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."
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 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
Maybe CIO Magazine is not read by real CIOs but by wannabes, similarly to how Just Seventeen is not read by seventeen-year-olds.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
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?
One of the main issues for companies (and some consumers) is minimizing recuring costs. OSS solutions offer the best way of doing this since you are not vulnerable to extortion (err.. purchasing upgrades).
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Could I afford a portfolio, I doubt there would be any Microsoft in there...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I've worked at some large companies before. There's a prevailing attitude among many of the managers that "technical" knowledge should be separated completely from "business" decisions. It's not exactly that the nuts-and-bolts procedures are below them (though it can appear that way), but that they believe that efficient managers must not cloud their decisions with technical jargon. That is, business decisions are distinct from the process.
This leads to situations where a person who's relatively ignorant about technology and its merits can make decisions about the company's IT infrastructure, based only on vendors claims. So they add a layer of management below them, ostensibly to act as evaluators of technology and to report up to senior management. But shit flows downhill. Pretty soon you have middle-level, lower-level, and even *technicians* who want to abstract the nitty-gritty details.
At some point you need someone who can say, "This is shit." (Insert witty story about how this phrase becomes, "This product will aid growth and guarantee success in the market")
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.
Like it or not, most investors probably own some Microsoft stock. Even if the CIO hasn't invested in M$ directly, I'm sure he has some stake via a 401K, pension plan, or package of mutual funds.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Absolutely.
Up until a year or two ago we had to spend a large amount of time at initial presentations convincing companies that Open Source was a credible alternative to proprietary software. More often than not we get a 'if it's good enough for IBM, it's good enough for us' type response now, so much so that we take for granted that the prospective new client is convinced of the credibility of Open Source.
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...
We don't use it because it won't sync with our blackberries.
The question is, can OSS keep up with the hundreds of niche usages that are minor things, but renders it useless to enterprises?