Slashdot Mirror
CIOs Band Together Against Paying For Software Bugs
gmerideth writes: "This article over at cio.com interviews several CIO's who are sick and tired of spending billions every year on software upgrades simply because the creater tells them to upgrade as they wont support previous versions or they get stuck into lengthy, costly licenses. Quoted from the article "Other companies, such as Ameritrade Holding, are opting for open-source technologies such as the GNU and Linux operating systems, the Apache Web server and Sendmail e-mail.". It's glad to see the open source movement doing it's job."
The CIO's in favor of the subscription model think that if the software doesn't work, they can refust to pay the rest of their subscription or just switch to another product when their subscription is up.
The problem with the subscription model is you have a drop dead date. If you do not switch to another software package by the time your subscription runs out, you cannot continue to legally use the software. Furthermore, if you don't upgrade when the software vendor tells you to, you cannot continue to legally continue to use your current systems.
Imagine what would have happened to that CIO if his company couldn't meet payroll because oracle had forced them to upgrade to Oracle 11i which didn't work yet.
The more Oracle/Microsoft/etc squeeze to inflate their bottom line, the more people abandon ship and switch to OS.
Ahem...
"The more Oracle/Microsoft/etc tighten the grip, the more systems will slip through their fingers."
I don't wish to excuse any vendor for delivering crapware. Bad vendors should go out of business.
That's the problem.
If CIOs would cover their damned butts they wouldn't get into these binds.
It's good to hold Oracle's feet to the fire. It's good to make them sweat and to make them deliver.
But...
Why aren't these CIOs demanding reasonable back-out strategies?
Twenty years ago, when I worked for EDS, clients routinely demanded that we use particular technologies so that they could kick us out if they didn't like us.
At another employer, the only patents I've ever had my name on (inventor, not owner. No money for me) came because we didn't want to be locked into AT&T as a long-distance provider. They had a special feature we wanted called Network ACD, but it was patented and no one else could offer it. We spent the time and money to invent our own system and stay free to negotiate with whomever we pleased.
I'm amazed by these people who are talking up subscription software. Nothing wrong with the concept, really -- if you've got a way out. Then it's like a lease-or-buy decision for anything else.
With a lock-in? Come on. Surely they've noticed that Microsoft is moving in that direction without any prodding from the outside. That should tell 'em everything they need to know.
Botton line:
Oracle or nothing, Office or nothing, anything or nothing will leave you screwed.
Take your analogy another step: over the past 10-15 years, there has been a big push by auto makers to encourage customers to lease cars. After 2-4 years, return your old car, begin a lease on a new one.
Similarly, Microsoft is switching largely to this new leasing model.
And in both instances, it is for the same reasons: features are no longer improving. During the 50's, 60's, there were model year changes in autos each year. Look at the shoebox Chevy's (55-57) While having the same underpinnings, each year had different trim, a new look, etc. Flash forward to the 'new' shoebox Chevy, the '87-'93 Ford Mustang. Almost identical. Not even the cosmetic changes of the older models.
Now look at Microsoft: big difference between Win 3.1 and Win '95. Not so big to '98, not so big to ME...
There is no technological need to upgrade in either industry. So force a revenue stream by only renting the product.
(BTW, I hope and prey that Bob Lutz will help get GM in gear. I've never owned a GM, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with their product, there is no compelling reason to buy it. DCX really screwed up when they let him go.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I know this is a great way to get flamed in the midst of a group of developers and programmers, but here goes: Why does software have to be buggy?
I have been writing software for years, and I can't understand this kind of "oh well, all software has bugs" mentality that exists in most of the places I have worked. When I write software, it *doesn't* have bugs. Sure, even a cautious design phase and well-documented specs won't help when you accidentally type "crsh++" instead of "cash++", but other than typographical errors (which can be easily found and fixed), there should be no *logical* bugs.
Personally, I begin to wonder how much of the bug issues these days are either because of sheer human laziness ("I don't need to check the limits on this array, no one will *ever* type in a 257 character string here") or because of intentionally releasing a flawed product ("Quick, slap an installer on version 0.0001733Alpha so we can sell it to Dell!"). Either way, as a programmer, I think it is a terrible thing...
If you are a programmer, and are reading this right now, take a few minutes after every block of code, go grab a cup of coffee, look out the window, read slashdot, something to take your mind off what you just wrote, and then come back to it, go through it line by line, make sure your code is doing what you think it is. Make sure there are no buffers to be overflowed and no shorts where there should be longs. Take pride in your work! Don't be a dime-paperback hack romance novelist! Be a Hemmingway, a Gibson, an Orwell, or whoever you think is a brilliant writer, be Tolkien! Give your programming work the same respect that you would reserve for those people you respect.
If programmers as a whole stopped thinking along the "bugs are inevitable" line and started taking a fresh approach, one where they think perfect, bug-free code is possible, then the software industry as a whole would become a much cleaner place.
No More Code Monkies!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
As I see it, the main problem with software quality control is that companies have to get product out by a certain deadline so that they can charge customers enough to stay in business. Remember, 99.9% of software houses are not raking in cash. Most make enough to stay in business, but there aren't a lot of Microsofts or Oracles out there.
If you are going to release bug free products, then you'll simply need to spend perhaps twice as much time, which means half us many new releases.
In other words, you've got to double the price.
Now, just how many CIO's aren't going to seriously consider switching vendors when a software house says they're doubling the price in order to get better quality control...
At least with subscription, the software house no longer has the desperate need to push a product out whether its ready or not.
That's not entirely true. One big consideration in all this is that to provide support for the older products, they must retain programmers who know those older products. They must pay these people to sit around and wait for a support request to come in. If the volume of incoming calls is low, how do you justify hanging on to these people?
You find them something else to do. Probably, since they are intimately familiar with the product, you assign them to working on the new version. When support requests start coming in for the new version, who are you going to turn to? The people who worked on it.
So, now you have these people supporting both the new and old versions. As call volume increases for the new version, which has priority, the old or the new?
At some point, these people are going to lose skills in the old version because of spending so much time with the new version. At some point, you are going to have to decide to drop support of the old version unless someone is willing to pay an exorbitant fee so you can justify retaining and/or training people to provide support for the old version.
This is true for both usage and bug/defect support.
This is where Open Source really makes a difference. How often does a company release the source code to their software, even after they have decided it's no longer commercially feasible to continue providing support for it? With Open Source software, if you can't find someone to support the software, you can hire and train someone to do it for your company. You have the source code available; you can fix it yourself.
One way or another, you're paying for the support. The difference is who has access to the source, and if they decide whether it is worth their time to support it.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.