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.
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
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".
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.
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?
The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who are working for you right now
It should have read - The mysterious people designing open-source software are the same people who used to work for you until you laied them off in your stupid cut-backs to artificially increase your bottom line.
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'
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
""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.