learn how to use the tools, but they will be better employees for gaining the knowledge. Any company that systemically refuses OSS doesn't want to empower anyone and (foolishly) feels somehow safer if their figurative balls are in the grasp of Microsoft (for example).
What happens when Linus (Score:3, Informative)
The author should look closer to SGIs business model. They grappled with this early on and came to the right conclusion:
Linus is in charge, it's his kernel.
Where did this leave SGI, and what does it mean for future development?
They decided:
(1) they can resubmit their changes after adjusting them,
(2) they can provide what they want as an add on (SGI ProPack),
(3) they can forego their project and embrace another one that gets what they want done,
(4) they can choose to not do it.
I was at a conference in 2000, I think, where their head technologist gave a speech on OSS and what it means to SGI. He outlined these options then. I thought about it quite a bit afterword and realized SGI gave quite a complement to the process actually, and Linus in particular. Rather than fight things, they accept them and begin engineering accordingly.
Funny many folks in the audience scoffed at this, thinking the OSS model would get in the way of things. The reality is that is has somewhat, but SGI now has Linux running single image 256 proc machines. Those same machines will run a stock linux, but will run better with the SGI Pro Pack loaded.
Eventually,
(1) Linus will accept SGIs changes,
(2) the kernel will perform the necessary tasks some other way, making those changes moot,
(3) everyone will discover the changes are not needed and move on.
The key here is that users of SGI machines will have clear choices open to them they would not otherwise have.
You can buy SGI IRIX machines that are sweet machines really, but finding applications on them is tough outside of user ported OSS. SGI developed fast and hard early on, but failed to achieve application capture which ultimatly limited their future.
Today IRIX users are dwindling as the mindshare leaves the platform. Make no mistake, IRIX is a sweet OS that can do amazing things, but its closed nature hurt its chance at gaining enough marketshare to survive long-term.
To me, this is a shining example of the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary solutions. Users come first because the process forces the issue, not because it makes more money. Having somebody in charge of core development that is not compensated on its use keeps things clean and workable for everybody.
Linux may not be able to match IRIX today, but the last 3 years or so have been simply amazing really. Give it another 2 or three and it will be there. On a side note, I have invested considerable time and money into IRIX only to see it slowly wither away. Same for various win32 iterations. The primary attraction Linux has for me is that my time and money investments are going to last a good long time. I don't want to go through another transition like that and with Linux, I won't have to.
In the longer term, this kernel is going to eventually spank every last one of the other kernels because it will be developed in a way that actually forwards the art of building and running kernels, not making money. As it continues along this path, the numbers of users grow as does mindshare. You can't get that kind of insurance for proprietary software no matter what you pay because money is the motivator. Think about it, if the software gets too good, what exactly will they charge for?
Clearly SGI sees this because they have embraced the process and appear to be back on track with what they do best; namely, large single image NUMA systems with low latency and high I/O. This time they are building on a kernel that has mindshare and a growing number of applications.
They get to make money, while their users retain choices they would not otherwise have, while they forego the expense of building all that stuff in house. Supercomputing just got one hell of a lot cheaper as a result.
Looking at all of that compared to the proprietary way seems like a no brainer to me really.
I'll tell you the biggest hurdle... (Score:3, Interesting)
"This app only runs on windows."
Really. Here's my example: As the systems admin, I've convinced the IT manager to let me migrate the entire company over to Linux on the desktop. Terrific, right? Well, there's one itsy-bitsy hurdle....
The expensive phone system in which they've invested a very large amount of money and time requires a client app on each workstation. And you guessed it... it only runs on windows.
I've even spoken to the company that produced the software, and offered to create and *give* them a Linux version. Nope, they can't be bothered - they're just too busy.
steve
Re:Whats wrong here? (Score:2, Offtopic)
If you like, you can bring your own interest (evidently including OSes) t
Re:no not velocity (Score:2)
No, acceleration is change of speed, not speed of change.