Slashdot Mirror
CIOs Looking At OSS
bigmouth_strikes writes "There is an interesting article entitled "Your open source plan" in the latest issue of CIO. The article is about opens source software and its place in the enterprise systems market and the article shows the change in attitude over the last few years. OSS is being considered in most large corporations and CIOs are seriously looking into alternatives to expensive proprietary software and Microsoft's licensing schemes. The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."
I have always wanted CIO's to disclose their ownership in MS or other tech companies prior to making purchases of technology. This would keep them honest brokers to the board of directors and the stockholders in the company. They need to know if their decisions are based in a conflict of interest. ( However, if enough of the stockholders or board members are also owners of MS, they might try swaying the CIO that direction.)
"The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."
Is this to say CIO's are not techincal? Any CIO who is worth his / her salt should be able to understand technological issues at a profound level.
Is yours?
----- Refactoring is the reason why man does not mistake himself for a god.
And the inperative to go OSS has come, surprisingly, not from us admins and developers, but from tech-savvy Management types, who understand the value of OSS and can read the coding on the wall :-)
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
I always thought that the Church of Indonesia Online could benefit from Linux
"The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."
/* on y va bourin */ /* Ooopps y'a une infusion ! */
*** High School/Jr.High
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 END
*** New professional
#include
void main(void)
{
char *message[] = {"Hello ", "World"};
int i;
for(i = 0; i
#include
main()
{
char *tmp;
int i=0;
tmp=(char *)malloc(1024*sizeof(char));
while (tmp[i]="Hello Wolrd"[i++]);
i=(int)tmp[8];
tmp[8]=tmp[9];
tmp[9]=(char)i;
printf("%s\n",tmp);
}
*** New Manager (do you remember?)
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 END
*** Middle Manager
mail -s "Hello, world." bob@b12
Bob, could you please write me a program that prints "Hello, world."?
I need it by tomorrow.
^D
*** Chief Executive
% letter
letter: Command not found.
% mail
To: ^X ^F ^C
% help mail
help: Command not found.
% damn!
!: Event unrecognized
% logout
Sayeth the Article:
Free is good. CIOs who don't come to terms with this revolution in 2003 will be paying too much for IT in 2004.
Just like the music industry is in the middle of crumbling, the pay-for software industry is also about to start the long downward slide into irrelevance. IBM and a few other big corps know it's coming and are preparing. They're already well into the conversion to selling their services in association with the software rather than the software itself.
This means that the last hurdle, the hurdle that both Microsoft and OSS developers need to look at most closely, is desktop productivity apps.
Does OpenOffice compare to OfficeXP or Office2003? How about Outlook? Can OSS build a mail client/PIM that plays well with Exchange servers? Can OSS build a layer to confuse Outlook into beleiving that an LDAP server is really an Exchange server?
It's going to be an interesting few years as the software markets begin to shift.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
My god an actual proper article on OSS and how it is winning. THIS is also to everyone out there who pushes MySQL and its ilk. These are the people who need to be convinced and this lays down HOW they need to be convinced.
These people don't care about this cool feature or that cool feature, its TCO that concerns them, so cheap today != cheap tommorow.
Unlike most OSS is winning articles I've read recently this actually approaches it from the right side... the money men. If the CIO commisions a system on OSS that is great, if next time he specifies OSS then it really has made it. Until its the default with these people however its not the major player.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
OSS (or more exactly in this case, the linux distributions) are not just a great bargin at a low price, there are also the cost of upgrades and maintenance. There is nothing that says that a company can upgrade to the newest versions of everything all the time, and who supplies fixes to a large set of dated versions?
This is one, of many questions, that needs to be answered before "Free software"/OSS can be used problem free in any commercial environment. I am sure I will be shot down quickly, but I rather see these issuses taken care of than starting yet another flamewar.
On a slightly related note. I would hope that all companies that saves a bundle on free software could set aside a part of their profit and donate it to the projects behind their software. OSS/Linux/etc needs more people who work with it for a living after all.
I think that's exactly what's wrong with the Microsoft world. Why does it have to "go somewhere"? Do we need Linux.NET? Linux COM+? Linux ActiveX? Linux MTS? How about a stable platform, that doesn't shift like sand beneath our applications? How about the promise of a platform that remains constant as expected?
John
Interesting article. I had a chuckle at the comment about a lack of strength on the lack of "big Enterprise strength applications" with OSS. How silly. I have used some of these Big applications like ERP, and they stink. How could OSS be worse? I can see only opportunities for improvements.
'ta
Still there's a huge different looking at OSS and actually migrating from microsoft systems.
We've had reports like this in sweden for a while but unfortunately it seems as it's just a cool thing to say for the incompetent CIO "yeah we're looking at linux. once it gets better we might switch.". In my experience there are many bad CIOs that are trying to cover their incompetence by claiming they know something about OSS.
Ciryon
The article, about apache "And you could download it once, tweak it, burn it on a CD, and install your own version on as many servers as you wanted without telling anybody and without spending a dime. ,tweak it and then "Burn it on a CD"?
Is it that whoever wrote the article never installed anything over a network?From harddisk atleast? Who wastes 640 M and the time to move from server to server to install a
Download it
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Who Are Those Guys?
The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who are working for you right now
Worried about trusting your infrastructure to a bunch of shaggy college kids who might bolt at any moment for a yearlong backpacking trip to Switzerland? Don't worry. Even if every one of them left for the Alps tomorrow, 90 percent of the open-source community would still be checking in to one of the community's Internet hangouts (SourceForge.net and Freshmeat.net are the most popular) to see what's new.
Yeah right, like I have time to ski, or that I have any hair left, shaggy or otherwise....well except for the palms of my hand but I don't count that...
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
I think it's safer to say it's gaining in popularity, and because of the cost savings involved is now starting to come to the attention of the executive management.
I've worked (and continue to work) with or for a number of large corporations, and OSS has always had a place there. The big difference is you're starting to see a few more core applications and/or platforms replaced because the commercial apps are generally overkill and cost an arm and a leg to support and maintain.
People have always used Perl to automate batch processing. There are a whole lot of smaller custom applications that use MySQL instead of (ack!) Access or MS SQL Server because it does the job. There are a number of shops I've seen that use Nagios for monitoring because it meets their needs. OSS is out there, has been there for a while, and is now moving out of the closet and into the light.
Now that it can have such a positive impact on the bottom line in tight times, corporate execs are starting to realize there are significant gains to be had. It'll never replace commercial software, but it can certainly play a very complementary role.
Tradeoffs exist, but the communities which typically support OSS can usually (I've found) provide better support coupled with faster workarounds and patches than going through a vendor. It's not perfect, but most of the time it works.
It's nice to see that people are finally taking the attitude that you CAN get fired for buying Big Blue. About time we get back to right tool for the right job. Here's hoping those same CIO's will see the benefits of giving back as well, and releasing useful mods/patches back into the community.
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
1. Produce high quality software and sell it for a reasonable price.
2. Treat your customers with respect.
3. Profit!
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
There has been a lot of articles and a lot of speculation as to whether the TCO of Linux is any better than that of Windows. But I found this quote in the article interesting:
"And CIOs who have implemented it [Linux] report huge total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) reductions. "
Straight from the horse's mouth. CIOs are saying it, and a (I assume) reputable source of CIO news is reporting it. That settles the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
-kidlinux.
Or you could see that "OSS" is in the title and simply skip over it.
But thanks for bitching... that always helps.
Last summer, Oracle released an open-source version of its database to run on clusters of Linux servers--a popular way for CIOs to transition big, power-hungry applications and databases from expensive hardware like supercomputers and high-end Unix servers to groups of cheap Intel servers running Linux
Where can I get my copy?
With ever-tightening budgets, open source is getting a firmhold in many companies that would have bought closed source retail software during the fat budget years.
I've had a number of open source-based projects greenlighted (intrusion detection, vulnerability scanners, virus/spam blocking SMTP gateways, etc.) that would not have been approved if we had to pay large operating system or software licensing fees.
"We just had a security and penetration audit last month, and the only systems the auditors weren't able to penetrate were the Linux systems," he says.
gasps of shock and surprise. the same company replaced 40 windows web servers with 4 running linux/apache. I'll take one competent linux admin over 10 drooling idiots any day.
Uhhhh... this is a site for people who happen to like computers in the truest sens of the word. This means people who are hardcore into the best of everything. The best hardware, the best software and the best OSes. This implies Linux and OSS when we talk about software and OSes.
Look at it in terms of "car guys":
Windows 9x = Ford Escort owner
Windows NT/2K = Ford SUV owner
Windows XP = Ford SUV with DVD player owner
Linux = Volvo owner
UNIX (Sun, HP, etc...) = BMW owner
The guys who are REALLY into their cars are all going to vary at each of these levels. The Escort guy is probably going to do all he can to "soup up" his escort and he'll wind up with a Riceboy special. No matter what he does, you can't take him seriously. The NT/2K user is likely just a business user (ie. Soccer mom) and will do what he can to tweak his system, but he isn't going to know how to really get the most performance out of it since MS won't let him actually tweak the code. The XP guy is like the soccer mom with the husband who could afford a few extra options. No real change in true performance, but this type of person can show all their neighbors what they've got and make them jealous. It's all superficial though. The Linux user is more concerned about performance and knows the ins and outs of his system, much like a Volvo owner who is completely in love with their car. Every setting is committed to memory so that any change needed can be made with just a simple keystroke. There are so many variables that would make the average driver/user's head spin, but this option performs extremely well. Finally, the UNIX/BMW user. This person only wants one thing; precision performance. They want to tune their system to do EXACTLY what they want, when they want it with every drop of horsepower. And this is what they get because they know how to coax it out of their system. So tell me... why do we care that YOU can't deal with OSS and Linux? If you are a Windows monkey, then fine... go be a Windows monkey. We won't hold it against you. But don't expect to see that kind of news and information here because YOU are not Slashdot's target.
Un-news
Take a look at any of these "big enterprise applciations" (like ERP as you mentioned, Siebel is another example I would use) and they are just chewing gum and duct tape. I was involved in a lengthly attempt to implement Siebel and the whole thing fell through as all the "enterprise strength Siebel" project was good for was keeping Siebel professional services employed.
Posted anon as the truth hurts.
I think we're already at war.
Gotta love that thing called diplomacy.
And remember this war was pre-determined when Bush came into power.
Everywhere.
The big question is where will Microsoft be? It will be on the same old limited platforms trying to pretend that old PC style architecture is ideal for every computer application.
How long will it take before MS realises that people are not exactly rushing to follow it's lead?
I like *nix as much as any the other slashdotter, but let's admit that *nix poorly implemented in an environment is WORSE than doze properly implemented.
Imagine how devastating it could be for a company if a CIO implemented OSS with the wrong expectations? (Wanting EVERYTHING free, promised the corporate masters the moon, etc.)
Yes, my Scimitar is looking a bit scruffy in that photo. That's a "before" photo, you can see the "after" photo when it's been sprayed.
Ok, first, deciding to use Open Source software is a non-descision. You should be using the software that best suits your needs in terms of cost/benefit. If that's Red Hat Linux, then fine. If it's MacOS/X, fine. If it's Windows XP, fine.
What you really need to be asking is, how can participating in Open Source help my business? As an example, it's been said many times, but bear repeating: most of the lines of code written in the world are written for internal projects within a company and never see the light of day. Many companies don't release such code because it's a one-way operation. You release it, your competition uses it and you get nothing in return.
Now that the OSS model is blossoming, it's possible to create micro-markets for software that would otherwise never have seen the light of day. Anyone who starts this process will soon discover that there's something amazing that happens almost immediately. Code gets cleaner (the old "well if someone's going SEE this" reflex), documentation gets more extensive, people start thinking about modularity and interoperation. New ideas start moving around and soon, you're partially funding a very efficient software micro-market rather than fully funding your own in-house effort that just evolved over time as a tumor on your business.
You can now start to do things you would never had dared. You can investigate large systemic changes that would have been too costly before. Bug fixes happen faster. Software starts to be *released* in a reasonable way (heck, you might even have a reasonable handle on what features are upcoming and when to expect them).
This is the true power of OSS. Replacing your desktop or server OS is just a side-benefit.
What a well-written article. If only all the articles on slashdot could be like that: Clear, concise, full of details, and it had links to other sub-articles for public consumption if the reader was interested. Plus, they provided loads of evidence. (also they have lots of "it worked for me" stories, probably to ease the jitters of reluctant cios.)
I'd have to say, you know the article wasn't full of BS when they said, flat out, that MCSE's don't know anything useful. Yes!! That alone showed how they were cutting it straight. Then they went to rag on VB people too, and I was gleeful. Also made me glad to see the consulting companies are letting windows-only people go. Makes me feel like I'll be able to get a job soon enough, heh.
Recursive (adj.): see 'Recursive'
Jeffery was vaguely aware of the roots of this community, how it began in 1984 when a cantankerous software programmer named Richard Stallman wrote some brilliant software designed as an alternative to the Unix operating system. It was software that anyone could use and change and distribute--as long as he promised to share any changes he made with everyone else. In 1991, a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds added a complex kernel to Stallman's and others' programs to instruct them to act as the unified operating system that most have come to associate with Torvalds' pet name for the project, Linux.
And not only that, but the article refers to GNU/Linux (not just Linux) throughout.
That's got to be pleasant for RMS to see in a non-geek article.
Finding God in a Dog
The article says GNU/Linux...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
For the time being, it's not direct competition between Linux and Windows that's going to be the deciding factor of who'll be the victor. It's competiton between businesses:
"Free is good. CIOs who don't come to terms with this revolution in 2003 will be paying too much for IT in 2004."
In 2004, businesses who are using OSS will have an edge over those who are not. So I think we'll see most, if not all, businesses getting as much use out of OSS as possible, just to remain competitive in the market. What may happen is a more intelligent form of the dot com era. Investors will start investing more in a business making use of OSS, but won't be investing just because said business has the slightest relation to OSS. They will be investing in an established business who is making use of OSS to increase profits and is therefore more competitive than others.
Competition between the OSes is not completely irrelevant, however. Free is a good thing, but not when what you're getting for free is useless. And that is what makes Linux great, it has the best of both worlds - it's excellent software, and it's free.
-kidlinux.
I agree with the article fully, it's been our experience here in the UK that companies are much more willing to consider Open Source. We are talking with some _significantly_ sized UK firms - the real trick is to get them to trial some projects. Once 'the penguin has landed' it inevitably spreads.
I'm glad that the point was made about TCO. We have noticed that _whatever_ the intellectual debate over TCO, when you _actually deploy_ in any decent sized business, TCO benefits are huge!
With the benefits of an actual deployment - the advantages of Open Source are clear - it's only those standing on the outside looking in that have doubts - the long term conclusions that Open Source will take the Enterprise is inevitable.
Now they have no illusion that this is all going to be free or easy. Not a one of them was against shifting a good portion of their licensing fees to consulting and support costs. For example, I explained the advantages of Redhat's advanced server and the annual cost for support, plus costs for consulting support, and none of them were the least bit concerned about that aspect (not to say there are not other concerns, like current IT staff resistance for example).
It's the bottom line here. If they can reduce their overall costs for IT, it gives them a competitive edge. If your company can get a slice of what remains, all the better.
There's a market brewing here, and with all good new markets, only the wise can see it coming. Here's a chance to steal some market dollars from Microsoft.
I have always wanted CIO's to disclose their subscription status to PC World and other "technology-lite" publications, as well as whether or not they watch c|net on cable, prior to their making stupid statements. This would keep everyone aware that they are technologically illiterate and obsessive jargon monkeys. They need to know if their decisions are based on something they read in an advertisment. (however, if enough stockholders or board members are also idiots, they might try to use the latest buzz word too.)
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
....Out of Business
1. Foreign Outsourcing
2. Open Source
3. Self-programming software (this one is way off but is coming nonetheless.)
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I think that your making a broad assumption when saying that us reading, like Linux more than Windows, I think slashdot,should automatically collect data from our browsers and see what is the most popular OS on slash dot. I got an idea, you think your OS is the best? Well lets take the current game of the year, Battlefield 1942 put it on two identical systems, one with Windows XP completely tweaked out by me, and one with Linux, completely tweaked out by you, and then we'll run some standard tests, frame rates at different resolutions and such. Linux can run Battlefield 1942 right??? bwahahaha
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
I think the reason why larger companies are investigating the possibility of using Linux and other Open Source software is the fact biggest supporter of OSS is probably the most influential computer company in the world: IBM.
Given IBM's US$1 billion plus investment in porting Linux to run on AS/400 and S/9000 big iron machines, no wonder why the Fortune 500 crowd is taking notice. Look at what IBM has pulled off so far--the official web sites for the Grand Slam tennis events (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open) are all run off IBM hardware and software, sites that proved it could hold up under extremely heavy loads.
The big loser in all this is Sun Microsystems. Sun's still major reliance on Solaris will get Sun hammered the in long run from the high end by IBM big iron running Linux and from the low end by Dell x86-based servers also running Linux.
I was hired at (start next week) at a "Microsoft" shop. I have some experience in that, and also a fair amount of linux/mac/opensource stuff too. The trend I'm seeing is that people who know both are in a good position to get a job: they represent flexibility for management, who have in-house talent with knowledge of "the other option" and can use it to leverage themselves against a vendor during price negotiations.
Are they going linux tomorrow? Probably not. But their web-servers are ALL IIS, and Apache sure looks more and more attractive with each new iis problem that finds it's way onto CNN.
Who did what now?
Why does my Volvo require constant maintenance, weigh twice as much, and use twice the gas of my ford SUV? To replace or add parts to my SUV I just snap them in place. Only the parts that came with the Volvo snap in place, although some need extra parts before doing so. Any parts that did not ship with the Volvo often have to be built from scratch or may not even properly fit my make and model of Volvo. I am a car enthusiast and own a garage full of Volvo's but I find I usually end up using the Ford SUV.
Hmmm... so you think that Battlefield 1942 is the "killer app" that will make or break an OS? You must be what... thirteen or fourteen years old? I'll try and educate you:
Why don't you "tweak out" your system and I'll "tweak out" mine and then we both install PERL on it and see whose system grinds to a halt when running simple PERL scripts...
I didn't say that my OS is the best, I just said that people who use Linux are much better with computers in general than most Windows chimps. I can set up a pretty killer Windows box, but it's still not going to satisfy my needs or my desire for preformance the way a Linux/BSD or UNIX box will.
Go play your games little boy, let the men get on with the more important things like running the Internet...
Un-news
Your the idiot
...he is a CEO and he had...
YOur an idiot...
His an idiot what? (Sorry, HIs) I'm also trying to work if "Gates" is dead or alive, as you seem to have mixed your past and present tenses.
So, can we all assume that English not a required course at your college?
in the end, colleges and universities will not have any research money or students attending computer science classes because there will be almost no
paying software development jobs.
Eventually, the research money thrown at computer science professors/academics like RMS will go away since there are no students willing to carry out the research and that the research will be done in countries much cheaper than the USA.
In the end, OS advocates will get what they want whether they like it or not.
Well I don't have the title, but I am 'the' computer person MIS/IT/DB Manager etc... for a fair sized process manufacturing business (pushing $100 Million). We are getting bent over left, right, and center by licensing, Microsoft, ERP software, you name it.
We feel trapped in the MS web and would love to break out. We spend $200K easy on licensing costs annually easily...so here's my thinking.
Is there not some way we could use this money to hire a Linux programmer and a Linux admin guru or some combination of consultants, etc and start getting our butts off of the MS shaft? I don't mind Windows on the client so much. I can handle leaving Finance with Excel, but Open Office could replace much of that. I'm sure something could replace Exchange etc... And as for the ERP side, well it's fairly complex but at least if we had an option for something that could run on Linux with say, Oracle or whatever (at least be flexible) database backend...
Where the heck would I start with all of this? I am a Windows/DOS guy, but I don't mind learning Linux...it's just a matter of getting started.
Ugh, maybe this should be an Ask Slashdot question...
get a 10 year head start on all the CIO's who are just discovering it.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
...none of those other fallen empires had NUKES and George W!
Want to compare yearly salaries, And are you sure you want to make fun of people who play computer games. Computer Gaming is a 5.5 Billion dollar industry, I think I'll be happy to take a piece of that pie with my consulting company. A lot of the companies we do work for are developers for video games, like EA and Idios. And yes I consider the ability to render out a video game important if your trying to argu Linux as a desktop, why are you running perl scripts on your desktop computer, I personaly can afford a server to do that. http://www.gignews.com/2002andbeyond.htm
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
1. Write pro-linux fluff.
2. Who cares if it's bullshit?
3. Profit!
Listen, Mr Exec: this stuff is cheep. It costs you nothing in licenses and you can use it for free. Like all software it is raw material, so be prepared to invest in making it work. But it is about the best raw material out there, and it is (did we mention this) free, costing exactly nothing. /absence of a valid MEP should figure in their annual reports. As a stockmarket investor I'd invest in businesses that did this - it would show that the guys in charge had some idea what they were doing.
It is a powerful argument and one that the OSS community should not be shy of using. Forget the discussion of 'free as in beer' and 'TCO'. Microsoft did not earn their billions from TCO but from plain license sales: for every billion spent on MS licenses, businesses probably spent 10-20 times getting the damn stuff to work.
Even the stupidest CEO/CIO understands the difference between prices. OSS is cheap. CHEAP.
On this subject... any smart organization should be putting a "Microsoft Exit Plan" into place. Move away from Office, away from Windows clients, and away from Windows servers. The presence
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
The magazine and the article itself are intended for executives, so the technical aspect is at a beginners level."
Why is it that the people making sweeping technology choices at companies don't understand the technology?
May we never see th
isn't it wonderfully diplomatic how they avoid mentioning the "bad software" by name. we all know that win admins are the ones planning their firefighting, while the rest of us just plan our new deployments. at least these guys are eating the dogfood they are shouting.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
They randomly screwed up and sent my younger sister a year subscription, despite me protesting that she had never signed up. I flipped through a couple of them. Granted, PC World is pretty full of holes and inaccuracies, but AFAI could tell, it's aimed at the home market, not execs.
Now, Forbes is another story...
May we never see th
I think the learning curve argument is very over-blown. I have met very few people who knew how to administer Windows servers properly - they tend to treat it like a desktop machine in most cases, which it is not. Just because someone can get a service up and running doesn't mean it's running well. I've found that paying more for an experienced admin pays off big, in that they not only know how to manage the boxes effectively, they can manage a lot more than your average bear. The principle applies to both Linux and Windows - just because it's OSS doesn't mean it's exclusively Linux. OS's tend to become unstable because people do stupid things to or with them, not because they start out that way. I've seen Linux and Windows boxes performing equally poorly because they weren't run properly. Running X - let alone games - on a RedHat 7.3 box acting as an application platform is not what I would call a typical use for an application platform. If anyone did that with Windows or Linux in my group, I'd have to seriously re-evaluate why they were in my group. Nothing's been proven, it's all opinions and statistics which are assembled to prove a point. TANSTAAFL - you get what you pay for. If you buy the best of class hardware and software, get the best of class people to run it too. It only makes sense, but too many people think in terms of bodies, not in terms of right people in the right job.
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
You're right of course, but the very simplicity of the message causes a problem. Mr Exec's first response is 'So what's the catch', and believe me, he has very little time for 'well, there isn't one!'.
I disagree. Look at IBM, who has a full-time staff devoted to Linux. The Linux people at IBM include developers, support staff, consultants, integration experts, sales and marketing. These people are getting paid 9-5 to work on Open Source. So how is Open Source going to put American programmers out of business? It seems that there will be just as many, if not more jobs in Open Source than proprietary in the near future.
I'm sure most people here out earn me since I CHOOSE to work for a non-profit organization. Profit and wealth are VASTLY unimportant to me. But OK... shoot:
$52,000/year here
If you want to go work on video games as a pro that's cool. But it's still not a "killer app". Sounds to me like you are more concerned about profit than technology... that makes you sound more like a suit than a tech though.
I also NEVER brought up Linux as a desktop OS. I was only discussing the varying levels of skill and knowledge as they correlate with the choice of OS. You can't argue that someone who uses Linux or UNIX doesn't know anything about computers. But you CAN argue that when talking about Windows users. How many Windows "power users" do you know that can fix a Linux box that has a problem? Not too many, I'd bet. I still have yet to meet a Linux/UNIX user that CAN'T fix a Windows box though. They might gripe about it the whole way and talk about how backwards the system is (I'm not that bad, I save my bile for Slashdot weenies) but they are 100% guaranteed to fix it. The only exceptions are the UNIX guys that have NEVER used Windows.
Un-news
When it happens I can finally get out from behind this desk, away from the glow of the CRT, and into some real sunlight. Maybe I'll be a gardener, or a construction worker. You know, real work. I'd love to do it right now, but the money isn't good enough at the moment and my skills are better applied by being sat here at a desk. Such is life.
I think some more interesting questions are what effect OSS is having on the vendors? All we hear on these, pro-OSS stories is that vender so and so can not, or will not do what customer wants, and the company subsiquently moves to OSS. Does the vendor change? Do they go out of business? What? Also there's the overall tracking question of what is the nature of these vendors? Low-end, high-end, middle? Value-add, primary producer? What catagories. Financial, infrastructure, manufacturing, etc? And what do the answers mean for were OSS will, and will not go in the future?
Just assuming the entire market will eventually turn into a commodity is too big an assumption to make.
Then try "We still pay for the support". Its an honest answer, it doesn't sound daft, and in most executives eyes, if you're paying for something it must be valid.
How does SuSE's offering compare to Exchange when it comes to calandering? From what I've read, it seems like that kind of functionality requires the use of a web interface.
While I like the idea of a web interface if one is going to use a seperate calandaring application, it hardly compares to the integration of Outlook and Exchange.
There are plenty of good Open Source solutions for email. And Evolution is an excellent client (its my favorite). But we're still missing a good, integrated, shared calandaring solution. It may be in work now and something that'll show up in the future. But as far as I can tell, its not here yet. And that means there is no replacement for Exchange.
Discussing the pain and resentment CIOs are expressing over the new MS licensing scheme.
http://www.cio.com/archive/031503/showdo
My rights don't need management.
Many vertical market packages let you add fields and tables to the software, they can be completely repurposed by nontechnical folks.
They use Sybase and Oracle, mostly on Win. No reason not to move to Linux, as most of them are accessed by a web browser, anyway.
I've looked up Evans Data Corporation and have actually found the source. Apparently, most /.ers were too happy jumping up and down in joy to actually bother with this small detail.
SOURCE: Linux Development Survey, Vol. 1 2003: http://www.evansdata.com/n2/surveys/linux_toc_03_1 .shtml
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
That corporate suits are starting to see the upsides of OSS great, but are they willing to contribute? For example, say a company realizes that they can save ten million dollars over ten years by using open source software. Will they be willing to spend one million of that by hiring a programmer to "give back" to the open-source community over those same ten years? PERL is a great start, many companies have donated to PERL development because of the money PERL saves them, but what about just bringing on full-time OSS programmers? I want to see large organizations bringing programmers on board to kick some of those savings back, and keep OSS thriving- especially now that Microsoft is trying to kill OSS in the grad school world where so many projects were started.
OSS developers and users are a great community- with a little bit of money thrown in, big OSS users can make it better.
Back in '02 my CIO put out an RFP on OSS. He found that the ROI was better than for an MS NT solution. Despite the ROI shown by the OSS RFP, we went with MS NT because it was easy to get some MCSEs on H1s to handle WINS, DHCP, and DNS on MS NT. RH put together a nice OSS proposal along with HP, but in the end MS and IBM won out.
-- The above story is fictional. The TLAs have been changed to protect the guilty.
Lots of managers (including two CIOs I know) argue that management is a discpline unto itself and knowing how to manage is enough; technical knowledge enough to make decisions is learned or imparted through employees or consultants.
I buy this to a certain extent, but I've also seen CIOs make horrible technology decisions because they didn't trust their own people, were misled by consultants, or just plain made decisions because they *thought* they knew. I'm pretty sure the latter is a big culprit, as are CIOs that drag in consultants who disagree with their staff and create a huge we/they problem. And then there are bottom-liners who manage to the bottom line, "trimming costs" as a sign of "good management."
I also think that an organization has to be structured in such a way that good, consultive management can work. Frequently it's not structured that way, management doesn't trust employees, employees don't trust management, and the whole process of decisionmaking gets flushed down the toilet.
I personally think that effective management requires a lot of experience in the field you're managing AND a solid management training background. Past "Experts" now in management can certainly micromanage or get into situations where they override their technical people simply because "in their day" things were done differently.
That paragraph also stood out to me. It should have said:
"When CIOs need help with their systems and software, they don't have to depend on vendors with their own agendas because when an open-source app doesn't work, administrators can always hire someone else."
Unfortunately, it didn't.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
From recent experience, OS + OfficeSuite costs put the break even point for hiring a part-time sysadmin for GNU/Linux systems at around 30 computers (in private business), asuming that in the MS version the cost for administration is zilch (which we all know it isn't).
In terms of the learning curve, the end user shouldn't really have one thanks to GNOME and KDE. The only people who would really have to learn anything would be the System Administrators and Programmers.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
""I think we need to optimize our infrastructure by calling in consultants that can build a new architechture for us with rising profits and total lower cost of ownership! To do this we need to stick with Microsoft since they KNOW infrastructures and architectures."
Blah blah blah... stupid monkeys."
That's why you become that rare geek. You know the non-contemptuous, non-anti-social one, that has a firm grasp of both technology, and people. Instead of insulting them. Try understanding there motivations[1], as well as their language[2]. You stand a much better chance of benefiting both yourself (why make your job harder than it already is?), and the company you work for (the reason you have a job) if you make that kind of effort.
[1] Leave the stereotypes at home. A professional has no need for them, and doesn't like it when they are used on them (hacker).
[2] For something that wields so much power, we use it in suprisingly ineffectual ways. Anyway this barrier knocked-down can open many a door, were before only a wall was previously present.
Anyone know who said that originally?
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
I can tell you first hand what happens when you don't share changes to a Free Software project, and it ain't pretty.
Several years ago I needed software to create some specialized graphs for a manufacturing Intranet. Since I was working in Perl at the time I downloaded GIFgraph, and took a look at it. It did about 90% of what I needed, and was cleanly written, so I spent a couple of weeks and added the features that I needed. Several of these features were the type of thing that just about anyone making graphs would appreciate, and at least one of the features was something that had been mentioned repeatedly on their mailing list. I toyed briefly with asking permission to release the code, but the Intranet was a bit of a skunkworks and I was afraid that sharing had the potential to get me and my boss in trouble.
The good news is that the Intranet was a success. Not only did it work flawlessly, but the solution was so ridiculously inexpensive to maintain and deploy that it got rolled out to several factories. And that's where the problems started in. You see, because I hadn't shared my rather minor extensions to GIFgraph I had to maintain my own incompatible version. GIFgraph soon had most of the features that I had added, but they were all incompatible with the work that I had done. Even worse, the underlying GD library went through some major changes and my version of GIFgraph didn't work with them either. So now I had my own custom version of GIFgraph that depended on an older version of GD (that wasn't available via FTP anymore because of GIF licensing issues). It seems to me that Perl also came out with some changes that were tricky as well, which required me to stick with an older version of Perl than what shipped in most Linux distributions.
Maintaining this stuff was doable, but it was certainly extra work. What's more it could have all been avoided if I would have shared. In the end the application was rewritten in Python and integrated into Zope (which made me happy, as I like Python). However, I could have saved myself some work if I would have shared right from the start.
Fluff? Bullshit? So what you're saying is that Linux companies don't make money?
I would say that Linux users are more like the car from the mid 70's that was called "The Thing". I think AMC made it. You could replace or remove options (doors, roof, interior) at will in order to suite your lifestyle.
If you don't understand anything I post, please accept that I ate paste as a small boy...
All employees of publicly traded companies must inform the company of every stock trade they make. Mutual funds are excluded from the trade list. The SEC requires this to (in theory) prevent insider trading. So the company does know what they own, but executives aren't using this information to judge CIO decisions. (FYI - I'm a software developer at a publicly traded investment firm.)
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm sure we all know what the major OSS adoptions problems are:
1. MS has a few fields, including the one I work in, that they dominate because the customers demand MS solutions. Simple as that. Those are lost to OSS.
2. No matter how pretty Gnome, KDE, etc. are, X is still X, so end users will get the same mediocre graphics quality that has plagued X from Day 1. Also, until true MS replacement products come out for Linux, it'll never be Joe End User's desktop.
3. CIOs have a choice, they can pay a lot for software licenses and a medium amount for technical help, or they can buy the software for free and employ the "antisocial, smelly unix geek" crowd for the higher salaries they command. In this economy, they're going to stick with the expensive software.
4. Although IBM and RedHat have done a great job of telling people that tech support will be there for them, there's still the thought that your only support contact will be the 13-year-old in Finland who wrote your video card driver. People will pay a lot to know that they can call someone up and have a software problem fixed in a few hours.
Until these issues are fixed, OSS can only move forward slowly.
Which microsoft product are you talking about? But let me correct you in one thing: the problems in m$ windozes *would be* serious enough to take the time to fix properly, if you only could...
Actually, businesses are used to not paying when they can. It's just a matter of perception. We've been trained to consider software expensive, but at the same time we've been conditioned to associate anything to do with the Internet to be cheap. Another example: the falling prices of computer hardware. Your company exec understand this.
So, try this argument: "software prices have actually been falling dramatically during the last 10 years, along with every other mass-produced aspect of business computing. It's only certain companies that through their monopolistic position have managed to keep prices artificially high. For everyone else, software has become a commodity and very often, one that is free. Your business can choose: pay the monopolist or look for cheaper alternatives. Would you stick with a power company that charged 2000% more than alternatives? Or pay $10 for a pencil? Or $100,000 for a computer? So why $500 for a Office license?
The global economic recession creates a huge advantage for OSS.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Your making arrogant, and ignorant comments. You forget the CAD users that use linux boxes at work, but didn't build them, and lots of other people that use unix boxes that didn't build them, they have no knowledge of their systems, only knowledge of how to use AutoCad. And other programs. And they have windows boxes at home and are often asking me rediculously simple questions, like how to add another user to XP, or how to set up their printer to print labels. And they would have no idea how to fix their system if they had a problem. While, me, a Windows user, can easilly fix Linux boxes, here at work, we run proprietary unix for a our cad guys. I realise Unix is not linux, but I could easily fix a unix box as well, and I often do, my home webserver is Linux, running appache. Don't say all Linux users are Gurus and that most of windows users are idiots. It makes you sound like an elitist. Ummm...I own my own company, and yes I am a suit, but I was an engineer first. I pay myself 180K a year salary, and most of my consultants around 70K. We are after all, a consulting company.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
PenguinAir(Linux) - A bunch of people meet on the runway each with an airplane part. They furiously assemble about 10 airplanes varying from two-seaters to jumbo jets. Then they invite anyone who is interested, preferably those with more parts, to fly anywhere in the world in them. Money only changes hands if the visitors want pilots and no one visitor has any precidence of any other.
AppleAir(MAC OS XAir(MAC OS >10) - "borrowed" a plane from PenguinAir and now operates like AppleAir. The explosion problem is now solved.
Microair(Microsoft) - After colsolodation all airlines owned by Microsoft are run as one business and flights are sold at one price (regardless of what equiptment or services are actually used). The basic service will get you from point A to point B, but use of the terminal, in flight drinks cost extra. If you want to use the bathroom on the flight you have to give the flight atendant $1000.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Anyone else look at the heading and instantly think of Nier's Open Source Spectrometer?
Speaking as an admin who's been paid to set up both Win2k Server AND Linux machines, Linux machines are *easier* to secure, to a point. However, I'd agree that they can be made equally secure.
More to the point, though, Linux boxes are easier to *keep* secure--Apache exploits get fixed in hours, IIS exploits get fixed in weeks--if you're lucky.
Of course, if you (like me) run Apache on your Windows boxen as well as the Linux ones, I'd call you smarter than the average bear. =P
I've been watching this thread for a bit and have been resisting the urge to respond... but your ridiculous commentary just called for some response. Trolling4Dollars appears to have been talking about users with technical proficiency using Linux. Not end-users that only know their apps by wrote. So this line:
You forget the CAD users that use linux boxes at work, but didn't build them, and lots of other people that use unix boxes that didn't build them, they have no knowledge of their systems, only knowledge of how to use AutoCad.
doesn't make any sense within the context of the argument. Of course they can't do administrative tasks on their Windows boxes, they AREN'T technically Linux users.
And this line:
Don't say all Linux users are Gurus and that most of windows users are idiots. It makes you sound like an elitist.
attempts to twist what he seemed to originally be saying. He didn't say that there are no Windows users that can work with Linux or that all Linux users can work with Windows. There are always exceptions and he appeared to leave room for that.
Looking at your posts, it sounds like you are someone who has used both OSes and doesn't seem to have a problem with either. That's cool, I use both as well. But I will always contend that Linux is better at most things than Windows is. The only place that Windows has a leg up on Linux is entertainment: games and multimedia. That will change over the years.
I won't even get into the salary issue. But I will say, leave this guy alone. He seems to be a decent sort with a sense of humor. Something that you appear to lack which is why you made it onto my foes list. I have no intention of getting embroiled in this any further other than to say request that you both stop this foolishness right now.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Funny how you can make $180k as a consultant when you have a hard time spelling, punctuating, and capitalizing correctly.
I mean, one or two typos would be one thing, but this is ludicrious. Accuse me of being a grammar Nazi if you must, but I have an expectation that someone who claims a high level of responsibility and authority will have the communication skills to match their claims.
When you get into a management position, a large portion of your time is shifted away from the technical aspect of your systems.
You spend most of your time looking at new products, future "visions" of technology, long-term costs, etc. I think where management fails is getting the employees who actually USE and ADMINISTER the systems involved with purchasing decisions.
When management and engineering have invested their time and expertise into product selection, everyone will feel like they have ownership in the process.
Yep, the economy having tanked is the real reason that OSS stands a BIG improved chance at displacing MS-entrenchment.
:-) so these two things acting together are synergistically giving OSS the "market" boost it need right now to displace uhh, ermmm, "expensive legacy systems" we all love to hate.
Back in the Y2K craze and even immediately thereafter, management wanted to migrate to MS stuff because the people who can install, run, and maintain MS stuff cost a lot less money to hire and retain. Back then the real knowledgeable system professionals who knew their stuff cost a great deal more money, and were harder to hire and keep than an MS monkey. Management has known full well all along that *nix and OSS solutions are the more technologically superior, but they also knew that MS stuff is easier to slap onto a machine and an idiot can make it work. Security and reliability be damned as long as the software functions good enough. *Real* systems just cost too much money and there was always the perceived danger that your little niche of techies who were essential for keeping the harder-to-operate systems running would jump ship on you or God forbid, try to exert some leverage against management.
Now, with the economy tanked, it's much easier to hire and retain the truly knowledgeable system folks, plus the acquisition costs of OSS are right
This is under-edited, because I have to get back to work.
You can use the money to hire a linux guy, the issue will be whether you have to pay both during the transition.
For you: The place to start is to grab a linux distribution and install it. Get one with all the gew-gaws and an easy installer. (I use Mandrake because I use it as a workstation/desktop.) The really nice thing is that you can just get it.
If you're a computer guy this is probably the fastest way to get a feel for it. Start monkeying with the graphical overlays and then start digging into the real config files that interest you. Install all the documentation. Hell, install everything. (Well, with caveats.)
The graphically overlayed desktop instalations aren't what you'd run a server off of, but they give you buttons that let you get a feel for the shear mass of stuff that is available. Once you strip off the gui there is a server beneith it. It's a good way to start.
If you want to see how the other people will like it as a desktop, make your personel play with the desktop stuff while you watch. Similarly they can install open office for MSWindows.
The real issue is deciding what you need your computers to do. Which is to say, things like finding out if people in your office are actually using MSExchange as a groupware server, or if it's just email.
You have to make a list of the functions these systems play, and then (one by one) find out what the potential replacements are. You can hire a consultant to do this, or do it yourself. As has been noted there is no lack of willing small and large scale contractors. (Heck, I'll be available for light duty work in April.)
You need to ask your ERP provider if they will run atop Linux or BSD. Replacing that is a serious process, but switching the under OS is much less. Oracle already runs on Linux.
Remember that the whole point is that system changes should be guided by that actual work you want done. That is always where you want to start. Then search on freshmeat.net for projects adressing that work.
-sh
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
...what the hell does cio stand for. is that the new term for ceo.
;), but it has been difficult keeping up.
ive only been gone from the states for six months (draft dodging on government money
philanthropists need to realize there is a need for philanthropy in the first place
According to Netcraft:
"The site www.cio.com is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) PHP/4.1.2 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a on Linux."
Vewy intewesting....
(And to pre-empt the expected knee-jerk "Linux Kills Windows" twits, they seem to have moved from Solaris).
I don't know what free work you refer to. (Although I have heard of companies asking for years of skills many hours of commitment for internships.)
I would like to dispute the notion that there will never be work again when the largest monopolist proprietary development companies cease to exist (or are severely crippled, limping, or dying).
By its very nature, open-source software allows you access to the code. If (Insert "Your Company" Here) is using Apache and needs a custom mod_something_new, a compile change, or a build, who is going to do it? The answer is the same people who do it now.
Small companies will buy service from consulting companies. I know a couple people who travel and make booku dinero installing and supporting various custom applications, open-source and otherwise.
Larger companies will hire their own developers and setup development teams to maintain and modify their enterprise applications. Will there be fewer jobs? Perhaps.
Or perhaps it will inspire a golden age of software development as entreprenuers who were previously dis-incentivized to innovate by afore-mentioned monopolist(s) get down to the business of innovating. There are plenty of smart, young developers in Universities around the world who have their own dreams and "uber-project-concepts" that they want to work on. It seems to me that by creating an environment for those people to innovate and grow in we will all benefit.
If my contribution to that can be nuking Exchange server in favor of qmail/courier/squirrel, so be it. I am not averse to acting in the interest of a long-term goal.
Who did what now?
No, this is Linux I'm talking about. It's crap, it needs constant fiddling with and I swear at it endlessly trying to do even (fairly) simple things. But, hey, that's kind of why I do it. That and it sucks less than Microsoft products do.
It's more effort not to share. Another poster mentioned that he ended up with an increasingly hard to maintain internal fork of a graphics library because his changes couldn't be shared back. It will take a while but practicality will drive this home. Much of the benefit of OSS is having a lot of your work done for you by others. That little bit you have to do for yourself becomes an increasing burden to maintain as the the projects' code you are using evolves.
Let's worry about one hurdle at a time. It used to be hard to get corporate users to take OSS seriously. They're starting to take it seriously but that is miles away from a deep understanding. Give the realities time to sink in. Haranging such users to share will do nothing but damage but time and circumstance will accomplish sharing anyway. Don't sweat it.
If you are really serious about implementing linux in the workplace and replacing/supplementing any other technology you currently have, then we need to talk.
I'm the CEO of a linux consulting firm that since 1999 has specialized in exactly that.
email: steve@NOSPAM.computernetdesign.com
We work with clients just like you ranging from 5 employees to 500. There are lots of options! I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- Albert E.
I like my geek rare, and that means pink, not bloody.
Mmmm... rare geek.
Not to flaim you but you apparently didn't read his post. >You can't argue that someone who uses Linux or >UNIX doesn't know anything about computers. But >you CAN argue that when talking about Windows >users. He specifically said you can't "argue" that a linux user doesn't know anything, but you can argu that a windows user doesn't know anything. >How many Windows "power users" do you know that >can fix a Linux box that has a problem? Not too >many, I'd bet. I still have yet to meet a >Linux/UNIX user that CAN'T fix a Windows box >though. They might gripe about it the whole way >and talk about how backwards the system is (I'm >not that bad, I save my bile for Slashdot >weenies) but they are 100% guaranteed to fix it. And here he argues that not many windows power users can fix a linux, but he has never met a linux user that wasn't 100% garanteed to fix a windows box. So are we pointing out that Windows is so easy to administer and fix, when compared to linux, that power users from both groups can definitely fix a windows problem, but that linux is so poorly designed that only some power users from both groups can fix a linux problem. And tell me something else, why don't linux drivers come precompiled with the option to also download source, when I am setting up a box I don't want to dick around with chmod -x blah blah blah... I want to double click the driver package and have it install.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
The mere fact that OSS is getting a lot of business press lately is really encouraging. Business people tend to be cautious about diving into new things. But once they get the impression that everybody else is doing something, they worry that they better start doing it too before the boss asks how come they aren't. Then they become like lemmings.
Linux = Volvo?
Please no, everyone who rides a bike knows Volvo drivers are wankers!
Then your choice in using Windows XP for the desktop is the right one for YOU. But it is not the right fit for many other people. From what I read above, you are the agressor, not Trolling4Dollars. He made some simple, trutheful statements and you attacked. For me, and probably others who use Linux, there is a certain degree of intelligence that is required to use it successfully. It's not the OS for "Joe Average" just yet. One fo the beauties of Linux is that you can really use every ounce of your system's capabilities in various configurations. This is something you can't do with Windows. Windows is getting there, but it's got a long way to go. The best thing that Microsoft could do for Windows at this point would be to allow the user to suspend the GUI and tune the system for more efficiency. The GUI needen't be loaded in the memory or using CPU cycles if it's not needed. I didn't attack your choice. In fact, I've reinforced it by saying that you made the right choice for yourself. You and Linux are not a good match for every situation. But this does not give you the right to proselytize that Linux is a bad and pointless OS as you have been doing above.
The kicker for KB is that the registers are diskless and old. They're using a mix of Etherboot, Busybox and SuSE to run. Once we get out of beta testing, there'll be many press releases thanking all the Open Source projects that made their setup possible.
Thanks,
F.O. Dobbs
Not to be argumentative, but I believe .NET is a framework, which would put it more in the realm of J2EE (JBoss, WebLogic, etc.) than that of a language like Java. Sorry if I've misstated something here.
Also, since I've got the soapbox, who's to say that OSS has to exclude Windows? I keep trying to tell my management (and our CIO) that, just because Linux is open source doesn't mean that "open source" means Linux.
The thing that puts managers off about the whole idea of OSS is that they don't like the idea of switching their entire infrastructure to something else. Someone else pointed out that those changes are very costly. Try telling them that, when they go looking for a new piece of software, they should check out SourceForge first to see what's there. And, no, I'm not trying to say that SourceForge is the only repository for OSS, but it sure is a simple litmus test for a CIO who gets most of his direction from Meta/Gartner.
I work for a small electric utility. Our infrastructure is all Windows and Sun. Most of our applications run on Windows, most of our databases run on Sun. Our developers, with the exception of the mainframers that are transitioning legacy systems, are all Microsoft coders, with a lot of stuff done in VB. Say what you will about our architecture, but realize that it's a prevalent one.
Now, imagine me going to our CIO and trying to convince him that OSS is a good thing. It's easy for me to imagine, because I've been doing it for a while. His first thought is, "This guy wants to replace everything with Linux? He's crazy."
I want nothing of the sort. Sure, I'd like to see some Linux-based solutions around, but that's not my first point of assault. The operating system part of the infrastructure, even the framework (.NET, J2EE, whatever), isn't my concern. In an enterprise, the real savings, and the place that OSS can really shine, is in the application space. In our business, when the NERC (National Electric Reliability Council) comes along and says, "Here's a software specification, all utilities must use the methodology described here to communicate with one another," the vendors come out of the woodwork with multi-million dollar solutions smothered in consulting costs that would boggle your mind. And it's not like there's any competitive advantage to be had. No one company's energy scheduling software is going to win them market advantage because it's better than their neighbor's. It's the perfect place for an open source solution.
In short, you have to rack up a bunch of savings on sever OS licenses to make up for the savings on one vendor app. And by vendor, I don't mean Microsoft. They're the low-cost provider in a lot of realms. I mean real userland app vendors like SAP, PeopleSoft, and all the industry-specific, silo-oriented applicatons that drain organizations of their cash.
Oh, yeah, and before anyone asks what I'm doing about it, check here. It's not much, and it's slow going, but it's a start.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Cleanliness Prevents Disease.
Soveriegn Power devolves from the will of the people
The Earth is not the center of the universe.
Free is actually cheaper than costly. If you have the source you can have the product you want not the one someone in redmond wants you to have.
What you really need to be asking is, how can participating in Open Source help my business? As an example, it's been said many times, but bear repeating: most of the lines of code written in the world are written for internal projects within a company and never see the light of day. Many companies don't release such code because it's a one-way operation. You release it, your competition uses it and you get nothing in return.
There are really two questions embedded in your comment:
My take on the first question is that, so far, viable open source projects have come from three sources:
Other avenues might be possible. For example, a company might open internally-developed code if it felt that the benefit of externally-developed improvements would outweigh the harm of giving the code to its competitors.
The second question is more straightforward. As a company, I want to participate in OSS projects so that I can steer them. And if I don't release my developments back into the main development tree, my cost of maintaining a proprietary version will grow over time. Cost control in SW development is all about achieving and maintaining scale; splintering off is counter-productive unless there's a very good reason.
CIO's love Open Source. Of course they do, they get people to provide software to them for free!
Don't work for the corporations for free. Support open standards, not open source!
Then I clicked the FAQ as you suggested. Thanks for the nudge. There was the snake in the grass you alluded to!
From that FAQ (emphasis mine):
Sneeee-Kay!"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
And why exactly is that not a fair comparison?
And you apparently didn't read mine. I DIDN'T say that ALL Windows power users don't know anything about computers. I said that you would be hard pressed to find MANY Windows power users that have the intelligence required to deal with a Linux system. I also didn't attack you or your choice of OS. If you want to use Windows that's perfectly fine. Just don't go around talking down about other people's OS choice. If others are curious about OSS and Linux, then they should explore it and not be frightened away from it by people who don't like it.
What yuo interpret as "poor design" is infinte flexibility. There are tradeoffs in everything. Computers and OSes are no exception. If you want to have a machine that works very well and does some very complex task exactly the way you want it done, then it's going to be inherently complex to use. If you have a set of simple tasks that you want your machine and OS to perform, then the OS needen't be that complex. "Joe Average" out there is typically involved with simple tasks: word processing, e-mail, browsing the web, watching a movie or listening to music. These tasks don't require a lot of complexity in the OS because they don't need to take advantag of every feature on the computer system other than brute force CPU power and potentially tons of RAM and HD. Pretty simple stuff. But when you are working ith more complicated automation tasks that need to run with precision timing and complete accuracy, the task becomes more complicated. This requires and OS that can handle that. Can Windows NT 2K or XP do this? Yes. Can it do it as well as Linux or UNIX? Doubtful. This is all going to depend on what you consider acceptable performance. If you want to throw money at the problem, then get a Wintel box and have at it. But if you are on a tight budget, you are better off with OSS and Linux.
Un-news
Other sources:
Organizations that need and are willing to fund the creation of a tool (or set of tools) for their own use: MIT X/Window System, many monitoring systems
Standards organizations which need a reference implementation: lib
Darwin and netscape actually don't fit in where you think they do. The goal with Darwin was not to boost market share by open sourcing. That would be a huge gamble, and one not evidenced to work. The goal was to absorb a large code base and attract developers willing to support it, thus lowering costs while improving the product. This is the win/win of open source, and there's a gigantic track record to suggest that it works.
There are quite a few more, and many special-cases of each.
IMHO, you should open source everything that you do if it isn't your core competency, but you should do it in a smart way. Extend existing projects, set up or arrange hosting for your own so that others can easily contribute. Arrange conferences around your micro-market which will allow multiple companies to collaborate.
As soon as Pepsi, Proctor and Gamble and GM start looking at the software they write, they're going to find that there's duplication of effort, not just between them and their competition, but among thier own business units. The OSS model helps here too, as it frees up the organization roadblocks that prevent collaboration. Grab a sourceforge server, set it up for your company and invite everyone with a pet project to create a project area. You might be amazed at the results (assuming your company is large enough that it suffers from these sorts of communications problems).
Yup... just as I thought. Still no reply from diablobynight. I guess he didn't have anything else he could say. Woohoo! Another battle fought and won! ;P
Un-news
Silly troll Linux is for servers.
It looked like something resembling white marble, which was
probably what it was: something resembling white marble.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...