Six Barriers to Open Source Adoption

securitas writes "ZDNet/CNet's Dan Farber describes the six barriers to enterprise open source software adoption. Briefly, the reasons are 1) Lack of formal support, 2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'), 3) Lack of roadmap, 4) Functional gaps, 5) Licensing caveats and 6) ISV endorsements. The article makes an interesting counterpoint to Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons for open source adoption."

Comments

which

[panxerox]

The number 1 reason: Non OS standards which Microsoft appears to be creating for the sole purpose of locking in the masses to their product line (IMO), until OSource finds away to deal with MS leveraging their hold on standards (which are fairly open right now) OSource is going to have a hard time, because MS is calling the shots right now.

Re:which

[Rick the Red]

I've battled this for years. It's hopeless. The Pointy Haired Bosses just don't get the difference between mandating corporate file standards and mandating corporate software standards. Mandating software standards is easier, so guess what we all get? At one point I threw up my hands and said, "Why don't we just say the corporate standard is whatever Microsoft wants to sell us?" They were not amused, but that's essentially what they did, one product at a time. Then they'd bitch when you asked for an upgrade from Office 97 to Office 2000 because some nymrod in Accounting wouldn't Save As and you couldn't read his files.

Thanks for letting me rant -- I feel better now.

Re:which

[GAVollink]

This is a particularly good point, especially as the EU decision yesterday makes it much easier for Microsoft to sue the butts off Open Source projects that use Microsoft proprietary formats (that were reverse engineered).

If they start encrypting their protocol communications they could be protected by the DMCA as well (scary thought).

Regardless of these issues...I find the velocity behind OpenSource right now, is better than it's ever been. And, I think more and more IT management types (like me) are using OpenSource solutions to save money for thier companies.

Re:which

[GAVollink]

Don't fret. I talk to IT directors and managers all of the time that "get it" - though the ones who get it are usually from smaller companies (like me).

A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.

Re:which

[HermanZA]

Bleh - Reverse engineering interfaces for the purpose of compatibility is perfectly legal. It is specifically addressed in the US DMCA for instance and also in the EU equivalent legislation.

Re:which

[Anonymous Coward]

true, but unfortuantly, mfg's dont seem to see it that way.

Re:which

[Anonymous Coward]

the EU decision yesterday makes it much easier for Microsoft to sue the butts off Open Source projects that use Microsoft proprietary formats

Bullshit.

Care to point out exactly *where* it says that?

Here's a hint for you: MS can't publish anything they couldn't before, can they can't charge any more for doing so.

Sweet Jebus, but alarmists like you think that because the ruling says that MS *can* charge for API specifications, means that MS wasn't allowed to charge for them before.

And it's pure bullshit.

Re:which

[Sloppy]

the EU decision yesterday makes it much easier for Microsoft to sue the butts off Open Source projects that use Microsoft proprietary formats (that were reverse engineered).

That's not quite what I got out of yesterday's story. Could you please explain what you're talking about?

Re:which

[DrYak]

Open source sucks because :

• 1) Huge community helping instead of 'This isn't our fault, see with your hardware reseller'
• 2) No half-finished products rushed to keep some dead-line
• 3) No big marketing announcement or official release date (that won't be matched either)
• 4) No useless patent-encumbered silly features
• 5) SCO instead of anti-trust trials
• 6) ...and some silly cult of penguins...

Re:which

[Tablizer]

At one point I threw up my hands and said, "Why don't we just say the corporate standard is whatever Microsoft wants to sell us?" They were not amused,

Great way to get on the Offshoring Short List.

Re:which

[pipingguy]

A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.

That's pretty typical; throw money (if you have it) at the problem by purchasing product that everyone else uses (safety in numbers philosophy). If a critical file doesn't get through on time or the work is sloppy, management can always blame the OS, hardware, viruses, spyware, incompatible drivers, internet connection reliability, idiot users, etc..

The rush-rush pace which is required for businesses (and want-to-impress employees) to provide deliverables and to appear to be actually doing something for the client runs into the wall of actual work.

The smarter companies/individuals use whatever efficiencies can be gained by computerization and discard the "might work" stuff.

Re:which

[blair1q]

Microsoft just got the EU to allow them to collect royalties on reverse-engineered APIs. And it only cost them $614 million.

Re:which

[retinaburn]

A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.

Or you are so big the money is minor to moderate and you are so huge you can change over entire divisions without impacting a global (or even country) wide co-workers. And you have a plan. A plan is key. You start small migrating old mainframe applications to the web so you don't have to deal with backwards compatibility....the web or java. And then you have what ? The answer IBM.

Re:which

[d99-sbr]

Microsoft were mandated to publish their protocols and API:s, but they were also allowed to collect royalties from this.

Hence, MS can soon point to the published "CIFS Standard 1.0" or something similar, and claim "Hey, Samba uses this without paying us!".

Re:which

[the_womble]

NO: MS are obliged to license and can charge for this. No one HAS to license from: if you could reverse engineer before the decision you wtill can, if you could not reverse engineer you can now buy a license. Of course it would ahve been a lot more effective if the EU had imposed free-licensing, but I do not think they get OSS well enough to see the need.

Re:which

[blair1q]

You can't even open the code files because looking at your own information now constitutes "reverse engineering" the interfaces without a license.

Unless you're able to type the code over from memory, you're screwed.

Lack of..

[flewp]

3) Lack of roadmap

That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.

Re:Lack of..

[Roger Keith Barrett]

CIOs are scared because of "lack of roadmaps" in the projects?

Why don't they contribute to the project and help set the roadmap if they are so concerned.... or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing anything to it?

Re:Lack of..

[endx7]

3) Lack of roadmap

That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.

Actually, a lot of -projects- do have roadmaps. Do they want a grand unified roadmap of everyone? I'd rather hope not, since that'd restrict the flexibility of the OSS community in general. For one thing, a roadmap would prevent code fork offs, which even though I don't like them, they can be good. (A lot of the time a significant portion of the code comes back to the other/original branches)

Re:Lack of..

[GAVollink]

Uh, yeah - that's why they BUY software. I don't have time to put meaningful contributions into OpenSource anymore (I did 7-8 years ago). I'll write to developers, and join the mail lists for some projects (even contribute answers from time-to-time), but I don't have time (or staffing money) to build the project I want. That's what I pay RedHat for. Yes, I admit it - I bought RHEL ES 3.

Re:Lack of..

[proj_2501]

organizing ANOTHER organization's project should NOT be a CIO's job.

Re:Lack of..

[Roger Keith Barrett]

I said "help set the roadmap" not organize the project for them. Getting and giving feedback is supposed to be the backbone of any Open Source project.

Re:Lack of..

[Roger Keith Barrett]

I'll write to developers, and join the mail lists for some projects (even contribute answers from time-to-time), but I don't have time (or staffing money) to build the project I want.

People are interpreting my statement in odd ways...

What YOU say you do is pretty close to what I say that CIOs (or people they designate) should do... become a part of the project and let them know what their experiences and/or needs are and THAT will help set the direction of the project in itself.

I doubt many CIOs even care to contribute that...

Re:Lack of..

[IO ERROR]

3) Lack of roadmap

Why do you need a roadmap? If you're a proprietary software company, your roadmap tells your customers where your product is going to be years from now. With open source, those same features could be available to you in weeks or even days from the time you express interest in such a feature. So having a "roadmap" is frequently pointless unless your project has specific long term subprojects that will take months or years.

What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.

Re:Lack of..

[bwt]

3) Lack of roadmap

Lack of roadmap, huh. Tell that to mozilla or open office or MySQL or Gnome or perl or
Fedora I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Of course, I prefer a different term than "roadmap" -- vaporware.

Re:Lack of..

[mingot]

Why don't they contribute to the project and help set the roadmap if they are so concerned....

Um, because they are not concerned with helping your open source project for the most part. Their job is to spend as little time and money as possible to get a job done. That's generally how people who are in high places in business think. or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing anything to it?

Ding ding ding! A winner! And remember that once they DO have to contribute anything to it said software is no longer free. Well its still free as in speech, but not as in "doesn't cost anything". Which of the above free's do you think got said CIO's attention in the first place? And once said CIO finds out that it still costs money, but he has to give it away to his *gasp* competetors... Well you can imagine.

Professors with tenures who can leech off of the residents of massachusets tax dollars might find open source appealing. Kids attending that college on mom and dad's dime might find it appealing. The rest of the people, those who want to eat, just want to be able to show a power point presentation to the boss that shows a budget reduction.

Re:Lack of..

[mingot]

What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.

Serious question for you. If the CIO of coca cola shot you an email and said "Hey, I'd like to see feature XYZ in product ABC" why on earth would you _volunteer_ your time to, in effect, give charity to a company that has more money than god?

Re:Lack of..

[Linker3000]

Nope, it's because the M$ roadmap is Soooooo clear:

1) Buy one version of our product today
2) Purchase 'the latest version' upgrade every year or so for the rest of your life.
3) We profit $$$

Re:Lack of..

[jedidiah]

Ever hear of USER GROUPS!

These are collections of users that help give companies direction by actually giving them useful information from their own customers.

Corps can steer roadmaps rather than just being passive passengers.

Re:Lack of..

[IO ERROR]

Serious question for you. If the CIO of coca cola shot you an email and said "Hey, I'd like to see feature XYZ in product ABC" why on earth would you _volunteer_ your time to, in effect, give charity to a company that has more money than god?

If product ABC is MY open source project, then I'm VERY interested in what the CIO of Coca-Cola is looking for, because if he uses my product he's likely to come back to me for support, services, training, and give me lots of money for those.

I recommend every open source developer (in the U.S. this will vary in other countries) go get themselves an EIN and incorporate. Then ABC Development Inc. sells support and services for product ABC.

Re:Lack of..

[acebone]

He shouldn't - he should say: Well pay me some money and I'll make it happen real quick. Otherwise you'll have to wait till I get around to it. Coca Cola Boss will understand that and go - okeh !

Re:Lack of..

[jedidiah]

The congressional letter effect: For everyone that offers input, there are N other users that never bothered. They were too lazy or perhaps thought that the feedback would be a futile effort. ...and Coca Cola doesn't get to own the results. EVERYONE gets to use them. Your comments in that regard are highly misguided or FUD.

Re:Lack of..

[krogoth]

or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing

Well, you're essentially begging them to do that, so don't complain.

Re:Lack of..

[IO ERROR]

The congressional letter effect: For everyone that offers input, there are N other users that never bothered. They were too lazy or perhaps thought that the feedback would be a futile effort. ...and Coca Cola doesn't get to own the results. EVERYONE gets to use them.

There's that, too. Here's a great example. A few weeks ago someone working with $RADIO_STATION in $MAJOR_CITY contacted $OUR_OSS_PROJECT because the project was "almost" right (see my original comment above) for something they wanted to do.

The developers, including myself, worked over the course of the next few weeks to make changes, add features, and fix bugs relating to what they wanted, and right now we're in the final testing phase before it goes live (oh yes, it's quite user-visible).

We probably won't make any money off this unless they choose $A_COMPANY_ONE_OF_US_WORKS_FOR for dedicated hosting, but it will give us a massive amount of exposure, which will lead to people like the CIO of Coca-Cola contacting us.

Then again, we're eliminating any possibility that they'll ever choose any $MICROSOFT_PRODUCT[] ever again for anything, and that for some of us is payment enough.

Re:Lack of..

[zcat_NZ]

Or the company could hire a programmer or two full-time to add features to open-source projects that are 'almost, but not quite' exactly what they need, for less money than it would cost to keep the company on the Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill.

And they can -optionally- contribute those changes back to the community, gaining the company some goodwill amongst the OSS community without effectively having cost them a cent.

Re:Lack of..

[Anonymous Coward]

and M$ have a "road map" do they? Delay after delay. error after error. I hate that expression...."Road Map", what a bunch of wank.

Re:Lack of..

[GAVollink]

As a member of the mail lists (same purpose of user groups) I never presume to steer the roadmap of a project without contributing source, patches or HOW-TO impliment what I want (of some detailed form).

I do use the software, and read the mail-lists (user groups, if you will) - but I don't try to change software features lists. I don't believe that I have the right to do so without contributing value. Perhaps this is mis-guided of me, but eventually most projects get the features to meet my needs without my prodding and whining.

Re:Lack of..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I've based my IT plans on MS's roadmap. All my desktop workstations are ready for the great Longhorn rollout later this year.

oh wait... what's that? Longhorn's been delayed. Until, when you say? 2006!

so much for a roadmap.

Re:Lack of..

[Mr. Slippery]

And once said CIO finds out that it still costs money, but he has to give it away to his *gasp* competetors...

No free software licence requires that you give away derived works. OTOH, the development community is more likely to listen to and address the needs of users who contribute.

The rest of the people, those who want to eat, just want to be able to show a power point presentation to the boss that shows a budget reduction.

And they'll get it with free (as in freedom) software.

Without freedom, your vendor has you over a barrel (see MS's "Software Assurance", for example). "Freedom" isn't just as in free, it's also as in "free market" - competition, as opposed to vendor lock-in.

Re:Lack of..

[retinaburn]

and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features

Seriously? I have had a few experiences with OS maintainers and its generally the opposite. They do what they do for what they need and no one elses. However, thats a small segment sampling, so perhaps you are right. But RH certainly isnt like that.

Re:Lack of..

[jadavis]

I think that the real problem with the argument that proprietary software has a roadmap is that the proprietary vendors don't follow their roadmaps any more than OSS projects do.

If features X, Y, and Z sound good, but aren't thought through enough to implement, a proprietary vendor will list it on the "roadmap" until the techs point out that it makes no sense. An OSS developer will decide "Well, when I figure out what those features actually ARE, I'll do them, until that time I'll release a working product."

So I don't have any idea why a CIO would trust a proprietary vendor when all the vendor is doing is luring you into their product with the promise that a future piece of vaporware will be available at an even higher price.

If it doesn't meet your needs now, there's no reason to believe that it will in the future. And certainly there's no guarentee that the vendor won't jack up the price once he knows you're stuck on his platform and knows you need features X, Y, and Z.

With OSS you're quite a bit more likely to get an honest response because there's no ulterior motive. I see all the time a developer will give a response like "don't hold your breath..." or "our resources are better spent elsewhere". You may even learn that you don't need a feature, or that the feature that the vendor said would solve your problem really won't solve anything.

Any time I see a roadmap from a proprietary developer I get very cynical. Quite simply, they're trying to sell me something they don't have, and that bothers me.

Re:Lack of..

[mpe]

Why do you need a roadmap? If you're a proprietary software company, your roadmap tells your customers where your product is going to be years from now.

Which may or may not be where the user wants to be...

With open source, those same features could be available to you in weeks or even days from the time you express interest in such a feature.

Especially if your expression of interest includes paying people to make it do what you want it to. Altering software to fit your business is likely to be easier and cheaper than altering your business to fit software.

What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features

Or an honest assement of how easy it might be to do whatever.

before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.

If they are selling software as an "off the shelf" product then they might not even respond at all.

Re:Lack of..

[mpe]

Or the company could hire a programmer or two full-time to add features to open-source projects that are 'almost, but not quite' exactly what they need,

And to make sure that the software continues to be updated to suit your companies needs, should they change in future, in a way which follows your timescale.

for less money than it would cost to keep the company on the Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill.

Especially the lawyers needed to go through changing EULAs with a fine toothed comb :)

Re:Lack of..

[fitten]

and a quick email to the developer's mailing list ... will usually get you ridicule and derision because you aren't a programmer yourself or your idea doesn't fit with what the folks on the mailing list see as a "real" Linux issue or some "bloat" or superfluous feature to them. Most frequently you'll be told to fix it yourself if you don't like it... but then make sure you contribute it back to them for free.

A few more reasons...

[FyRE666]

Hmm, looks to me like they forgot a few:

• 7: Microsoft
• 8: Software patents (see point 7)
• 9: The US Government (see point 7)
• 10: Most importantly - Influential senior IT staff with a vested interest in keeping MS in the
  server room so as to protect their jobs when they have limited skill sets and no real interest
  in learning
  anything new.

Re:A few more reasons...

[unix mutant]

11. ....
12. PROFIT!

see the 12 steps to wisdom by aesop and published by sams.

Re:A few more reasons...

[RogerWilco]

I think Linux is ready for corporate use - locked down desktop /w wordprocessor/speadsheet/etc. - but for now I see the senior IT staff choosing MS as the safe way out, they'll never get blamed for choosing it, they might if a Linux adoption failed.

Re:A few more reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Unskilled Microsoft Windows users see Linux as a >threat rather than a benefit.

Re:A few more reasons...

[micromoog]

Influential senior IT staff with a vested interest in keeping MS in the server room

If "senior IT staff" and their skillsets are so influential, how did MS get in the server room in the first place? MS servers are still a very new concept in the big picture.

Re:A few more reasons...

[mackstann]

"so as to protect their jobs when they have limited skill sets and no real interest in learning anything new."

Unfortunately this applies to many people, not just windows admins.

Re:A few more reasons...

[da3dAlus]

10 Barriers!
NOBODY expects a barrier to Open Source!
Our 10 main barriers are...

Re:A few more reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise! And Fear!

And a fanatical dedication to Linus!

Re:A few more reasons...

[acebone]

Big boom in IT - lotsa jobs - lotsa new guys who don't know anything. That's my theory. Man they shoved me through a 9month computer course and I was an NT instructor ! Earning a bundle too. My only relation to computers when that started was my amiga, and I remember how utterly unimpressed I was with NT 4 in comparison.

A guy teaching us Novell told us that he had done work for a company - and that all of a sudden they wanted a server, 'a what' he said ? They meant an NT server. They didn't realise that they already had a netware server that had been running for a couple of years. They had totally forgotten it :) I bet they never forgot their NT server.

Re:A few more reasons...

[MasonMcD]

Most importantly - Influential senior IT staff with a vested interest in keeping MS in the server room so as to protect their jobs when they have limited skill sets and no real interest in learning anything new.

So, how does it feel to be a mac user? Honestly, weren't you the same guys bitching about us mac guys being "chatty" with AppleTalk?

Ahh, the quaint good old days. How much would you give to go back to the big worry of *dum dum dum DUUUUM!* APPLETALK ZONES!

Who's the pain in the ass now, huh? Got what you wanted, huh? Well, suck it up pal.

Nothing personal, though. You are just the faceless IT guy who told me I couldn't network my mac on campus in '92, but of course I already had, sans AppleTalk. I was the guy with the Duo 210, 16 shades of grey, who was on ethernet, pasting alt.binary posts together and UUDecoding. mwAHAHAHAHA!

Payback's a bitch, aint it? Here I am, productive, and virus free on OS X Panther, while you guys scramble to support schmucks who wouldn't know an open port if it bit them in the ass.

But, hey. Hindsight, 20/20 and all that. Hope you guys enjoy your job. As you sow, so shall ye reap. Of course that means I'm going to have some condescending jerk going "nyah nyah nyah" to me at some point...

Re:A few more reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

but for now I see the senior IT staff choosing MS as the safe way out, they'll never get blamed for choosing it, they might if a Linux adoption failed.

But remember, nobody's ever been fired for buying IBM...

Re:A few more reasons...

[skifreak87]

One of my friends is in a sociology class involving creativity and ingenuity and one thing that they are currently reading about is how it's essential that companies reduce the penalties for failure if they want to encourage creativity. what you said is a prime example.

I have 2 options, I can take a risk w/ project A that has a 25% chance of failing but will be great if it works, or I can take no risk and use project B which will definitely work decently enough.

If companies would refrain from punishing failure so harshly (hindsight is 20/20) maybe IT staff might decide to take a risk and we'll get improvements in business efficiency/better products and everyone will benefit.

Re:A few more reasons...

[Anne Thwacks]

And the ultimate killer:

Lack of adverts on prime time tv.

Preferably featuring nuns speaking french... Well it worked for OS/2, didn't it!

No, wait ...

Re:A few more reasons...

[RogerWilco]

We use IBM with MS exclusively at work (750 people)
I am going to try to bring IBM's linux offerings to their attention.

Re:A few more reasons...

[mpe]

A guy teaching us Novell told us that he had done work for a company - and that all of a sudden they wanted a server, 'a what' he said ? They meant an NT server. They didn't realise that they already had a netware server that had been running for a couple of years. They had totally forgotten it :) I bet they never forgot their NT server.

A bit like the case of a Netware server getting walled up. It was working so well that it took years for anyone to notice :)

Seventh problem

[October_30th]

7) It's free.

You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.

Re:Seventh problem

[arkanes]

It's important to remember that the first two resound very strongly with the sort of bull dog "greed is good", "show me the money" kind of personality you stereotypically find in upper management.

The third one is kinda silly imo, since it's (obviously) true for anything, and if you're going to pay for a plug & play system then you're no longer really buy software, you're buying services and theres plenty of places you can go for that, and why should you care what the back end is?

Re:Seventh problem

[Rick the Red]

Make that

7) There's nobody to sue if it doesn't work.

Not that they ever sue Microsoft or Adobe or Lotus when their crap doesn't work, but I've heard that excuse more than once.

Re:Seventh problem

[Short Circuit]

My step-dad tells me they have a saying where he works: "Ten thousand unemployed software developers can't be wrong."

Re:Seventh problem

[arkanes]

I've heard this one tons of time, and in reality it seems to be much more about someone to blame than someone to sue - IE, someone you can talk about suing in a meeting. If you're powerless to fix something (like a bug in Windows), then the board can't hold you responsible if you go over deadline because of it. Being powerless like that can be incredibly usefull in office politics.

Re:Seventh problem

[Vellmont]

Sorry, but OSS is NOT free (as in beer). People are paid for their time, and implementing anything takes time. This needs to be stressed to anyone that wants OSS as their instincts that nothing is truly priceless is true.

People get nervous about things being "free" because they think they're being sold the Brooklynn Bridge. People in general have a very good sense of what a friend of mine used to call "down-home cynicism". If you don't give them the catch, their imagination will run wild. If you're honest that the license is free, but the ultimate costs are not I think people will gladly accept this.

Re:Seventh problem

[mic256]

This a major advantage. Currently I develope java web applications. I generally avoid GPL stuff (obviously), but LGPL seems to be ok so far.
The truth is, my boss doesn't seem to care. He often doesn't know how much it takes to write something (he probably knows only VB) and to him , if I use free/open source, well why not ?
So far I have used
a) Tomcat
b) DHTML calendar
http://dynarch.com/mishoo/calendar.epl
c) htmlarea
d) jetspeed (includes Turbine)
e) Postgres
Since the stuff I write runs under AIX I have installed Linux on my laptop and use Mozilla for web page viewing (of course customer uses IE, so I have to check if everything works every now and then).
I also plan to use Intake and Fulcrum and a discussion forum (BSD license).
Why do you need your boss permission to use something that is free ?

Re:Seventh problem

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

"You get what you pay for"

Windows XP costs $299. Linux costs $699. Therefore Linux is better.

:-)

Re:Seventh problem

[jwthompson2]

Would dual licensing as done by MySQL alleviate this to some degree though? The model of paying for a licensed version of a system that then inlcudes support and accountability on the part of the licensor. Of course the FOSS licensed one is available as well for those not desiring the support or special provisions, such as commercial integration, of the software.

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. My copy of SuSE cost 29.99 (about 40 bucks).

Re:Seventh problem

[ionpro]

Boss: "If Linux is $699, we'll take 20!"
You: "Yes, that's $699 per copy. Made out to Computers Association for Shell Hawking. Actually, just make it to the acronym: CASH"

Re:Seventh problem

[pugh]

Oh, the sales people where I work just LOVE free software. What's the percentage mark-up you can charge on nothing?

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

luckily we have a LOT of microsoft founded studies that demonstrate it's NOT free!

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

An alternate way of phrasing the same point will make it even clearer: "If it were worth having, they'd be charging for it. They're not, ergo it isn't."

Re:Seventh problem

[rzbx]

Actually I believe number 7 should be Microsoft. Although actually the entire proprietary software industry could be all grouped into number 7. There is still a widely held belief that software is as much a product as the toothbrush you buy at the supermarket. Software on the other hand is NOT like a product we are used to. It is more a service than anything.

If a company wants a good IT department they will listen less to large companies like Microsoft and more to their IT staff, clients, engineers, educational institutions, and various employees throughout their own company. Why listen to a company that wants to take money away from your IT staff and your company to produce products that are made to work for ALL their clients? I pick on Microsoft for one main reason, they shattered the idea of what software really is. Treat software like just another process in a company, not a product that your company uses. This is an idea I bet Microsoft fears the most. Open source carries this idea, and therefore open source software is also their enemy. Another problem is only the educated really understand what open source software means. Microsofts strategy is now to reshape the idea of open source to the masses and the corporate world in their favor. In the end, its about control. One of the largest barriers to open source software is therefore Microsoft (and others, SCO etc.).

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

But you forget you have to pay SCO $699 OR ELSE!

Re:Seventh problem

[Doctor O]

> Being powerless like that can be incredibly
> usefull in office politics.

Actually, if my team went over a deadline because we were 'powerless to fix something', we'd get fired and rightly so. Management isn't interested in problems, it's interested in solutions. At least it was everywhere I've *ever* be working at. If you encouter severe problems/bugs, you can usually convince the PHB to change the deadline.

Just my 0.02.

Re:Seventh problem

[cascadefx]

7) It's free.

Don't get me started. At the previous place I worked, the manager hated the idea of free software because it was free and open. He couldn't believe that anyone "good" would contribute software in this way. Therefore what was there had to stink.

Now I work at a different place with Linux/UNIX and I feel much better.

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you supposed to call me a cock-smoking tea-bagger?

Re:Seventh problem

[hchaos]

Sorry, but OSS is NOT free (as in beer). People are paid for their time, and implementing anything takes time. This needs to be stressed to anyone that wants OSS as their instincts that nothing is truly priceless is true.

People get nervous about things being "free" because they think they're being sold the Brooklynn Bridge. People in general have a very good sense of what a friend of mine used to call "down-home cynicism". If you don't give them the catch, their imagination will run wild. If you're honest that the license is free, but the ultimate costs are not I think people will gladly accept this.

This really doesn't endear OSS to anyone. All it does is confirm in the mind of a non-techie that there is a large cost to OSS (developers are not cheap, competent ones less so) and indefinite cost to OSS software. There's also the cost of the time to find someone who can handle it, which is something that few in the business world (except /. readers) have in surplus.

On the other hand, off-the-shelf software has a well-defined cost (the sticker price), and has a phone number or web site that I can go to if there are problems, making it much easier and time-efficient to deal with these things.

There are two principles that I've experienced in my career about successful software that I see many OSS proponents ignoring or unaware of. The first principle is that the vast majority of computer users (and this includes people who make the decisions about what to use) don't care how their computer or software works, they just want it to work right now . The second principle is that, given the choice between a product that always works, and which costs $100/hr for support, or a product that breaks frequently, and costs $100/yr for support, 90% of people will choose the second product, because no one trusts the claims that the first product always works.

In my experience, the OSS that acheives success outside of the OSS community usually follows the first principle, by installing quickly and easily, and rarely requires editing config files or reading documentation to use. I can't think of any OSS that does a good job on the second principle (not that I'm claiming it doesn't exist).

Re:Seventh problem

[Citizen of Earth]

You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.

Just tell your bosses that it will cost $1-million to upgrade everything to Linux. Do that, then retire.

Re:Seventh problem

[joebok]

It is about blame, but I don't think it's about being held blameless when you are powerless as you suggest. I've seen similar things in other business decisions - lots of people when faced with making an important decision will want to be slightly conservative. Suppose that something goes wrong - would a CEO, who likely does not care about technical details, be more likely to hold you accountable for choosing a product from one of the most well known and ubiquitous software manufacturers in the world or for choosing a "fringe" product made by a bunch of hippies?

It's an exponential process - as Linux gains acceptance and recognition the less backbone it will take to recommend it and so Linux will go on to gain more acceptance and recognition...

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

omg. htmlarea? BUGGY POS.

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a tea-smoking cock-bagger! OK?

Re:Seventh problem

[mingot]

Would dual licensing as done by MySQL alleviate this to some degree though?

If its not free then it had better be better.

Re:Seventh problem

[rjstanford]

In my experience, the OSS that acheives success outside of the OSS community usually follows the first principle, by installing quickly and easily, and rarely requires editing config files or reading documentation to use

Amen, brother. I was looking to grab an IMAP server to use on a new hosted RedHat box the other day. This was before I realized that I could just do "up2date imap" - my eventual solution. And yes, its been a while since I used RedHat for anything - I was always a FreeBSD man before. Anyway, I found one that I really liked. No binary RPMs, but that's alright. Downloaded it, started the build, and got an error message telling me how stupid I was for not building it into an RPM and installing it that way. Oh, and if I wanted to be a dumbass, there was another flag I could use to do it the wrong way. I'm paraphrasing, but not by very much.

Can ya believe it? Probably. Anyway, my reaction was that of most people in that situation did. rm -rf and look for another solution. Now, the developers are absolutely entitled to express their attitudes about how my box has software installed on it. But I felt no qualms about therefore not using their software either. And its experiences like this that make people - even old UNIX folk like me - really wish that they could just go to a store, pay a reasonable amount of money, run "install" and have it just work.

Re:Seventh problem

[Vellmont]

On the other hand, off-the-shelf software has a well-defined cost (the sticker price), and has a phone number or web site that I can go to if there are problems, making it much easier and time-efficient to deal with these things.

Software support is in general a joke. Anyone that's called a support number for a mainstream software product can attest to that. The extremely expensive $10,0000 a year niche software is the exception of course, but you damn well better get good support for $10K a year.

I do agree with your 3 models of software though. But their certainly is OSS that fits into category two. Samba, Tomcat, and Postgres come to mind. Granted Joe User doesn't use these application, but Joe User doesn't use Windows 2003 server, IIS or SQL Server either. You can find people that'll support those services for $100 an hour. I'll certainly do it, and there's plenty of others who will too. Complex software requires people who know what they're doing. That's not to say Samba, Tomcat and Postgres couldn't be easier to configure (especially Samba, what a nightmare).

I think what should endear businesses to OSS though is the other meaning of free. ESR has dubbed it free as in speech, but I think that's the wrong comparison. What's really important about OSS is that it's free as in freedom. You aren't tied down to MS and what they want you to do.

Re:Seventh problem

[jedidiah]

Your observations are certainly relevant for consumer software. In the domain under discussion (the domain of megacorps and CIOs), your observations are irrelevant.

Also, if cost were really the dominant factor (after "works well enough" then Microsoft would have been unseated round about 1987.

Re:Seventh problem

[js3]

but you do get what you're paid for. Nobody is entitled to help you solve your problem. You have deployed your linux and you want X feature and they tell you to you should have deployed Y distribution.

When you pay for something usually everything gets easier not harder. When you get free stuff and you run into problems, then the hidden costs start showing up. Want some help? pay.

Many companies would rather have that peace of mind by paying and then expecting their problems to be solved because they paid for their software.

Re:Seventh problem

[firewood]

Actually, if my team went over a deadline because we were 'powerless to fix something', we'd get fired and rightly so.

Not if you are powerless because of contracts signed or policies put in place by management above your hiring/firing manager. Making your project succeed (in your opinion) by making the CEO/CIO look bad could get both you and your manager fired (unless you have friends on the board, etc.)

Re:Seventh problem

[Doctor O]

ACK. But that's way easy - if something from a higher level is keeping me from reaching my goals, I will remind my manager that it's *his* duty to make sure I can reach my goals. After all, he wants to keep his job, and so do I. If the project fails and he didn't do anything to solve the problem, he's toast, not I. And, again, rightly so. Of course having a good relationship to and/or a good manager will never make such problems occur. But anyway, I can say this, I'm in Europe and Corporate Europe isn't as pointless as Corporate America. Yet.

Corporate politics can work *for* you, too. Use the hierarchy. After all, those people are paid to help you. If they forget, remind them. If you lose your job for this, you'll lose it soon for any stupid reason anyway.

Re:Seventh problem

[zhenlin]

They can't sue Microsoft for software-failure-related reasons -- they signed that right away in the EULA.

Re:Seventh problem

[k_head]

If you feel that way then you should bite the bullet and get a Mac. Sure it costs a little more then a PC with linux on it but hey it "just works". Install the macosx server and imap is built in. So is LDAP, SMTP, Mysql, Jboss, Tomcat, Apache and php AND they are all kerbarized and integrated together.

You can get an older G4 xserve for a good price these days.

Re:Seventh problem

[sploxx]

Well then, just buy three windows XPs for each Linux :)

Re:Seventh problem

[npsimons]

You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.

Only a fool thinks price and value are the same.
-- Antonio Machado

Re:Seventh problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever called Microsoft for tech support when you had a problem? They don't care if you did pay for their software they won't help you unless you give them your credit card number.

Re:Seventh problem

[rjstanford]

Hey, when I can get the performance eq. of a dual proc 1.42 G4 mac with 1gb RAM hosted for $79 a month, I will. This is a co-loc box. Cheap, headless, plentiful bandwdith, et cetera. I'm a big mac fan, but they're not cost-effective in this situation.

Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[esconsult1]

Dan Farber succicently explains each point and debunks the reason why there is a barrier in the first place. He adroitly makes a great case for Linux in the enterprise while showing how each barrier can be easily overcome today or in the near future.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[ajs]

Dan Farber succicently [sic] explains each point

But poorly. To re-write his article in a more readable form:

1) Lack of formal support

Support from IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, HP, etc. make it clear that this is no longer an issue. The thing is you have to decide who your vendor is going to be.

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')

All of his concerns boil down to: if you don't select a vendor, you're on your own.... well, duh.

3) Lack of roadmap

Again, the concerns boil down to: select a vendor. That vendor will have a loose road-map as modified by the needs of their vendors, partners, customers and internal goals. This is the same as any company.

4) Functional gaps

He comments, "The current market for Linux is dominated by low-end edge server applications" and he's dead wrong. The problem is that you can easily go out and look at the Netcraft survey and say "this is what's running" and when you're writing for a Web magazine, the Web seems like the whole world. Thankfully, most computers in industry have nothing to do with the Web.

From personal experience I can tell you that he's way off base, even on the Web, but the large-scale adoption of open source has been in a) the infrastructure that runs the Internet, not just the Web b) the scientific community c) government bodies around the world including the US d) education e) semi-embeded devices such as PoS systems and PVRs.

5) Licensing caveats

He cites "confusion about the various open source licensing schemes", which again requires the simple answer: talk to your vendor. Your vendor is responsible for making sure they have the right to sell you the software you're using. If SCO or anyone else sues you (including authors of the software you are running) you point firmly and your vendor and say "I dunno, ask them." I recommend picking a vendor with 800lb low-primates for lawyers for this very reason.

6) ISV endorsements

He writes this one off quickly and effectively.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[CaptKilljoy]

5) Licensing caveats

He cites "confusion about the various open source licensing schemes", which again requires the simple answer: talk to your vendor. Your vendor is responsible for making sure they have the right to sell you the software you're using. If SCO or anyone else sues you (including authors of the software you are running) you point firmly and your vendor and say "I dunno, ask them." I recommend picking a vendor with 800lb low-primates for lawyers for this very reason.

That's rather a glib dismissal of the problem. What of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt?

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[Watts Martin]

If you've read the article as carefully as you project you have, then you're surely aware -- as the Slashdot editors may not be, given their article summary -- that Farber didn't write these six points, but was himself summarizing a talk on them given by former Oracle executive Ray Lane. I'm also not sure people understand that "six barriers to adopting open source" != "six reasons why you shouldn't use open source," and the article is about the perceptions of open source software in the enterprise and what Lane thinks needs to be done to address those perceptions.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[jtev]

Then Hire your own 800lb gorillla lawyers if you're worried about it. You can always point to the person who distributed the code to you also.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[brettper]

1) Lack of formal support

Support from IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, HP, etc. make it clear that this is no longer an issue. The thing is you have to decide who your vendor is going to be.
And this is worse than having no choice in what way?

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[ajs]

"What of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt?"

That's too limited a question. The answer is the same for, "what of software that no vendor chooses to adopt". You're taking just as much risk using software that is not backed by a company with lawyers who have a vested interest in the commercial viability and reputation of that software regardless of how much source code you have available (in this sense, though source protects you against other risks).

I would never run a large business on software that did not have such backing unless I had no choice. Sometimes you have no choice, but if the need is that strong, you will usually see a vendor spring up around it. Often several.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[CaptKilljoy]

The answer is the same for, "what of software that no vendor chooses to adopt".../I>

Uh, I have no idea what your point was. For non-open source software, there is no vendor; the corporation that authored it is intrinsically responsible/liable to ensure that it has the right to sell its software. For open source software, the author may not have the desire or funds to legally confirm that his/her software complies with the licensing agreements of its constituent parts; a vendor must step up to take that responsibility/liability. Again, what of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt? Such software might end up untouchable because no corporation would want to risk being sued for license violations.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[ajs]

Perhapos if you had continued to read...

You're taking just as much risk using software that is not backed by a company with lawyers who have a vested interest in the commercial viability and reputation of that software regardless of how much source code you have available (in this sense, though source protects you against other risks).

Ok, so the question is... does your vendor have lawyers who have a vested interest in the commercial viability and reputation of that software? If the answer is yes, STOP. You're done. Open source vs. closed source is a red herring and to imply otherwise is, I think, rather misleading.

You do realize that there are closed-source applications provided by individuals without corporate backing out there, don't you? I don't mean that to be insulting, but I'm honestly not sure if you started this discussion thinking about that. Some are works for hire, some are distributed freely and yet others are sold by people who don't have the ability (for whatever reason) to start a company that can market/publish the software.

Just because open source software is far more popular on average is no reason to treat it differently; if you have a business that is going to be concerned with its long-term future, get your software from a reputable vendor with 800lb gorillas for lawyers.

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[CaptKilljoy]

You do realize that there are closed-source applications provided by individuals without corporate backing out there, don't you?

But of course. However, by attempting to sell their closed source software, even without a team of lawyers, they are implicitly providing an "implied warranty of merchantability". That's enough to satisfy the lawyers of the buyer.

An open source program where the author says "Use at your own risk" and there is no vendor to assume the liability of such a warranty will make said lawyers recommend against its use. (The same can be said of closed source programs that say "Use at your own risk", but there are many open source programs that are extremely popular that say this.)

You do realize that there are open source applications provided by individuals without "800lb gorillas for lawyers", don't you?

Re:Duh! Slashdot editors should RTFA.

[ajs]

No, an implied warranty is not good enough. If someone comes looking to sue over IP violations (SCO is a bad example because, no hyperbole at all here, they're stupid), then you need to know that your vendor a) cares enough to defend their own software b) has the legal/financial means to do so.

Sometimes that's not possible and you need to go with something that doesn't satisfy this rule. That's called taking risk, and a cost/benefit analysis should take that risk into account. It's really not that complex.

You do realize that there are open source applications provided by individuals without "800lb gorillas for lawyers", don't you?

Yes, and while I would use them at home or play with them at work, I would advise against using them for "real work" unless we got them from a vendor like IBM, Red Hat or Novell (just as examples).

My $0.02

[jwthompson2]

Velocity of change

Many enterprises are overwhelmed with patches and handling vulnerabilities, as well as the consequences associated with introducing new software into an infrastructure. The fact that the open source community is constantly tweaking its software is a reasonable concern for IT executives. Open source software introduces more complexities in software maintenance, but also promotes more secure and reliable code through rapid bug and vulnerability fixes. Microsoft took 200 days, for instance, to deliver a patch for a particular vulnerability.

Given that enterprises don't want constant upgrades and optional fixes, the major Linux distributors offer scheduled, rather than just continuous, releases via subscriptions as well certification of the software to alleviate this problem. Red Hat claims to have a database of over one million dependencies to check against as part of its delivery of new patches or functionality.

...

The IT staff I work for like open source because vulnerabilities for the software we would like to use are found seldomly and when they are found they are fixed quickly, not to mention one program doesn't interfere with the others too much. But management listens to slick salespeople from crappy vendors and we end up with products that won't work with the latest security patches to Windows, and now we are left vulnerable on so many fronts because our proprietary software won't work with the updated and 'secure' versions of Windows. My coworkers could care less about how often the products need updating, as long as staying secure doesn't break our systems, Windows is failing for us in that arena.

Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.

Re:My $0.02

[rixstep]

seldomly

I don't think there is a word 'seldomly'. My Apple spell checker says there is not.

I think your rhetoricalness is dramatically overexaggerated.

Re:My $0.02

[jwthompson2]

I didn't spellcheck my post; no surprise here if it isn't a word. Thanks for the heads up though....

Re:My $0.02

[GPLDAN]

The phenomenon you see is typical. Is it me, or are many of slick salesman types have this college fratboy gone pro vibe to them? They take the middle managers to lunch, they give them tickets to sporting events or golf outings. this ol boy system has been in place for a long long time, and the open source movement tosses all of it out, and puts power squarely in the hands of the people who know how to make it work and can fix it.

Most middle managers are not willing to concede the power in the organisatoin to the techs and architects that work "below" them.

Re:My $0.02

[mingot]

Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.

I know this is a crazy thought, but have you ever considered the possibility that there is a reason why you dig ditches and they stand off under a tree sipping on lemonade and making sure the line you're digging in is straight?

Re:My $0.02

[jedidiah]

Yup. That reason is aristocratic inertia.

Re:My $0.02

[mingot]

Never based on merit, eh?

Re:My $0.02

[pipingguy]

Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.

Careful with that ax, Eugene.

Often "non-tech" people are those whose businesses you support and earn money from.

I'd guess that slow teaching will make a difference.

Re:My $0.02

[jedidiah]

If that were the case then the boss's son would be down in the trench and a trench digger's son would be the one in the shade with a queenie mixed drink.

12 6

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously

has to be said

[genner]

I for one welcome our opensource baring overlords.

Re:has to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome the end of this tired old joke.

More reasons for than against.

[gilesjuk]

Good to see there's more reasons for than against open source use. There's always reasons for and against using anything. With open source becoming more popular there must be some major reasons against using Microsoft software that outway the advantages.

Being locked into using a software suite due to the secrecy of the file format and the costs are two of the major ones.

Working in software development..

[Sexual Ass Gerbil]

Open source development tools are a godsend for development work. Trying to figure out why a program won't run properly compiled in a closed source environment usually leads to wasting time working around the problem by re-engineering your sofware, rather than finding and fixing a simple bug in your development tools. Just because a development environment is supported by a big company doesn't mean that big company is going to fix the problems you discover in its software anytime soon.

Re:Working in software development..

[primus_sucks]

Yes, on my present project, we have discovered serious bugs on 3 separate occasions in WebLogic Container Managed Persistance code. The first two times it took them over a month to get us patches and we are still waiting for the third fix. If we would have been using an open source application server we could have easily fixed it ourselves, or paid a developer a couple hundred bucks to fix (it cost us way more than that in inconveinance). We also probably could have got it fixed for free, since open-source developers are probably more apt to stand behind there code - most closed source projects don't have public forums and mailing lists with people bitching about bugs!

"lack of formal support"

[Roger Keith Barrett]

I am glad that this author goes after this one... hearing this argument these days makes me want to scream.

It's really hard to continue listening to anyone (especially some knowitall exec, even it is from Oracle) that still brings this forward as a general problem with Open Source. It might be a problem with individual packages, but as an overall argument against open source it just shows ignorance of the subject matter, IMHO. After that argument all following arguments become suspect.

Rixstep Forgot #8

[Anonymous Coward]

Rixste,

I think you forgot this. Here ya go:

#8) Clueless FOSS zealots

Left off item #7

[prisoner-of-enigma]

7) Rabid, frothing, pro-Linux zealots who consistently make fools of themselves by treating an operating system as if it were a religion. It makes it damnably difficult to pitch Linux solutions to corporate types when their perception is that it's written and run by hippies.

Re:Left off item #7

[FyRE666]

Rabid, frothing, pro-Linux zealots who consistently make fools of themselves by treating an operating system as if it were a religion. It makes it damnably difficult to pitch Linux solutions to corporate types when their perception is that it's written and run by hippies.

I was going to go with this one till I realised that most (all) managers don't real /. or usenet.

Re:Left off item #7

[Anonymous Coward]

At least a couple of these slashdotters and Usenet types have jobs somewhere.

Re:Left off item #7

[illuminata]

Wow, when I saw this terrible post, I thought that I was going to bust a valve! How can somebody think this way?! Well, for the sake of trying to show you the light, I'll try to calm down...

I think you're totally wrong. By not only giving away Linux for free, but its source as well, we think that it's only a small request that you join our cult. It's not right that people take without giving back to the community. But by joining, you are indeed making a difference to further our cause. Posting our views loudly on internet discussions, with Slashdot being a favorite place to post, ensures that we indeed get noticed and that we gain members to further our cause.

Besides, why wouldn't you want to drink the Kool-Aid when it's so very sweet :) :) :)

prisoner-of-enigma, we would love to have you join us sometime. We're a very loving, sexually free group of people. We'd love to have you join us! Remember, you're not one of us if you don't join and share our views.

Hope to have you hop on the FOSS choo-choo train! All aboard!

-RMS

P.S. Call me, you can come to my ranch and see what being open is all about ;)

Re:Left off item #7

[IGnatius T Foobar]

"Rabid zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder. What looks like frothing to you may look like intelligent advocacy to someone who isn't fearful of the message being delivered.

Besides, when people dedicate so much time and energy to open source software, it's really not surprising that when faced with a corporate behemoth aiming to destroy everything they've worked so hard for, they might get a little emotional about it. It's easy to turn up your nose and write it off as fanaticism, but I'll take "built with pride" over "built for a paycheck" any day. It delivers better quality product.

Re:Left off item #7

[gnuLNX]

I declare Jihad on the parent poster!

Re:Left off item #7

[happyfrogcow]

so someone who cares about something and wants to improve it versus someone who is emotionally unattached to what they do and use. take your pick, i'd prefer someone who cares about and enjoys what they work with.

if their perceptions are based on rumor or a few unfortunate encounters then they deserve to be trapped in whatever proprietary hellpit they are in.

I think you are over exagerating by using "rabid, frothing, pro-Linux zealots." There might be a vocal minority, but without the majority of the community being overly helpfull, Linux wouldn't be so popular today. (how many nice people are there out on IRC after their work day is done, doing nothing but helping newbies?) The accesibility of online, real time help that the open source community voluntarily provides is vastly superior to a 1-800 number that transfers you through person after inadequate person. The phone system is an antiquated tool in tech support. Once people get past their fear of using a new tool to recieve support, they'll possibly be much more pleased with the computer experience.

I say that the kindness of the majority of the Linux community and the accesibility of online, real time, person to person help (often multiple people helping you at once! try to get that from some cold corporation without having a huge contract for tech support) is overshadowed by people blinding and prejudicially proclaiming "linux users are rabid frothing zealots." That needs to be put to an end because it plainly isn't the truth.

Re:Left off item #7

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight problem. If it looks like "frothing" to the decision makers, it CANNOT be considered "intelligent advocacy."

Re:Left off item #7

[ratboy666]

Linux is not a religion.

It's a hobby.

So fuck off, use your Windows, AIX, cha-cha-cha, and leave us ALONE!

I don't understand, and have never understood, what the big deal about "Linux adoption" is. Happens to be a fine kernel -- and I certainly don't mind if people use it, even make money from it. My contributions were/are never with commercial intent -- simply "this is good, I like it, maybe you will like it too".

So let Dan Farber preach to business. It isn't my job to tear down any "walls to adoption". Really, as a hobby programmer, I don't care.

Now, many companies DO see the point (to them) of using this "open source" stuff. And many don't. Personally, I work for a company that DOES use linux in an embedded role -- works better for me.

Sure, any hobby will attract "Rabid, frothing ... zealots". Its passion man! Enjoy it. And it makes not one whit of difference.

And that is why OS vendors are essentially doomed. We do this stuff for fun, and we don't care. Can't really leave it alone. It becomes very hard to compete, given that the cost of distribution is almost 0. (Imagine, someone who can lovingly hand-build cars, and then can turn around and give the final product away for no cost! And, can produce AS MUCH product as any big auto maker! That is the "competition").

If the big software mills COULD produce much higher quality goods at reasonable cost, we wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation.

If (for example) Solaris or Windows really were hyper-secure and had a record of no breakins, AND didn't crash, then, sure, I (you, we) would be a fool to not use them in a business context. And there would be no discussion (NO, NONE, NADA) of "Linux". (or OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.)

But they aren't. Tough luck for the OS vendors, but the "hobbyist" system is just as good (arguably better in many respects). So, OS vendors, suck it up.

OS vendors have a few choices:

1 - Fight

Sure, give us a better product. I am waiting for "Longhorn". Might be worth it (see above).

2 - Switch

Novel with Netware, IBM with Linux. Phase out your un-competitive products, and back Linux. Why not? Sell something other than an OS (services, hardware, support...)

3 - Leave

Go into a different business. OS vending won't cut it.

Adapt or die.

Note that the question is never "Why should I switch to Linux from ...". Whoever it is will know why and when. Because, it doesn't matter to me, because I don't make dime 1 on this. This is my HOBBY. I do this for fun. I also write stuff that very few people read, rant, play very bad guitar, and ski -- for the same reason. There are people who write better than I do -- and I buy and read their books. There are people who rant better than I do, and I elect them. There are people who play better guitar, and I see them in concerts (and sometimes even buy CDs). There are people who ski better than I do, and I watch "World Cup Downhill" events on TV.

So, ask yourself, WHY isn't AIX, Solaris, Windows superior enough to Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD so we wouldn't have this talk?

'cause you know what?

With the current state of affairs, *even* with my "fuck you" attitude, OS vendors are basically screwed.

Demand more!

Ratboy

Re:Left off item #7

[mackstann]

I'm not fearful of the message; I use and contribute to open source myself -- and yet, I consider plenty of what I see to be rabid zealotry.

Re:Left off item #7

[black mariah]

Dude, have you SEEN RMS? Or read anything written by him? I don't know of anyone that looks and sounds more like the prototypical smelly geek hippie*, and he's Free Software Guru #1.

*I'm not saying he smells, but he looks like he does. For all I know he could put off a fresh lavender scent.

Re:Left off item #7

[mingot]

so someone who cares about something and wants to improve it versus someone who is emotionally unattached to what they do and use. take your pick, i'd prefer someone who cares about and enjoys what they work with.

People fall in and out of love all the time, but if they don't eat they will ALWAYS get hungry. I'd rather have the person involved doing it for the money, to be honest.

Re:Left off item #7

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you use the word smelly and then add a disclaimer..?

Just don't use the word at all you hypocrite.

Re:Left off item #7

[black mariah]

No, fucktard, being a hypocrite would be saying that RMS IS smelly then going and not bathing for a month. I never said he WAS, I said he looked like the typical smelly hippie. Please take some classes in basic English comprehension.

Re:Left off item #7

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Linux is not a religion.

It's a hobby.

So fuck off, use your Windows, AIX, cha-cha-cha, and leave us ALONE!

Thank you for making my point far more eloquently -- and finally -- than I could have. You have stated the perfect example of what's wrong with the Linux "movement."

By the way, I am using Linux (and Mozilla) to post this with, you rabid, frothing zealot.

Re:Left off item #7

[prisoner-of-enigma]

so someone who cares about something and wants to improve it versus someone who is emotionally unattached to what they do and use. take your pick, i'd prefer someone who cares about and enjoys what they work with.

Emotions and "feelings" should have nothing to do with making logical, factual business decisions. I don't want to buy software for my business because someone feels "emotionally attached" to it. That's absurd! Emotions cloud your ability to make impartial decisions.

Re:Left off item #7

[prisoner-of-enigma]

"Rabid zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder. What looks like frothing to you may look like intelligent advocacy to someone who isn't fearful of the message being delivered.

I will direct you to the "fuck off" reply post immediately below yours. A fine example of what rabid zealotry does to your cognitive decision making skills. While your post is thoughtful and well written, the other poster's comments have all the maturity of a tantrum-throwing five year old.

Re:Left off item #7

[Anonymous Coward]

Some excellent points. It NEVER fails to amaze me how OS vendors approach Open Source - "How can we make money off of this?" What they never seem to understand is that it's not about software companies. It's about people writing and using software because it works, because they enjoy it. It got where it is before ANY major outside vendors got involved, and it can stick around long after they are gone...

Re:Left off item #7

[mpe]

"Rabid zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder. What looks like frothing to you may look like intelligent advocacy to someone who isn't fearful of the message being delivered.

This statement could just as easily apply to Microsoft's "marketing" without changing a single thing.
Proprietary software frequently comes with it's own brand of "zealots".

Re:Left off item #7

[mpe]

Emotions and "feelings" should have nothing to do with making logical, factual business decisions. I don't want to buy software for my business because someone feels "emotionally attached" to it. That's absurd!

Quite a bit of "marketing" is about getting people emotionally attached to a product. If software purchase were entirely down to "making logical, factual business decisions" then there would be considerably less proprietary software in use in business. It is certainly less than logical for any company to accept the situation of a supplier dictating to them, through EULAs, how to operate their business. Or to continue throwing "good money after bad".

Emotions cloud your ability to make impartial decisions.

Hence marketing methods such as wineing and dineing executives, offering "free" samples, etc.

Re:Left off item #7

[happyfrogcow]

Your thinking all wrong about my statement, and adressing something that wasn't even said. They aren't emotionally attached to some logic involved in an algorithm or circuit. It's about being devoted to something and wanting to do it the absolute best way possible. Apply it to a different conversation often had here on slashdot... Don't go into Computer Science because of the money, do it because you love it. Would you rather work with someone doing CS for the money, or because they want to contribute to the field?

you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[darthcamaro]

If an enterprise has got inside technies that live and breathe open source - like Red Hat does for example - than there are no barrier to adoption. When you got wannabes like Novell out there, that admittly don't even use Open Source 'stuff' on their own desktops yet, how do you expect others to jump on board???

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[dacarr]

Oh, like hell they're wannabes.

When you consider the widespread chaos that will ensue with suddenly erasing everyones' drives at Novell and reinstalling Linux on all the workstations, suddenly the fact that they are probably still running proprietary software in the wake of their corporate decision to move to FOSS seems like a really clever idea, doesn't it? I mean, yeah, for your own workstation, no problem - but in a corporate environment a sudden jump is just a spectacularly brain-dead idea.

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[Kaduco]

Ummm... no. Spoke to a novell rep last week (I'm in provo) and they've converted completely (she was complaining that she couldn't use visio anymore).

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[gmahla]

Here, here on not being able to use Visio. Its important for documenting network infrastructure. Is there an open source equivalent available now ? How about in the pipeline ?

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[Marble68]

I think Novell wadding into the pool is probably the best thing to happen to Linux in the corporate environment. If there's one thing Novell knows how to do its write a kick ass NOS. Netware changed the business computing world for many a small companies. I know, I was out there installing it. People don't forget. It lends a credibility, a white collar face to a blue collar OS.

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[Schoony]

I don't think that Red Hat's 566 employees make them anywhere close to being an enterprise class company. Neither does their $126.1 Mil. in annual sales, nor does their 279.8 P/E ratio.

The company looks more like a lottery pick to me.

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[Bombcar]

If Visio is important, and Novell is large, and needs to document network infrastructure, then no doubt there will be an open source (or at least Linux) equivalent avaiable soon.

And as more large companies make the jump, more and more of the smaller software packages will move.

Re:you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk

[CaptainTux]

So anyone who hasn't "lived and breathed open source" is a wannabe? I think, if anything, Novell jumping in with both feet is a LOT bigger testimony to the power of open source than RedHat using open source on all their desktops. RedHat MAKES open source and is quite profitable. Novell had a niche, didn't NEED open source but saw the profit potential and power and jumped in. I applaud Novell a lot more than RedHat.

the 7th barrier

[genner]

Is all the bad slashdot jokes regarding overlords and natlie portman with hot grits. How are we supposed to be taken seriously after all that.

Re:the 7th barrier

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Says the guy who posted a "welcome overlords" bad /. joke two minutes earlier.

has to be said (Score:0)
by genner (694963) on 26-03-04 22:56 (#8684610)
I for one welcome our opensource baring overlords.

Simple

[thebra]

*drum roll please*
And the number one reason to Open Source use by the masses.....*ba da ching!* Users! If a user has trouble hitting "Ctrl-Alt-Del" to log in its gonna be a while untill they will be handed a new operating system.

Disclaimer: I didn't read the full article.

Re:Simple

[protohiro1]

This is the case at my company. We thought about dropping outlook and ms office for open source options and the users (note, I am not IT, I'm a user too) were INCREDIBLY resistant to the idea. One guy (a project manager) kept calling OpenOffice.org OpenAwful.org. Different pissed people off. Its the same reason you hear the unwashed computer-illiterare masses complain about macs. They hate them because they are different and they don't know how to use them.

Dan Farber's pic

[nightsweat]

That pic of him on the article makes him look like one of the Onion's columnists.

He makes good points, but update the photo, man.

Re:Dan Farber's pic

[The-Dalai-LLama]

Damn you for beating me to it!

Herbert Kornfeld is the guy's name.

The Dalai LLama
don't forget to guard yo' grill against dem computa bitchez...

Re:Dan Farber's pic

[nightsweat]

It's dangerous to post stories late on a Friday. All the punch drunk comes out all at once.

Lack of roadmap

[gpinzone]

I've seen enough closed source "roadmaps" change so much that the alternative shouldn't be much of a concern to anyone. Microsoft's original plans for Exchange was for it to be a Lotus Notes killer.

Re:Lack of roadmap

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's original plans for Exchange was for it to be a Lotus Notes killer.

That plan worked pretty well, didn't it? Be afraid, be very afraid...

Re:Lack of roadmap

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think Lotus did a good enough job fucking that one up.

Re:Lack of roadmap

[Anonymous Coward]

There were pretty proud of themselves when they were able to get ahold of MS's business plan and implement it.

Best of Both Worlds

[Yoda2]

Five simple steps for migrating an office to Linux:
1. Build "beefy" Windows 2003 Terminal Server with apps that existing Windows users "have to have"
2. Install favorite Linux distro on all workstations
3. Install rdesktop on all workstations allowing access to legacy Windows apps
4. Wean users to Linux applications at comfortable pace
5. Nix Terminal Server

Re:Best of Both Worlds

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that complying with the Terminal Services licensing scheme will probably eradicate any savings you might have gleaned from using a cheap/free Linux distro on the desktop.

First, your Win2K3 box needs a license. Then, Terminal Services needs a license. Then, your clients all need TS connection licenses (of course, these are included in 2K/XP Pro). Possibly you'll need CALs as well as TS CALs (if you're accessing the server for files, etc.).

Then you need to test and support all your apps under TS, which is no easy feat most of the time, as well as supporting a dual infrastructure (fat desktops with TS infrastructure/app support on top of it).

If there's not a breach of licensing using rdesktop, it's almost certain the support costs will drown you. It's hard to make this strategy cost effective. I say this only 'cos I've seen it.

Wean, schmean. I say make ther users go cold turkey. They'll get over it. ;-)

Re:Best of Both Worlds

[Yoda2]

Yeah, not cheap, but cheaper than a full Win deployment and much easier to administer.

Re:Best of Both Worlds

[VikingBrad]

You need a W2K3 server license, TS CALs and Win2k3 Cals. You also require licenses for individual application licenses for each client accessing server. ie if you run Outlook or Office on the server each client needs a license for Outlook or Office.
Terminal Services isn't much cheaper if you do it legally.
Cheers
VikingBrad

Re:Best of Both Worlds

[k_head]

If the plan is to eventually migrate people off of it then it might be OK to spend the money.

I can see how you might want to migrate them to openoffice and evolution on the native linux desktop first and then gradually replace other items with native apps till the need for TS goes away.

Re:Best of Both Worlds

[Yoda2]

With all of the licenses you are listing you're assuming that you are starting from scratch in which case you might as well go with Linux out of the box.

I believe that if you already have Win machines, they double as TS client licenses so just don't toss your existing Win CD's before installing Linux.

If you provide enough usable apps on the Linux installs then during the migration process your users should not all be using the TS at the same time so if you go by connection, you wouldn't need as many licenses.

This isn't a free solution, its a (somewhat simplified) migration road map that might get you to a better place in the longer term.

Cult of Personality

[Mateito]

The seventh barrier: OS people just aren't good looking enough to sell stuff.

Obviously you'd be more likely to trust an operating system written by this man than an OS from this one.

status quo

[tsunamifirestorm]

why upgrade if what i have works?
I'm talking about people not on /. ;-)

OEMs not selling preinstalled machines

[cyber_rigger]

IMO this is THE biggest barrier.

Re:OEMs not selling preinstalled machines

[chromatic]

Is that really such a barrier to adoption in big businesses? I can see the barrier for home users and small businesses, but I'd expect big businesses to have their own installation guidelines contrary to OEM practices.

Re:OEMs not selling preinstalled machines

[The Angry Mick]

I think it is a fairly large barrier to big business adoption, but not because of installation guidelines.

One of the principle factors involved in computer ownership is familiarity. People buy what they see and promote what they know. C-Level executives have to buy their home computers somewhere and if all they're exposed to at the local Geeks 'R Us is XP and Office 2K3, then they are never going to have a clue about the look/feel/usability of any alternatives. If they can't toy with Linux at the local shop, they are never going to go out of their way to learn about it on their own. I'm not saying this is a "good" thing (in fact, I hate this attitude), its just a cold and hard business reality.

If there were more OEM installations on display at Geeks 'R Us that customers could see/use/play with, then the increased exposure would help wash away the FUD of mysticism that surrounds open source today.

Corporate exposure will bring balance

[mao che minh]

All of these things will addressed quickly once Linux (as the flagship, premeire creation of Open Source) hits the corporate desktop. Basically, exposure to the diverse corporate culture will bring all of these things into balance.

Example corporate environment: financial departments have to make it work with their various file transfer and encryption applications, your reports people need their database building and access tools to work better, help desks have to make Mozilla running on Linux work with SAP and PeopleSoft (and the little misc processes that they rely on), the graphic arts department starts lobbying Adobe to support it, scheduling and forecasting departments find quirks in it when running their custom workforce management apps, your business applications group wants their development tools to work like the ones in Windows, etc, etc.

Re:Corporate exposure will bring balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Premiere? I think you mean PREMIER (no E at the end). Way to make yourself look silly...

Re:Corporate exposure will bring balance

[Anonymous Coward]

You're are a nigger, in the truest sense of the word.

reason number 1, definitely

[jockeys]

In my workplace we use (at great expense, license-wise) Unix System V to run our d-base servers. When I was hired on, I asked about this, and was promptly told "We won't use open source solutions because they don't come with any sort of garauntees or support. We pay extra for these licenses because what we are essentially buying is a garauntee of uptime. We don't have the time or the manpower to fool with some attention-intensive open source thing." I have found this to be the prevalent corporate mindset, at least in the circles I work in. Anyone else have similar experience?

Re:reason number 1, definitely

[churchr]

You can buy such assurances from IBM and Red Hat, among others. Why do you buy your "Unix System V" from?

Re:reason number 1, definitely

[jockeys]

We license from a corporation called NCR.

6 Pack

[amigoro]

1) Lack of formal support
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels. Not to mention 1000s and 1000s of user created documentation.

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.

3) Lack of roadmap
Yes, so one is not constrained. This creates co-operative competition. I.e. I use your code to make a better product. If I don't agree with your roadmap, I start a new fork. This makes open source software development far more successful than the closed source monolithic alternative.

4) Functional gaps
They are changes. Not gaps. You have the choice with OpenSource. Not with, say, Windows. (Not trying to bash Windows ;) ).

5) Licensing caveats
Read a typical Microsoft EULAs. See how many rights have you got. (Not trying to bash MS ;) ;) )

6) ISV endorsements. Independent Software Vendors: Who listens to them anyway?

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

1) Lack of formal support
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels. Not to mention 1000s and 1000s of user created documentation.

This is totally unacceptable to the business world, and you should know that by now. With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question. With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.

Are you going to argue that Windows patches don't improve the product? I mean, really, they're not that bad. WinXP SP2 (which I'm running at work) adds some useful enhancements like pop-up blocking, a better firewall, and several other real, tangible improvements. Even though it's in beta it hasn't broken any of our apps, nor has it opened us to "zillions of worms." We've never had a worm invade our network due to good perimeter security and locked-down workstations and servers.

3) Lack of roadmap
Yes, so one is not constrained. This creates co-operative competition. I.e. I use your code to make a better product. If I don't agree with your roadmap, I start a new fork. This makes open source software development far more successful than the closed source monolithic alternative.

Sorry, but businesses don't operate like this. Companies expect roadmaps, plans, and so forth because they have to plan for these things down the road. You apparently missed the point of the article writer, who pointed out that companies by and large dislike the chaotic environment of open source simply because it's chaotic. This "creative co-operation" mumbo jumbo doesn't wash in the board room.

4) Functional gaps
They are changes. Not gaps. You have the choice with OpenSource. Not with, say, Windows. (Not trying to bash Windows ;) ).

No, they are gaps. There are some things you cannot do with open source that you can do with proprietary software. Mostly its because of a lack of industry-standard software on the open source side of things. This is changing, though slowly. When we can run Photoshop and AutoCAD on Linux natively and have it supported by their respective software authors, then we can consider it. Until then, GIMP and whatever AutoCAD clone Linux has just won't cut it. Gaps.

5) Licensing caveats
Read a typical Microsoft EULAs. See how many rights have you got. (Not trying to bash MS ;) ;) )

Look at the current SCO furor. Right or wrong (I personally think Darl McBride is the antichrist), SCO's creating trouble for open source adopters. Linus himself recently commented that he considered intellectual property rights to be the single biggest threat to Linux over the next year. This kind of uncertainty doesn't sit well with businesses.

6) ISV endorsements. Independent Software Vendors: Who listens to them anyway?

Although this may have been intended as humorous, what you've revealed is how little of an understanding most Slashdotters have of how companies make decisions. Until the greasy-fingered, long-haird geeks of the world figure out how businesses work, they're not about to listen to you.

Re:6 Pack

[micromoog]

This "creative co-operation" mumbo jumbo doesn't wash in the board room.

The board room?! You really think people talk about the fucking operating system they use in the board room?

Re:6 Pack

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Lack of formal support
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels.

I have to say, every person that ever ended up helping me with something on IRC has been hands down, magnitudes nicer and more receptive to questions than any sort of commercial tech support I've ever tried. on top of that, the problem is usually fixed. People that hang out on IRC just helping people in between whatever they are doing in Real Life deserve much more credit.

Re:6 Pack

[Anonymous Coward]

This is totally unacceptable to the business world, and you should know that by now. With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question. With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.

Really? I have been told by MS we don't support [that] being used with IIS so we won't help you even though you have a Platinum Fortune 50 contract with us. The small software company who's products are used by ebay's website among others, did help us.
I have received faster, better answers for questions on Solaris, Oracle, Sybase and many other commercial software packages from newsgroups and mailing lists than I ever have from the paid support lines. I get the impression that you are the guy who signs the support agreements and gets taken to lunch by the lots-of-makeup software rep chicks and not the guy who has to try to solve problems at 3 AM. Thus you are taken in by the fiction of "a guarantee that someone will work with me" I find the only purpose of first-level tech support is to try to prevent people from bugging the second level tech support people by making you jump through various hoops - send us your config, reboot, send us the log files, fax us your contract number, bend over and pay us more for doing jack...

As for the ISV crack, does Oracle count as an ISV? If not, WTF is an ISV and why does Dan himself say that no one listens to them in the article?
Endorsements from independent software vendors (ISVs) aren't especially credible for CIOs
he goes on to say "but endorsements from cronies 'carry substantial weight' " so if that is the case then Schwab, IBM, Oracle, Novell, blah, blah, etc, etc would seem to be a quorum of Linux/FOSS using cronies for any IT Management idiot to say "Wow, the other lemmings are doing it, so we can too, now..." (that is how IT decision making is and always has been done, they just try to dress it up to look like they are doing work - reading Gartner White Papers, etc) that is unless they have MS's dick too far down their throat to talk.

Re:6 Pack

[silicon not in the v]

Here's a little bit about open source where I work. I work at a company that has almost 20,000 employees worldwide. We do use a bit of open source, but it's generally not in the PC area. It's mainly on our UNIX networks to take the place of buying more Sun workstations. The main reason for that is that Sun boxes are freakin' expensive! We can set someone up with a really nice RedHat PC for about $1,500 instead of the Sun Blade 1000 box for $15,000. With hundreds of UNIX systems on the same network, we also use an open-source clustering application to harness that power for really big computing jobs in our design department. The program is called Condor (BSD license, I think), and they have it set up to detect idle time on a machine and then run in the background until there is activity at that console again. We also use Mozilla on our UNIX systems.

Re:6 Pack

[Citizen of Earth]

3) Lack of roadmap

Of course, they seem to be implying that corporate roadmaps are somehow anything more than wishful-thinking BS.

Re:6 Pack

[bwt]

1) Lack of formal support
With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question. With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.

My experience is that for-pay support is substantially WORSE than typical open source support. As an example, I was writing some code that used Batik and encountered a very subtle bug that I was baffled by, so I went to the mailing list. Within 24 hours I had a working patch that fixed the error and I had communicated directly with the developer who wrote it to confirm that it worked. By contrast, at work we have the big dollar support contracts with Microsoft, Oracle, Quest, and others. I have never, ever, ever had 24 hour turnaround on a bug fix that required a code fix with any of those companies. Usually it is flat out impossible to get something escalated to development in less than a day because you have to deal with some nitwit call center idiot who wants to recite the manuals to you.

Moreover, with open source you don't need support -- you have the code. Support is critical when you are at the mercy of a proprietary code vendor and are legally barred from helping yourself. This self-help empowerment is expecially true when your development shop choose open source tools that uses technologies they are familiar with and encourages people to get familiar with the codebases of the tools they use.

Re:6 Pack

[sholden]

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity') At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.

Are you going to argue that Windows patches don't improve the product? I mean, really, they're not that bad. WinXP SP2 (which I'm running at work) adds some useful enhancements like pop-up blocking, a better firewall, and several other real, tangible improvements. Even though it's in beta it hasn't broken any of our apps, nor has it opened us to "zillions of worms." We've never had a worm invade our network due to good perimeter security and locked-down workstations and servers.

Maybe you should invest in a dictionary, here let me help: not

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

When a CIO is attempting to pitch a radical restructuring of the company's logicstal system based on open-source software, you're damned right they talk about it. How the hell else do you expect FOSS to ever get any traction anywhere outside the server room? Advocacy groups? Don't be naive.

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

My experience is that for-pay support is substantially WORSE than typical open source support.

As with all things, YMMV. While you say you've never had a 24 hour turnaround on a bug "that required a code fix," I can say the same thing. However, the qualifier is that I've never had a bug with Oracle, Microsoft, or Lotus that ever required a code fix at all. It's always been a config issue, or data corruption, or a bad interaction between some third-party software or module. And for me, it's always been resolved within 24 hours, usually in less than two hours. Admittedly, I don't call support that often (about twice a year on average) but that's because I choose my applications because they (a) do what I need them to do and (b) they work well together. Therefore, I have fewer problems overall.

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Really? I have been told by MS we don't support [that] being used with IIS so we won't help you even though you have a Platinum Fortune 50 contract with us. The small software company who's products are used by ebay's website among others, did help us.

Let me paraphrase this for a moment: you were running IIS with some non-Microsoft third party application. And something broke. So you called MS, and they told you "you're using this odd third part software that could be producing this bad interaction, so we won't support it." ...and that's somehow magically Microsoft's fault? Have you stopped to consider for a moment that it could've been the fault of the third party app? Have you considered that MS might even have tested the module, found it to cause problems, and specifically decided not to support it for that reason?

Or did you just immediately decide it was all Microsoft's fault and decide to just stew about it?

Re:6 Pack

[naelurec]

1] with companies such as novell, hp, ibm, sun (not to mention Red Hat, etc..) seems like this is being taken care of for those that want it. Heck, in some ways it is better as it maintains competition for the support contracts vs having to deal with Microsoft for anything that requires the source.

2] updates are good on both sides.. though it seems like with MS updates, you not only get the bug fix, but additional functionaility or sometimes a completely new program (ie we don't want to patch IE5, upgrade to IE6SP1!). Seems like generally speaking, various patches in FOSS are backported to older versions so you get the security updates without having to deal with changes in functionaility -- more choice. :)

3] I think the corporations getting into offering up Linux will start doing more roadmaps and such ... is this necessarily a good thing? I dunno.. probably not. Seems like everyone in the industry already knows essentially what a joke roadmaps are ... look at how often they are altered, changed or completely disregarded for a new roadmap a few months later. FOSS does provide the capability to see development as it happens -- so if you are a "stable" person, you can still monitor CVS & developer releases to get an idea of the direction of various projects.

4] True .. there are gaps. Of course, as more people use and promote Linux, these gaps will close -- hopefully fairly quickly. Luckily until that occurs, there are options for people to use things like vmware, wine, crossover office and even rdesktop/terminal services.

5] IP concerns affect the entire industry, not just FOSS. The biggest difference between FOSS and corporations in this regard is FOSS is generally more transparent and open about these issues -- corporations will keep a tight lip about potential uncertainties.

6] I agree with you here. Slashdotters, generally speaking, don't truly understand how decisions are made. Of course, yet again, I'll go back to hp, ibm, novell, etc *hopefully* pushing out the data that DOES speak to managers so when the managers come around with the questions, the long-haired, greasy finger geeks can start the deployments. :-)

However, even with all the reservation and uncertantity that managers have regarding FOSS, it is still being deployed. A firewall here, a print/file server there .. perhaps a desktop or two.. I have deployed several Linux servers for various small businesses. So far, the complaints have been few and far between. It simply works. Hopefully this trend continues and their desire for FOSS solutions outweighs the perceived benefits of alternatives... We'll see. :)

Re:6 Pack

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they said "we don't support _any_ third party load balancing products because we are MS-only assholes and we are selling our own load balancing product" (too bad the MS product didn't work for our environment because we were mixing Solaris and NT for different parts of the site). If that is their policy then they shouldn't allow anyone to build anything that runs on their platform because god forbid it might cause "a bad interaction".

And I was contrasting their flippant "fuck you" attitude that people (IT management people and MS apologists mostly) pretend doesn't exist if you pay for support with [as almost every person who has responded here reports] FOSS product support (paid or not) and open support systems for commercial products (newgroups, mailing lists, IRC, etc) which are far more timely, productive paths of getting competent answers to problems than paid support - which is obvious if you think about it
With paid support I get told to fuck off by a guy getting minimum wage at some out-sourced support hellhole (not knowing I'm with one of MS's biggest customers - over 50K MS desktops and obscene numbers of MS servers) and with newsgroups I get people who spend 8-10-16 hours per day solving problems with the software/system in question, whose responses do I trust? With ruby and djbdns and many others I also have the guy that wrote the stuff participating. To the poor bastards credit who wrote IIS, if they were accessible, they would probably have said "WTF? that has nothing to do with load balancing, it sounds like a blah, blah, blah issue lets try these things..."

BTW, The third party load balancing product people, whose product was, at the time, being used by ebay for what was probably the largest MS frontended, database backed web site - a billion or so hit per month IIRC, and they helped us resolved the problem which was in fact a problem with IIS and NT net issues that required a MS patch/dll update.

To be less mysterious, ebay uses Resonate and Zeus load balancing products, in my experience two of the best written, best supported, most stable under high load products on the market, so are these products worthy of the respond I got?

Re:6 Pack

[Anne Thwacks]

With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question. With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.

Yeah right, In over 30 years in the computer industry, the ONLY commercial companies that has ever delivered any support other than putting me on hold, listening to a computer play the paino with one finger, till I find something better to do, are IBM and S3.

When I complained to IBM I had a problem with OS/2 device drivers, the next day I had 3 men in gray suits at my desk, one from IBM Texas, one from IBM UK, and one from IBM Germany, saying "you have a problem? We will get someone to fix it!" - and they did!

OTOH, S3 put me into a conference call with three people on crack who barely spoke English, and did not understand the problem.

By contrast, when I had a problem with kde, it was fixed in days, and I got an e-mail from Mr Kulow asking me to try the new version. When I had a problem with OO Writer, it was fixed properly in a month, when I had a problem with Postgresql it was explained that the manual was out of date, and the person who wrote me would get it fixed. When I had a problem with FreeBSD, etc..

Re:6 Pack

[micromoog]

The board of directors doesn't give a floating poo about the tools the company uses for its technology. The CIO? Definitely. The CEO? Perhaps. The board of directors? No way.

Naive, bah.

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The CEO? Perhaps. The board of directors? No way.

When you're asking for a few million dollars to rework a portion of the company that generates several hundred million dollars, you can be damn sure the CEO, COO, CFO, and the board are interested. If you don't know that then you've probably never had to pitch a board for this kind of stuff. I have, and they most certainly do want to know what's going on. Perhaps not the nitty gritty details, but if you're going to use the words "open source" you better expect some questions, especially legal liability ones.

Re:6 Pack

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If you received a response akin to "fuck you" from any support call, whether it be real or implied, you should've escalated. Sooner or later you would've reached someone who is very interested in solving your problem.

I'll give a similar case in point. I recently went to a Cisco focus group study. One woman there recounted horror tales of dealing with her Cisco support rep. The person was rude, unhelpful, and generally made support worthless. At the end of the session, it was revealed to her that the national rep for Cisco was behind the one-way glass. He gave her his direct line and said that her issue would be escalated immediately to someone else, and that it would be resolved to her satisfaction. She was genuinely surprised, and I later found out that the person she had been dealing with was fired. He problem got solved, too -- for free. That's the kind of support I'm talking about.

It's been my experience that I get that kind of support from my vendors. If I don't, I escalate until I do. If it becomes habitual, I no longer buy from those vendors. Thus far, all of my interactions with Microsoft have been stellar. They work with me for hours, escalating as needed. They call me back a few days afterwards to make sure everything is done to my satisfaction before they close the case. They send me test patches if needed. They are very knowledgeable. Other than the price of the support contract, I have no complaints about them whatsoever. As usual, YMMV, but I've never personally met anyone who's had anything bad to say about them, and I get around a lot due to being a consultant.

Re:6 Pack

[mpe]

This is totally unacceptable to the business world, and you should know that by now. With a company, I have a phone number, a support contract, and a guarantee that someone will work with me to answer my question.

You may have that or you may have a guarantee that if you call the phone number it will be answered. Between certain times it might even be answered by a human being :) As with an EULA you might need to consult a lawyer to find out what you are actually getting.

With newsgroups and IRC channels, someone might answer my question but only if I'm willing to wait, surf a lot, or put up with a few hundred "what a st00pid newbie you are" responses that invariably get made.

Oddly people do use these techniques with proprietary software, even in cases where they have a "support contract". Anyway how is being told "please hold" or "I'll call you back" not "waiting"?

Re:6 Pack

[mpe]

Yeah right, In over 30 years in the computer industry, the ONLY commercial companies that has ever delivered any support other than putting me on hold, listening to a computer play the paino with one finger, till I find something better to do, are IBM and S3.

Possibly people who rave about telephone helplines either never use them or never use them for actual technical support (as opposed to user support).

When I complained to IBM I had a problem with OS/2 device drivers, the next day I had 3 men in gray suits at my desk, one from IBM Texas, one from IBM UK, and one from IBM Germany, saying "you have a problem? We will get someone to fix it!" - and they did!

Thus in only one case out of however many did you get something where it could be claimed that the money was well spent.

OTOH, S3 put me into a conference call with three people on crack who barely spoke English, and did not understand the problem.

Even less useful than listening to music played down the telephone. A set of CDs would probably be far cheaper than the "support" contract, in some cases it's possible that phone call would cost more than a CD...

By contrast, when I had a problem with kde, it was fixed in days, and I got an e-mail from Mr Kulow asking me to try the new version.

One other important thing is that there tend to be fewer barriers to contacting the people who actually wrote the software with OSS. Even if you do get to talk to a person on a "support line" you have no idea how much they know. It's quite possible that you could end up talking to someone who knows less about the software than you do...

Re:6 Pack

[mpe]

Moreover, with open source you don't need support -- you have the code. Support is critical when you are at the mercy of a proprietary code vendor and are legally barred from helping yourself.

The real barrier appears to be one of a perception that a certain kind of "support" is universally needed with all software. Without the understanding that OSS allows support mechanisms which are impossible with proprietary software.

Re:6 Pack

[mpe]

Thus you are taken in by the fiction of "a guarantee that someone will work with me"

You probably get exactly what the fine print says you will get. Did it mention that the "someone" will actually be any more use to you than a random member of the public though?

7th Barrier

[ackthpt]

7. Site is slashdotted.

Hypocritical companies

[StormReaver]

"Open source application server maker JBoss offers 24-hour support and is certifying its software for the Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) standard, but the small company is going up against companies like BEA, IBM, Microsoft and Sun. Convincing a CIO that it can deliver better, , more cost effective support than its billion dollar competitors is a credibility and growth challenge for JBoss and its brethren."

Here is a model of hypocrisy. Roughly translated, it means: "we probably won't buy support from Open Source providers anyway, but we're not going to let that stop us from complaining if the support isn't there."

no not velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')

... that's known as 'acceleration' ...

Re:no not velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the changing quantity isn't position. For instance, dm/dt, dV/dt, dL/dt, etc. Just to be as contrary as you, ;).

Re:no not velocity

[Virtex]

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')

... that's known as 'acceleration' ...

No, acceleration is change of speed, not speed of change.

Re:no not velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

Acceleration is a measure of the change of speed.
Since speed is a change of position,
acceleration is a measure of the change of the change of position.

A measure of change is colloquially "speed",
thus acceleration is a measure of the speed of change.

Or whatever. Christ. It's market-speak, not physics.

Re:no not velocity

[lpangelrob2]

No, acceleration is change of speed, not speed of change.

Maybe then speed of change should be called noitarelecca.

Sheesh. I should just stop posting... :)

Re:no not velocity

[MxReb0]

I'm glad someone pointed this out. People should know this stuff.

Re:no not velocity

[monkeyman_67156]

I beleive that velocity is an accurate descriptor for rapidly changing open source projects. Velocity is a vector, thus it describes both a speed and a direction. Velocity could thus be used to make the statement that open source projects evolve too quickly and they change the goals (ie direction) of the project quicker than some companies are comfortable with.

Astroturf

[heironymouscoward]

It's about technology curves and the cost of software. The cost of technology tends to zero along time. Software is no exception. OSS is that zero. This hurts a lot of vested interests, yes, but it's a rule of life.

Period.

Re:Astroturf

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why today you can pick up a 747 for about the cost of a small nation.

Re:Whats wrong here?

[Uber Banker]

Slashdot is a news aggregator, not an originator. If you want the latest OS-related news then read it on OSnews and similar sites, but if you want a broad mix of the mst important/interesting stories covering as wide (but nerd and OSource slanted) topics as OSes, outsourcing, security, games, legal rights, entertainment, general software and hardware, etc (see the topicspage!) then Slashdot is a great resource bringing them together.

If you like, you can bring your own interest (evidently including OSes) to slashdot by submitting stories and providing insightful and informative comments.

Accountability

[markalot]

I hate to say it, and I don't want to make some hard working open source coder accountable for his/her mistakes, but nevertheless it's gotta be one.

I download PHP and some other tools to get a web site running, wham, something doesn't work, research, research, finally find some note that one author made a change to one module that breaks PHP support, but the PHP folks say it will be fixed in the next version.

You think that's gonna sell in the real world? How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?

Now, how can I sell this idea to a company. Broken is good because hey, we have the source and we can fix it?

Re:Accountability

[finkployd]

You think that's gonna sell in the real world? How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?

Umm, have you USED commercial packages lately? They have bugs also, often just as much as open source software. And don't get me started on incompatibilities with other software (which seems to be your issue)

Finkployd

Re:Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

> How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?

Think about that statement. Now think about the last time your manager bought the latest and greatest add-on module for your CRM system. You know the one that will automatically create all the reports and tune the db - replacing 4 people. What a great investment - the salesperson said it was guaranteed!

Now remember the three hellish months trying to integrate a broken and poorly designed module - only to be finally told by the vendor that some of the API's that are clearly listed in the docs don't really exist yet, but will "real soon now".

So - answernig your original question, ALOT!

Re:Accountability

[Rob Riggs]

How much would you be spending on commercial software support instead? More or less?

Re:Accountability

[texroot]

Believe me, shipping broken packages happens with commercial software as well. We just upgraded a proprietary database package to a newer service pack. First on a test server, then on production. However, the developer testing didn't do a very good job. Turns out the new SP broke another application from the same vendor. Did the vendor have a fix? Nope. We had to do an emergency restore of the old SP. I sure am glad we're relying on a closed source, commercial solution where we have someone to call and be told that there's no fix available.

Re:Accountability

[Schwartzboy]

You think that's gonna sell in the real world? How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?

Let's see...MS Windows 95, Windows 98, Word, Excel, um...help me out here, guys?

Seriously, define "broken". I'm not going to engage in blind MS-bashing just because they're there, so I have to admit that there are some MS apps out of the box that haven't broken immediately or on really simple functions. At the same time, I have to admit that I've used some OSS at one time or another that I'd consider pretty "broken" by any standards. Until we set a baseline for breakage, though, any debate is doomed to devolve into "yeah, it's broken" and "no it's not".

I'll offer up a suggestion, though, that when MS Word crashes on a "print" command with a one-page plain text file open, that's a perfect example of the kind of "broken" we want to target.

Re:Accountability

[ewe2]

There should be a mod category -1 unrealistic (sigh).

Sorry, the real world doesn't work like you imagine: name me a commercial product that hasn't been released broken. Few truthfully acknowledge it. Are you going to get the source from them if they don't have the time/will to fix it themselves? The world's biggest software company treats its customers as unpaid beta testers, charges top dollar for support (if you could call it that) and makes it difficult to research previous issues with a product by moving the webpage address regularly.

From a commercial vendor's position, yes, broken is good, because they have the source, you can't fix it and they never will. But hey, you can buy the next version, can't you?

Re:Accountability

[markalot]

A reply to all the unrealistic - commercial software is broken comments ...

If we pay money for something and it doesn't work it goes back. A better argument against what I said might be ... so you pay for support and you shouldn't care weather or not it's open source. When evaluating solutions we might prefer open source, but what works gets the nod ... plus the question of reliability and upgrade paths has to be answered. When stuff doesn't work people get cold feet.

But then again we have some zealots here saying Microsoft stuff is broken too ... and you know what, it IS because monopilies are unhealthy and monopolistic companies can get away with shipping broken crap. Aren't we supposed to be aiming higher?

Re:Accountability

[mpe]

If we pay money for something and it doesn't work it goes back.

Assuming you can return proprietary software and get your money back. Typically you have just bought the right to use it.

Re:Accountability

[mpe]

Sorry, the real world doesn't work like you imagine: name me a commercial product that hasn't been released broken. Few truthfully acknowledge it. Are you going to get the source from them if they don't have the time/will to fix it themselves?

If a proprietary software company claims "it's a feature not a bug" then you are SOL. With OSS, even if all of the developers try the same kind of thing, you have the ability to get things fixed. As you are not paying for EULAs, so called "support", you probably have the money available to pay to get the software to do what you want/need it to do.

The world's biggest software company treats its customers as unpaid beta testers, charges top dollar for support (if you could call it that) and makes it difficult to research previous issues with a product by moving the webpage address regularly.

In a monopoly situation the supplier has power over the customer. In a free market it's the customer who is in a position of power. With proprietary software a free market is virtually impossible, since copyright law is applied in such a way as to ensure that one entity can control access to source code. With OSS a monopoly is virtually impossible, since copyright law is applied in such a way that access to source code is always freely available to any interested party.

Roadmap not a barrier...

[pholower]

I don't see not having a roadmap as a barrier. Just because you don't have something written down to provide as a goal to reach towards does not make this a barrier. This leaves room for innovation.

People seem to take innovation for granted. I think the true innovators aren't doing it to reach a goal, they are doing it to make things easier for themselves. In the process, they just happen to make something many people like. Think BitTorrent.

While I think of M$ as a car on a road, I think of OpenSource as an offroad vehicle that can go anywhere it pleases, not just where the road tells it to go.

expanding one 7.

[bug1]

7a. Its different than windows so end user would have to use their brain for a short period of time.

7b. Linux may make it difficult to be compatable with windows _users_

7c. Philisophy, some people (capitalist pigs) think that money is required to enable people to work. (windows must be better than linux because nothing good can be free)

Re:expanding one 7.

[DA-MAN]

7b. Linux may make it difficult to be compatable with windows _users_

Seeing how Linux uses and relies upon open standards and Microsoft doesn't even have a standard file format from one version of Office to the next, I would say:

7b. Microsoft makes it difficult to be compatible with non-Microsoft _users_ (OSX has Office which is fine, but doesn't nessecarily mean Windows Users).

Evidence of the winds of change

[ishmalius]

I was mildly surprised to see such a pro-Linux article coming from ZDNet. In the past they have been a solid Microsoft advocate. This seems to be another sign that Open Source is gaining its critical mass.

Re:Evidence of the winds of change

[Roger Keith Barrett]

When you show me an article on cnn.com that has a well reasoned article about Linux and O.S. movement then I will REALLY be impressed.

Re:Evidence of the winds of change

[black mariah]

Or do you think that maybe it's because it's just a different author with different opinions writing an Op/Ed piece? Nah, it couldn't be that. The whole world is either US or THEM, never both...

He is full of crap and CIO's are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source software introduces more complexities in software maintenance, but also promotes more secure and reliable code through rapid bug and vulnerability fixes.
Bull, I use thttpd and haven't needed software maintenance ever. Same with xitami, same with perl version 5.whatever I pick. Its not every freakin package that needs to be updated with Open Source stuff, but I do get the latest pureFTP because they are security fixes, but how many of those are there compared to IIS patches?

Lack of Road Map
That's funny, I haven't seen a TODO file with any MS product ever, this is pure FUD, most FOSS projects have a much more clear and open "roadmap" than any commercial product except when a commercial product wants to derail sales of competing products, then they announce exciting new features just around the corner...

Functional gaps
He doesn't even make a case that this is a problem, which it is not. As repeated here and other places many times, innovation happens at small commercial software companies and through FOSS projects and then is bought/stolen by MS and released to the oblivious IT Management World as MS innovation and they are none the wiser.

Licensing caveats
Please, read groklaw, or take the opposite stand - IBM says GPL (like copyright) works and SCO doesn't own jack.

But, it's clear that software development and business models are changing as a result of open source code.
The only thing that is changing is that there is an Open Source OS and now F/OSS is cool, hip, trendy, buzzworthy, etc. I have to go RMS on him and say that these IT Management level idiots never had a clue about how much of their business ran on lowkey, "not cool cause its not linux" FOSS - bind, sendmail, qmail (we don't like that Dan doesn't have an explicit license that we can poke at, waah!), postfix, mailman, php, perl, *BSD, etc, etc, etc. Now their all "concerned" because there is no formal support - if they knew that their Oracle guys got answers from the Oracle newsgroups and mailing lists and never from the "support" that they are paying 10's of thousands of dollars for, maybe they would have a clue that paid software support is 99% bullshit.

Bottom Line:
Open Source has issues, blah, blah sell trade rag advertising, blah, blah, blah.

Re:He is full of crap and CIO's are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, I committed a "their/there/they're" sin, sorry:
they're all concerned

Roadmaps to Nowhere

[MooseByte]

"3) Lack of roadmap"

Hmmm. Right. Because Microsoft's .NET roadmap has proven to be a real winner. Where would we have been without that roadmap?!? Whew! "We're betting everything on .NET! Oh... never mind."

So many of these roadmaps seem to be little more than packets of high grade "smoke up your ass". They're like parsley. Nobody can figure out why it always seems to end up on the dinner plate, but dammit it better be there. We can't tell if it has a chance in hell of being viable, but we'd better see one from you!

Here's a freakin' roadmap I want to see: "We'll make it more secure, we'll make it suck less."

the biggest barriers of all

[Anonymous Coward]

are zealots and egos

without those things can move forward professionally and in a rational direction

Here's one -- Dependency Hell

[Eberlin]

Ok, so I was running RH9 for a while now, doing the apt-get update/upgrade bit. Got restless and wanted KDE 3.2 so I went to the apt-kde sourceforge place and it worked for a while. Then a recent update/upgrade borked my system. No way out but reinstall. After a reinstall, I could've sworn I followed the well-meaning post on a message board about how to reinstall fonts. Locked up X until I undid all the changes from the command line and rm -rf'ed the font directory I created.

So with an operational system, I decide to go mandrake (don't like the idea of a network install with SUSE and wanted kde-friendly over fedora). Installed it, configured the network connection, rebooted...BOOM, suddenly network connection goes out. Another search on help boards suggests turning on ACPI from somewhere in drakconf. Hunted it down and am in the process of restoring files backed up from my old RH installation.

Just a few minutes ago, I got a segfault from kopete when I was trying it out just for fun. Thinking to install gaim to see if I can get THAT stable.

I love the Open Source, folks, don't get me wrong. However, I lose a bit of cred when I start talking about how tough it is to bork a Linux install. It ain't the viruses and worms -- it's the politics (lack of KDE support in RH), the scattered help sources, incompatible distros, and multiple package sources that end up borking other packages as part of a dependency hell.

Sorry, had to vent -- been mucking with this thing for two days now just trying to restore. On a good note, the 2.6.3 and KDE 3.2 seems pretty quick so far. Much quicker than RH9 was, anyway.

You want Linux adoption? We just may have to dumb it down so much that we take the fun right out of Linux. In short, most people won't jump through that many hoops just so they can run Linux.

Re:Here's one -- Dependency Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Try slackware. Never had these problems. Everytime I use Suse/Redhat, I spend more time getting around their automated/autogenerated configuration systems than on another task.

Slackware justs lets me set things up and go. I just create a script (shell + expect) of each install task. Then I create a disk of the '/', and '/usr', , '/opt', and '/usr/local' partitions . This makes upgrading/downgrading a breeze.

Much easier when you know what you're doing.

Gaps

[k4_pacific]

4) Functional gaps

Remember OSS coders: Be sure to gap all functions at .040" to ensure proper data ignition and to prevent code knocking.

Barriers

[Anonymous Coward]

How can OSS replicate the pre-release access to proprietary hardware and legacy hardware specs so that there is hardware support comparable to MS?

How can OSS replicate the hardware compatibility and certification process?

How can OSS assure the developer that there is a common development environment, common libraries, common look and feel, common certification process so that if the developer invests either $ or time (or both), there will be a large enough market for the product? It doesn't assure success (only uniqueness or excellence does that, but it gives you a chance).

How can OSS provide the same level of documentation the MS does (or the greater MS community does)?

How can OSS provide the common end user experience so that the word of mouth support network that exists for MS products also exists for the common OSS equivalents? It does me no good unless my neighbor has exactly the same experience and environment (multiple distributions are bad)

How can OSS provide the ability to interoperate with the de-facto standards for document exchange? Until you can perfectly read/write/edit/update/print all Word, Excel, Project, PowerPoint products, those in the business community can't take the risk. No matter how cheap OSS is, the cost to me in hassle and lost time over one document outweighs the $ I pay today to MS.

I'm rooting for it. I see that OSS can be used in many server environments. But until the total user experience is superior and carries less risk and cost than the alternative, OSS will be a niche product. Maybe a big niche. But it won't be as pervasive as the MS products are today.

Much of the above is not true in an environment that is not already compute-intensive or one that doesn't have to exchange information with the already established de-facto-standard users.

The current power of MS in the compatibility and uniformity (which can ultimately be a weakness and prevent innovation).

If MS misses a paradigm shift and the killer app becomes only (or better on) OSS such that it is more important than the advantages MS now has, then OSS can expand and envelope.

number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The number 1 reason why open source fails to be adopted in corporations is that open source fails the largest costs of using a software package:
1. support
2. installation
3. deployment
4. documentation
5. deploying updates

The initial cost of software is not a big deal to companies because they spend many times more than that after the software is purchased.

Re:number 1 reason

[cascadefx]

According to the announcements at Novell's Brainshare this past week, it looks like all but documentation will be taken care of:

1. support

Novell, IBM, and HP are teaming up to offer 3 pronged support options (including training) for Linux and the products that Enterprises will run on top of it.

2. installation

Not only will installation be covered, but so will migrations away from Windows ( automagically ... the demo is cool to watch) with the new version of Zenworks from Novell. Installation support is offered by Novell, HP and IBM.

3. deployment

Also covered by Zenworks with its new integration of Ximian's Red Carpet.

5. deploying updates

Again, Red Carpet and Zenworks offer solutions to this.

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the number 1 reason for windows to be adopted, as well.

do you know how many companies I contracted for in the last 3 months that are still running NT 4.0 domains?

27

between 15 and 3000 employees, these companies know they are up shit creek.

but they can't deal with the support, installation, deployment, documentation and updates of Win2k or 2k3.

so guess what, your list is accurate, but your theory that this is soley a problem for linux is not.

companies in general just can't cope with change...any change.

the fact is, I'd never tell any exec to wholesale sack all their windows systems and replace everything with linux.

that would be stupid.

smart moves like putting an smtp relay in front of your exchange server running slack/*bsd or setting up utility servers running redhat or suse file mirror servers etc...

but no.

most middle/upper management have their heads so far up their ass, that I can't even get them to make sensible moves to the next Microsoft version, like getting off of exchange 5.5.

no, buddy.

i think you got it all wrong. you actually sound like one of those execs, who is great at parroting what they read in business week.

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction:

Windows 2000 + office 2000/xp is a good enough solution for most large/small/tiny corporations for the next 5 or more years.

Several local large companies have skipped every other major version of windows due to the high cost of upgrading every other year.

Open source doesn't stop the upgrade every other year treadmill.

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Zenworks has nothing to with "open source".

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets take a brief look at each, with a look from a open source perspective. Not one based of FUD.

1. support

Hm, bug and security fixes come out quite quick for open source. Maybe that's what they mean by velocity. And when you post the problems out to the correct places usually someone will give you the fix in hours or days. No waiting to get by some outsourced dialing with promises of next patch cluster due in 8 months. And if you don't like someones solution, pay someone to modify it for you as you have the source code.

2. installation

I will bet any Microsoft bigot that I can do a full install with patches from OEM CDs of RH Linux before they can get Windows (any version) installed with patches. To top it off, Linux is less likely to get hacked, infected or otherwise compromized while downloading the patches as it comes with a real packet filter (no extra charge).

3. deployment

dd is simple to use, the only problems users of Linux have hear is which of the dozens of ways to do it do you want to use. (Included with the OS of course). No need to find a copy of ghost, although I do believe ghost does Linux also.

4. documentation
Fingers broken? Google, Amazon, Linux sites. Maybe the solution here is a literacy test. You can even read the source code for the most minute of detail. But of course reading "man" pages is a foreign concept at least to one NT admin I know.

5. deploying updates

Yep, Linux can apply all patches in one reboot. Man, ever try installing XP or W2000Pro? "How many reboots are we up to today?" rpm with ssh/rsync anyone? Anyone ever look at Microsoft's policy settings (if you can find the one your looking for).

For the unmentioned security - will save that for another day, but when updating windows - hope you can get the patch before your infected might just be a prayer.

Re:number 1 reason

[cbreaker]

Well, when upgrades can be deployed with the on-staff IT people, and they won't incurr any software costs, open source software provides a nice strady way to keep your systems upgraded.

The biggest reason for not deploying the next MS version are mostly cost, or other reasons like hardware capabilities. But mostly because upgrades for Windows and Office are boat loads of cash.

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

un huh updates.

This just proves the guy that wrote the article has no clue what he is talking about.

I mean how f-ing hard is it to put up a ftp server on a LAN and keep deps, or rpms in your private mirror that you have have. And then run "apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade" on all the client machines in a cron job????

This is hell of a lot easier then doing it the MS way were you have to have special software to push the updates down, or hirer 5 peons to go around and hit the update button the the taskbar.

Re:number 1 reason

[jefe7777]

and low and behold, i wonder over to the inquirer...

"Windows NT4 remains highly popular"

The link at the Inq

I guess the parent is on to something. It's not about being afraid to migrate to linux, these geniuses are afraid to migrate period.

Re:number 1 reason

[JPriest]

I like the "(including training)" part. Does that mean everyone gets a free 20 minute power point presentation before we stick them on something they have never seen and say "there".

Does that mean they will anwer questions over the phone from the technical point of contact?

Maybe, but what it does not mean is they won't hire someone to stand behind every single user for 3 days showing them how to do trivial things like using a clip board again or explaining that QT uses it's own clipboard that does not work with some other applications. Or maybe they will search around on freshmeat to try and replace the 100 or so windows apps people are using that nobody thought of. Out of those 100 or so apps there might be partial replacements for like 40 of them, and of those 40 maybe 8 of them will have packages that will install on what ever version of what ever distro we decide to deploy. Maybe the guy standing behind them will su to root for them every 5 minutes so they can do things like change the screen resolution.

I don't care how bad you hate MS, Linux is nowhere near ready for end users.

Re:number 1 reason

[d99-sbr]

IMHO you are confusing corporate users and home users. Without doubt, home users are disappointed in many of the unpolished sides of OSS.

However, for corporate use, I do not believe this is the case. I have worked as combined developer/part time sys admin for a few corporations, and the situation you describe is unrealistic.

The clipboard situation of Gnome/KDE, of course, is unforgivable. I have no personal experience with this so I simply have to take your word for it.

Those 100 apps you are talking about are not the ones that are typically running on a workstation. All software that is needed for operating business are there, or else switching to OSS had been out of the question in the first place. This includes typical business software, plus the various tools that were developed in house or by consultants.

Also, users do not typically change system settings without contacting IT support. Most Windows boxes are so locked down that the only thing you are allowed to change are things like desktop background picture and IE home page. And I believe this is a good thing.

Bottom line: At the companies I've worked for (mainly 100-400 employees), I don't see any major obstacles to a comany wide OSS rollout.

Re:number 1 reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the guy standing behind them will su to root for them every 5 minutes so they can do things like change the screen resolution.

Ctrl-Alt-Plus. I don't recall having to su to do that. But most corporate workstations these days have fixed resolution flat panel displays anyway, and even Windows is set up by any clueful admin to require administrative rights to fuck with the settings.

Heck, my work PC doesn't even let me access any files outside My Documents and the company intranet, and I have to go on hands and knees to the IT department to get any software installed that isn't part of the standard company setup. So much for users with Windows shareware apps being upset because they can't run them on Linux: no well-run company will have users running software the IT department doesn't know is there.

I'll give you the clipboard point though, Linux's clipboard handling sucks.

Re:number 1 reason

[More Trouble]

Rather than claim that closed source products don't incur these costs, I'd say the are invariant.

1. support

Have you used the (offshore) support that comes with shrink-wrapped software? Give me a break. In addition to the mailing list that every software package comes with, the mailing list that the authors reads, if you're interested in paying someone for support, try IBM.

4. documentation

O'Reilly?

2. installation
3. deployment
5. deploying updates

These three can be done on a massive scale with radmind, a piece of open source software.

:w

Re:number 1 reason

[mpe]

IMHO you are confusing corporate users and home users. Without doubt, home users are disappointed in many of the unpolished sides of OSS.

IME this is a common problem with quite a few "Slashdotters". Whilst end user administration might be a good thing on a home PC it is a very bad thing on a workstation.

Also, users do not typically change system settings without contacting IT support.

Doing so being likely to get them shouted at or even looking for another job.

Most Windows boxes are so locked down that the only thing you are allowed to change are things like desktop background picture and IE home page. And I believe this is a good thing.

In the corporate environment end users being able to install software is generally a very bad thing. Installing unlicenced software or malware is not good for business.

Uhh... look again

[The Uninformed]

"The article makes an interesting counterpoint to Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons for open source adoption."

right at the end of the editor's post.

Re:Uhh... look again

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a counterpoint tard... the parent was mentioning how after each point was made the author explained why it wasnt an issue effectively being a piece parallel to Marc Anderssen's rather than against it. RTFPost

Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[Eric Smith]

The article says:

Many open source projects suffer from an informality that causes CIOs anxiety. Most IT executives want a clear roadmap for products so that they can better plan for their future and select vendors.

Most proprietary software vendors don't offer any roadmap, and where they do, it's usually too vague. The roadmap usually changes dramatically over time, and the software is often years late. Look at what happened with the mythical "Cairo" release of Windows NT, and now with "Longhorn". How is this sort of roadmap of any use to CIOs and IT executives?

Open source software typically doesn't make any promises, so there are none to be broken. But where there is a roadmap, in my experience the open source projects do a better job of meeting it than proprietary software does. Still often behind schedule, but typically not by as much.

Although not as vile as the typical anti-open-source journalism, this is nevertheless just a FUD story.

Eric

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads! -- Emmett "Doc" Brown, Back to the Future

For those with a logic and drama background

[ClosedSource]

Six straw arguments in search of a breeze.

I Agree! Almost.

[ljavelin]

I agree with the points as presented - I believe that they can be a barrier to entry.

On the other hand, not all open source products suffer from those "barriers", and many closed source products do.

Lack of formal support? Damn, most of the packages my company purcahsed don't have any formal support. I remember one commercial software package we bought for about $100,000: the sales guy sold us some support, charging us 10% of the initial purchase price annually. But that support was ineffective. When we found major bugs, they took many months to address them (if ever). And finally, when the vendor was bought up by a 3rd party, the product was abandoned and is now truly unsupported. Bummer for the CIO, who now has to go to the plate to fire up a $1 million replacement project.

Re:I Agree! Almost.

[Tackhead]

> Bummer for the CIO, who now has to go to the plate to fire up a $1 million replacement project.

CIO: Wasn't my fault, CEO. Those damn bastards at $VENDOR got taken over by $SHITCO, and you know how $SHITCO is when they take anything over. I'll need another $1M and another 2 years to finish the project. By the way, how's the wife, kids, and handicap?

CEO: Damn, that sucks. I hate $SHITCO. Here's a million bucks. Wifenkids are good, but I'm looking forward to getting some time away from 'em this summer to work on my backswing.

CIO: SCORE! (I'm so glad $VENDOR got taken over, or I'd have been screwed. Now all I have to do is rm -rf /lastyearcrappyproject, and in return, I get two years of job security and another million bucks' worth of toys to buy! I rule!)

Re:Farber Forgot #7

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh do we ever have clueless suits amongst the mods today! Flamebait? Flamebait my ass. /. has a serious problem.

Change #1...

[mao che minh]

...and use Citrix Metaframe XP. They have a Linux client that rocks (I use it here at work). Something tells me that MS won't be writing a Linux client for terminal services any time soon.

Re:Change #1...

[XorNand]

Citrix CALs run about $300 per seat. Windows XP Pro is about $300. Kinda defeats the purpose.

Need a roadmap to a VM

[alext]

3) Lack of roadmap

This is a valid criticism, but only when compared with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world.

FOSS projects have roadmaps, but there's no strategy at the level of platforms or information systems in general - each project is an autonomous part of the IT elephant. This means that no one can rationalize and coordinate between projects.

Is this a problem?

It might be. Look at Dotnet vs. Linux + Java or Mono or PHP. If MS got their act together they could simplify the Dotnet world a lot, offering a consistent and complete environment for information management. Meanwhile, we'll still be dealing with such mixed bags as file permissions, database permissions, htaccess files and Java security policies since these are all separate projects with no prospect of rationalization or consolidation.

Fortunately, at least with present MS management silos, this is unlikely to happen, however the general air of complacence concerning the unstoppable march of FOSS is probably misplaced.

What matters is what IBM, HP, Sun, Apple push

[tyrione]

Open Source is growing in the Enterprise and rightly due to the aforementioned vendors adding OSS components, if not systems, to their vendor price list.

Mindshare takes time and advertisement from sources people traditionally find credible.

What needs to be improved is the Documentation processes that will only make adoption of such Systems, along-side paid consulting services, Reality.

Open Source challenges not only the creative aspirations of developers but also the disciplinary aspects of making such visions understandable and easily consumable by the constituents it is meant to aide

Re:What matters is what IBM, HP, Sun, Apple push

[man_ls]

IBM is doing a great job with their mindshare and Linux...some of the best commercials I've seen about it.

IBM commercials in general are steller, however. They do less selling of a product and more just putting what IBM does, or can do, out in the open, with some kind of clever anecdode. (Business Time Machine being one, etc.)

The best commercials are the ones that don't sell a *thing*, they're the ones that sell an *idea* and link that idea to a particular physical implimentation of such. IBM hit this directly on the head.

(slightly off topic to the article but on-topic to the parent)

Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[Roger Keith Barrett]

Again.. as I wrote above, if they are concerned about the roadmap then they need to GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT and help SET THE AGENDA themselves. As a matter of fact, if they did this their needs would be serviced a lot more quickly and thoroughly than trying to work with any big bloated software company.

I think this point is just showing their exceutive lazyness.

Corporate customers could solve most of this

[Angst Badger]

Where issues of licensing, support, and future plans are concerned, corporate customers can in most cases get what they want by acting more like, um, customers. With the exception of a few hard-core ideologues like RMS and his camp, the overwhelming majority of open source developers would be only too happy to cut special licensing deals, commit to varying degrees of tech support, or implement special features if the interested parties would just cut them a check.

Now, I know that for many of us, our primary business isn't business as such, but most of us probably aren't averse to cutting a deal for a fair price. We're just not too interested in jumping through hoops for free.

Re:Corporate customers could solve most of this

[burns210]

i think of this as the 90% rule...

To switch form Windows to Linux, you save X number of dollars in licenses, that X, to save money immediately, needs to go to any training(minimal on a locked-down workstation) configuring (get a linux guru and make images of a solid secure locked-down workstation and any server stuff, etc). Now, to save money, you need to do training and config for X-1.

Basicly, what i am trying to say is that you can take the X number of dollars and spend 90% of it on doing a custom support package from a developer, configure your workstations, or whatever, and still have a 10% INITIAL savings on making the move.... Generally, the X (if you are in a moderate to large company) is gonna be big enough that you can do a lot and still have a 10% savings from the get go.

Barriers my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to see your barriers removed, get Mandrake 10 community or any distro with KDE 3.2! KDE 3.2, despite a .1 upgrade (think apple, but without the $129 gouging) is a major revoloution in usabillity.

Mandrake 10 community was incredibly easy to install, unlike Windows (you try installing Windows from scratch, I mean 10 recovery CDs come with my system, WTF?!?!?!?.

Despite a few bugs, which are being solved as I speak and in time for Mandrake 10 offical. All 6 points will be obilterated, and here are some more good reasons

• Ultra easy to use
• Extremely good hardware support
• First major distro to come with a video editor, KDE'n'live
• Comes with urpmi technology, never face dependancy hell again!

It is really good. I will concider buying the offical version when it comes out!

Re:Barriers my ass.

[startup.cmd]

Mandrake 10 community was incredibly easy to install, unlike Windows (you try installing Windows from scratch, I mean 10 recovery CDs come with my system, WTF?!?!?!?.

OEM (Dell, HP) copies of Windows are never any fun to reinstall. Try installing from the retail Windows CD. It hardly asks any questions, installs like it's supposed to, plus it has a cool little song at the end.

--

It's the frosting and the candles

[Twillerror]

Time and time again I turn to non open source
solutions because they simply are more complete. Another term is also "commerical qualitity". MS doesn't put out products that have broken buttons, and crappy images. They don't have desktops that look like crap, and are hard to navigate. A front end is put on everything, by the same team that puts out the backend.

Even things like installers for your apps versus a centralized approach like RPMs or Debian packages have a big impact. People have to be able to double click, and get a friendly click next 10 times kind of install. You can argue that this is just because they are used to it, but it doesn't really matter, they want it. You can pull of the same thing if you make sure you OS can detect them on a double click, but you also need the packages to contain a way to make the install look like it is from them.

The OS community is growing in the server market and tech departments because most of us don't care about it. Still some of us are busy developing on top of the server and don't want to have to deal with a lot of the server maintance stuff. Windows NT strikes a balance.

Another peave I have with the *nix approach is the use of OS based sub-systems to pull off functionality. It is a very valid approach to problems, but one that I don't particularly like and is a reason why Windows does better then *nix in the larger sense IMHO.

An example of what I'm trying to say is using things like file system links to pull things off, verus having a file that repersent a shortcut. Using a link for a web sever to redirect, verus the web server having a list of those links, Also using a list of shell scripts to pull something off, versus having a GUI tool that integrates them directly.

The large impact that this has is that it makes every program more dependent on large sets of smaller executable tools. Windows has a GUI for everything, and in most cases command line tools in the resource kit for those that need to write scripts. Having a GUI for everything just makes them look more professional, versus having to learn configuration files and such. With XP these things are even dumbed down to amazing levels. MS knows this, and Linux doesn't want to admit it, we can't turn the world into a bunch of command line whizs.

Most open source tools have a GUI or some kind of configuration helping tool, but most are from another party that is affiliated with the main group. IT execs hate this. If you are going to put out a product, put out a complete one. Everything has to have a unifing theme.

Re:It's the frosting and the candles

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't administer servers. Sure, the eye candy and nice clicky GUI might be nice for dumb users, but this is very slow for real admins.

The crap you spew about filesystem links and web servers isn't even correct. Go back you your next MCSE training session, luser.

Dependency Hell Is A Solved Problem

[krmt]

When people bitch about how long Debian takes to release a new version, now you know exactly why. It's hard to get software in really solid shape in and of itself, and then on top of that you have to get the packages working together nicely. This is hard work, and you've now seen why. Sure, you can always grab pre-release packages from outside sources, but these haven't gone through the Q&A that your distro provides. Packages coming from within the distro itself should play nicely together. That's the point of a distro, after all.

If you want to suggest these things to your bosses, be prepared to live with the tradeoffs. You can have stable software that's nice, but you'll pay the price in that it won't be shiny and new. Or you can have the new stuff, but be prepared to play "perpetual beta tester".

Any Linux install is easy to fuck up, if you try hard enough. You obviously tried very hard to fuck yours up, and did a good job of it. If you're suggesting Linux to a professional admin, hopefully they'll be a little more clue'd in about how their system works than you are, and will be able to deal with their system properly. As an example, I run Debian unstable on my desktop, a system which is known for having bugs pop up from time to time. But I know how to deal with them and it's never ever amounted to a reinstall, and only about twice in the last four years has it even interrupted my workflow. As another example, Gentoo allows you to completely fuck up your machine if you want very easily, and yet tons of people can't stop gushing about how easy it is to use. If you know how to deal with potential problems, Linux is an amazing choice, mainly because those problems are relatively transparent compared to something like Windows.

Oh, and I don't know how it is for Fedora or Mandrake, but in Debian, the majority of the docs that you'll ever want are located in /usr/share/doc/packagename or the program's manpage (if a program doesn't have a manpage, that's considered a bug). It's very rare that I have to go outside those two sources to figure out how to do something on my system.

the REAL #1 Reason...

[networkGhettoWhore]

No sex appeal. Seriously, the reputation of F/OSS advocates not being able to get any fends off any potential converts.

Re:the REAL #1 Reason...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

You're right, we need more pretty girls in bikinis to promote OSS.

Roadmap

[Greyfox]

Funny, it's my experience that Microsoft releases their blue-sky roadmap on future products years in advance of those products being released, and the products usually have less than half the features the blue-sky said they would.

Maybe from now on every OSS project should release a similar blue-sky about what their project will do in 5 years. For example "Gimp 6.0 will not only edit your images for you without you having to do anything at all, it'll also clean your toilets and bring you breakfast in the morning!"

Re:Roadmap

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think those "blue sky" roadmaps fall under the general category of "derail any competing products".

You are now entering the OT Zone:
Amiga, OS/2 BeOS, Mac? They had/have their faults, but the roadmap strategy has worked very well for MS against commercial products. You might say BeOS never got big enough, yeah, right, exactly... Why do you think they kept running around saying "We're a 'multimedia' OS, don't mind us..." - because they wanted to try to stay off of MS's radar. Personally, I think BeOS was the most advanced desktop OS to date. Lots of advanced concepts and it worked.

Retarded mods

[Anonymous Coward]

Figures, a Flamebait comment gets modded Informative just because it bashes MS and not beacuse it actually contains any real information.

Google Weirdness

[Tin Foil Hat]

This is strange. Google is picking up the link to yesterday's /. article as though it were this one. Currently it says it was scraped 10 minutes ago.

http://news.google.com/news/en/us/technology.html
http://news.google.com/url?ntc=04SJ0&q=http://slas hdot.org/articles/04/03/22/138243.shtml%3Ftid%3D10 6

What about the rights of the mother?

[fmaxwell]

Hell yes, there are barriers to open source adoption. Most women who give their babies up for adoption don't want to be contacted by the child in the future. Nor do they want everyone on the Internet to know that they had a child and put it up for adoption. The source of a baby put up for adoption should remain a secret. Otherwise, there will be fewer women willing to put their babies up for adoption. Why are we even discussing this?

(Being a typical Slashdot user, I didn't really read the article, but I'm sure that I know enough to comment just based on the title.)

Downgrade

[krmt]

I download PHP and some other tools to get a web site running, wham, something doesn't work, research, research, finally find some note that one author made a change to one module that breaks PHP support, but the PHP folks say it will be fixed in the next version.

You're making a site and all of a sudden it stops working while you're in the middle of developing it? What'd you do? Upgrade one of those tools? Just downgrade it until the fix you need is released. Geez, this is basic admininstration here, whether the source is open or closed.

groupware

[minus_273]

there are no good free groupware clients that work as well cross platform like Exchange. Consider that fact that there are exchange clients on OSX, Linux and Windows. Look at the OSS rivals :kolab costs money to work with windows and the other one Opengroupware is just such a pain to install..

KDE 3.2 has the frosting. (please try).

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another person who has not tried KDE 3.2 in conjuction with Mandrake 10 or the soon to be released SuSE 9.1 and Lindows 5. If I had mod points right now this post would be rightfully modded flamebait, but since I don't, I am going to take the bait to stop ignorant comments like yours from popping up again.

All modern distros let you SINGLE click an RPM, enter your root password, dependacies automaticaly solved and and installed without having to type in 50 digit serial numbers, product activation, spyware included.

Modern Distros have a GUI for everything, firewalls, cd burning, bootloader configuration, network configuratrion, progrmmming tools (see Kdevelop for exxample)

So stop your TROLLING and download a modern linux distro and see for yourself and stop using crap distros like debian!

Open Source vs the Rest

[boltoflightning]

It's like a battle between Good & Evil isn't it?
The Open, Connected vs the Closed, Hidden.
This reminds me of something George Harrison wrote:

I don't know how someone controlled you

They bought and sold you.

I could answer the question of how.
It's done behind walls erected to hide it.

VOTE OPEN SOURCE! BRING DOWN THE WALL? :-)

Maybe the BORG kinda had the right idea?
With no walls/barriers, we're all connected right?
I just wouldn't want to LOOK so UNFASHIONABLE! heh

What would happen if the BORG assimilated MS?
What about something truly evil?
Personal question! How can we know true evil?
If _I_ was evil would I know?
If I was & didn't know, wouldn't evil look GOOD to me?
Does good=life & evil=death?
At what level do we draw that line? heh
Sorry, lotsa question marks. I don't know anything... I only feel--

Re:Open Source vs the Rest

[Pop69]

"What would happen if the BORG assimilated MS?"

How would anyone tell the difference ?

Re:Open Source vs the Rest

[Anonymous Coward]

Na, MS is even more evil than the borg, by the time MS finish with the borg they would the MS borg.

And still a few more....

[Anonymous Coward]

11. #7 is true because they listen to what customers want and respond to it, while OSS shows little more than contempt for users unless they are hardcore, long-time *nix geeks.

12. Most OSS is horrible. It's free, and people still pay to use Microsoft products. Think about it. I say this as a Firebird user and part-time Linux user. Most of the apps are incredibly horrible.

13. Installing or tweaking Linux is still incredibly cumbersome, and next to impossible for someone who hasn't used it for years. This doesn't mean MS is perfect by any stretch, but they've done a much better job to help the user configure things.

14. Political OSS zealots who fabricate or exaggerate MS problems or OSS benefits, which never come true and invariably leave the switcher feeling duped and let down.

People are ripe for jumping ship after years of worms (mostly due to stupid users and stupid admins who don't patch their systems) and other issues. Nobody is giving them a good way to switch or a compelling reason. That isn't MS's fault.

Re:And still a few more....

[Mr. Slippery]

Most OSS is horrible.

Yes, it is. However, most proprietary software is even more horrible.

Re:And still a few more....

[mpe]

Installing or tweaking Linux is still incredibly cumbersome, and next to impossible for someone who hasn't used it for years. This doesn't mean MS is perfect by any stretch, but they've done a much better job to help the user configure things.

But often a hopless job of enabling a sysadmin to configure things such that a user does not need to (or indeed cannot) mess around with settings.

Political OSS zealots who fabricate or exaggerate MS problems or OSS benefits,

There is plenty of zealotry in the proprietary software camp. Quite a bit of it has been comming from both MS and SCO recently.

This is how it is

[shadewind]

Barriers or not, this is how OSS works and probably always will work. Speed of changes? Well, it's called development and there really is no reason to hold back patches or something. Informal support? Yeah, it's developed by a community, what were you expecting? No roadmap? That's because OSS product are not marketed and does not intend to be. It's developed by a community, and the community definately won't try to suit companies just for OSS to suceed on the corporate side as that's not the goal of OSS.

Re: Mod parent up!

[dokebi]

Excellent point. Better tools gets the job done faster. And open source dev tools are one of the best and most flexible out there.

Counterpoint article from CIO Magazine

[StarWynd]

There was an article from CIO Magazine earlier this month which dispells some of the myths surrounding open source from a CIO viewpoint. An interesting read.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod the parent post up. it's funny as $H|7!

to the mental deficient who did a troll mod on it, get a sense of humor!

Re: Linux is not a religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...

Quite a few people put "Jedi" as their religion on the last go-around of the census in England. I wonder how many people might consider actually putting down Linux as their religion on the next census.

3rd one not so silly

[Animaether]

It's not so much a "yeah, you have to install & setup everything anyway" thing as a "how long, and how much effort, does it take to install & setup everything."

Prime example being the ESR piece :
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

Re:3rd one not so silly

[jedidiah]

That never slowed down Oracle & friends.

You don't seem to realize just how complex enterprise software tends to be. By way of comparison, CUPS is identical to WinDOS.

It's like comparing Earth & Pluto to THE SUN.

custom kernel??

[btSeaPig]

For example, what happens if Red Hat wants a specific modification in the Linux kernel but Linus Torvalds and the Open Source Development Labs don't agree?

uhh.. It happens all the time dan.

Re:No decent HTML/PHP Editors!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

Mod post down! It's total flamebait and lies!

[Anonymous Coward]

I really CAN'T belive that ignorant moderators are modding this shit up! It is complete flamebait, troll and is nearly as bad as goatse.cx!

First of all, he implies that open source is ugly, it is not! KDE has had deep theming aballities since KDE 2.0, which was lauched a year before XP! Look at the screenshots! Do they look ugly to you?.

Windows installers are NOT just double click, click next! Oh no! Get out your instruction manuals and jewl cases and get ready to enter that 50 digit serial number. Ooops you have to reboot. Ooops its installed something in your boot sector. Ooops you have a purple monkey laughing at you! Linux on the other hand lets you SINGLE click (thats easier), your root password (and some distros don't even make you do that) and your installed. With no reboot nesscessary.

Linux has a GUI for everything, stop trolling, or are you using Debian, Slackware or other old distro? Tell me how hard Yast or Drakconf is! Oh wait you can't!

Unified themes have been the standard since Redhat 8.0! most distros come with a unified theme, with Keramik being the most dominant!

So, It is obvious that this person (sic) hasn't tried Linux for at least 2 years! If he did, he would of not posted all of this flamebait!

He is also a member of the anti-slash group!

Re:Mod post down! It's total flamebait and lies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah, let's pick a single example and extrapolate that on entire OS and applications family. Why don't you pick Fetchmail screenshots under Gnome, no?

The link is to the screenshots section of kdelook.org. It contains many many screenshots, all of which look quite nice.

Fetchmail is ugly? Don't fucking use fetchmail, then. There are plenty of other ways to set up e-mail.

A Windows installer is an MSI file, dumbass. It comes either on a CD or from the Internet. The general schema is as follows: Welcome -> Where to install it -> Special Options -> Install -> Done. The special options can be skipped if the user wants everything to be by default.

You can't skip the serial number entry. Most Linux applications don't have that. Many Windows installers still request/require reboots, even if they aren't strictly needed.

Ok, set up a virtual host on Apache or read the data off USB flash reader with no command line on your favorite distro.

Where's your graphical tool for configuring Apache on Windows?

Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[Tackhead]

> Again.. as I wrote above, if they are concerned about the roadmap then they need to GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT and help SET THE AGENDA themselves. As a matter of fact, if they did this their needs would be serviced a lot more quickly and thoroughly than trying to work with any big bloated software company.

SET THE AGENDA?!?! How do you SET THE AGENDA if nobody's paying the bills?

CIO: Hi, we're 2/3 of the way through a $300M 4-year project, and looking for an application that does Foo. I see OpenFoo 0.3 on SourceForge that's pretty close - everything but Feature X with Technology Y - but OpenFoo 0.3 hasn't been updated in about six months.

OpenFoo Leader: Yeah, I got it working as good as I needed it, you can submit your changes to it.

CIO: No, we can't divert resources to OpenFoo - we need to know whan OpenFoo will have Feature X so we can interoperate with Technology Y. When were you planning on implementing it? Feature X would really make our lives easier, 'cuz we've already committed 2 years on Technology Y, and we can't go back.

OpenFoo Leader: Umm, whenever I got around to it. I guess.

CIO: So in the next six to eight weeks?

OpenFoo Leader: Hey man, you want it fixed, you can fix it yourself or whatever! Download the code and figure it out. Who the fuck are you anyways? You wanna use my code, fine, but don't expect, like, a roadmap or anything! I wrote it 'cuz I thought it was an interesting problem to solve. I didn't write the code just so you could use it! Who the fuck are you, man? Like, what makes you think I'm your coding bitch!

CIO: Well, OK, how 'bout we hire you as our coding bitch on short-term contract? $60/hour if you can fix within three weeks?

OpenFoo Leader: Naw, I've already got a day job, don't really have time to dig through all that stuff, and besides, paying for software is wrong.

CIO: Fine, we'll just have to use something other than OpenFoo.

OpenFoo Leader: OK, whatever, man. *click*

CIO: Fuck, we'll just buy 100 licenses from Vendor Z, because Vendor Z has said publicly that they'll have the feature in revision 4.3 that comes out next week, and if not, by 4.4 sometime next quarter, either of which is good enough for us.

It is a BULLSHIT argument

[SmallFurryCreature]

Or did people forget how often MS has ignored roadmaps en planned release dates? Wasn't there a whole story on how all the suckers who bought license 6.0 have gotten no new software for their money?

Now all of a sudden there is XP Rebloated or something shoved into this fantasy roadmap and longhorn has wandered of god knows where. Yup MS has roadmaps alright. It just doesn't follow them. But I suppose they are usefull you can read them and what is on them is EXACTLY what will NOT happen.

But why do they fall for it then? Because people are stupid short-sighted lazy and greedy. Roadmaps are nice things to show in powerpoint presentations to management when they are wondering why that huge IT budget still isn't delivering solutions that just fucking work.

"At the moment there are some problems wich we are working with but Look, a chart here says MS will fix it all no later then tomorrow". Kinda sad that grown men and women still don't get that one.

Most of the other arguments are bullshit ones. One not mentioned but still often used is "Opensource has no guarantees, no one I can sue" this is apparently used by companies without lawyers. Since any lawyer will tell you that sueing MS is pointless. Windows destroyed your data? Though. Of course this is true for all software for some reason. If I buy a truck and it explodes destroying my factory the truck manufacturer will have to pay for it but software seems to be a "you bought it, your risk" kinda product.

Oh well, off reading the rest of the comment. Kinda intrestting to keep track of them. Have you noticed people switched from the old "I don't use linux because I like my soundcard to work" to "I don't use linux bacause I like my digital camera to work"?

YES.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The board room?! You really think people talk about the fucking operating system they use in the board room?

Yes. Especially if it has to do with a muti-million dollar roll-out of new technology. Don't kid yourself, Linux in the Enterprise does cost money. You think Red Hat, Novell, and IBM give it away? And what about the equipment? So, YES, Open Source issues ARE discussed in the board room.

Have a nice day!

mmm, I wonder unix costs windows so that means..

[SmallFurryCreature]

Unix is better and those buying cheap windows get what they pay for? Certainly explains a lot.

Gladly it is also not true. Red Hat is more then happy to charge more then MS does. Windows you get from dell. Linux you get from IBM. If you think IBM is cheaper then Dell you are a loony.

To a company with an IT budget Linux isn't free. Free as in freedom perhaps, but at least the first buy is free. It is not even as it is cheaper because there are less upgrades. If you bought Windows 2000 then you are sitting pretty right? No expensive upgrades until Longhorn somewhere beyond 2008? 8 years without any new license having to be bought? Not bad MS. Oh you bought License 6.0. Well we all told you that was silly wasn't it. Don't worry, your boss okayed it first time so just Powerpoint him into okaying the License renewal. What they don't know they can't use to fire you.

There is really only why we haven't seen Linux sweep away the market yet. TIME.

Try to look back at history and look at the PC "revolution". Exactly how long did MS take to become really powerfull in companies? Didn't exactly happen overnight did it? The IBM ad says it all. Linux is young, but he is learning.

More retarded mods

[Anonymous Coward]

A well thought out comment, and it gets modded Funny?

Re:More retarded mods

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it wasn't negative. I'll take what I can get. :)

Time to fess up.

[XorNand]

I'm a consultant who runs my own network management biz. I support the networks of small businesses that can't afford a fulltime geek. Nothing special 'bout me--everyone and their brother does what I do. I'm 26 and have been doing this kind of work since HS. I'm an NT 4.0 MCSE, along Novell, Citrix and some CompTIA ones.

I'm hardly an MS tool, but you have to understand the practicalities of things. When I take over an account, my customers already have MS solutions. Everyone uses Windows at home. I cut my teeth on MS-DOS 3.3, then Win 3.11, 95, et al. Like any normal geek, I've toyed around with Linux but I'm no expert with it. I haven't had the time to invest in learning Linux because I need to stay ontop of all the stuff in the MS world, plus I'd like to have some semblence of a life.

I'd *love* to move my customers over to OS alternatives purely for personal idealogical reasons. However, I can't ethically push OS on my customers for that reason. So, my question to /.ers like Yoda2 is... how exactly do I go about switching them over? I'm attaching this missive to his posting because what I need is a plan like his, but obviously more thought out. I need to make a business case out of it. My plan *has* to save my customer money. And most importantly, it *has* to work with a minimal amount of hassle--if I'm going to be rolling this stuff out, I need time to get up to speed with it. My customers love me because I know my shit when it comes to Windows; I make things work. If I screw up, my rep suffers, I lose accounts and then I find a night job stocking grocery stories.

To all the people who flame MCSEs to a crispy cinder, understand: this is how I earn my living. Businesses run MS software and need someone to make it work. That's as simple as it gets.

Re:Time to fess up.

[phoenix.bam!]

Honestly, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I have a business similar to what you do, and sometimes the best solution is to not do anything at all. If windows works use it. There are some things that linux is nice for, and some things windows is nice for. There is no reason to be idealogical about choosing what to deploy.

No, you're the only idiot.

[black mariah]

Pull your fucking blinders off.

So because three packages you use haven't required upgrades, Open Source software doesn't develop more rapidly than proprietary? No, fuckwit, it's those particular packages that develop slow.

FUD? No, you're just to fucking stupid to realize this is a PRO-OSS article. Did you even bother reading the damn thing, or are you just going off of the paragraph headings as to what the article's about?

Yes, gaps are a problem. How many places use Linux systems for architectural and product design (CAD/CAM), or publishing work? Few, if any. Lack of programs such as AutoCAD and Photoshop (which are de facto standards) is a HUGE gap that simply isn't filled by anything available right now (no, Gimp isn't a replacement, no matter how much ball licking its supporters do).

Not many companies want to release a software product to a resounding wave of bitching from OSS geeks that one of their programmers copied a line from some obscure OSS project, meaning the entirety of their project has to be released as source. THAT is the licensing issues. Also, Groklaw and IBM aren't exactly a judgement handed down from a court. Of course they're going to argue opposite SCO, they're a law-oriented OSS advocacy site and the COMPANY THAT SCO IS SUING. Yeah, they're going to be really fucking credible in the eyes of PHB's everywhere.

But this is all moot because you're too damned stupid to realize that this is an article arguing FOR OSS.

Sell them ASP instead.

[SmallFurryCreature]

It does the same job and it comes in a nice shiny box. When it doesn't work as advertised you can call MS (well the phone number is on the MS page so it must be MS and not some support outsourcing company that underbid everyone else) and that will take your call and come right along to fix it.

I see this kinda argument you have all the time. Oh MS is better since it has guarantees. Yet in practice it never seems to work. Make that call and all you get is a phone bill.

But quit frankly I don't really give a damn. Buy ASP and pay for every extra module you need. It is a free world. Zealots who say you should use X because of Y should be ignored.

Just remember. Your MS support is done by the lowest bidder. Have fun.

....... snewz for nerds

[McSnickered]

.. yawn ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[black mariah]

Well, no shit. You mean they might want to just pay someone to do the work for them? Wow, what a strange concept.

With the 'fuck the users' attitude that most OSS developers seem to take, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to get involved. Why support an OSS project that's about half as useful as a proprietary project?

I learned something today

[Sloppy]

Being powerless like that can be incredibly usefull in office politics.

Being powerless is empowering. Yes, I'm going to remember that one. How liberating it must be, to become enslaved. Choosing to not be able to fix a problem, is a sign of responsibility.

Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about $250/hr? or $350/hr that is the rates I see companies charging for useless idiots from their "professional services department" to come on site and work out problems with their crappy software/system. Some people can't afford to give up their day job for $60/hr but can for a few weeks/months of $350/hr. And on a $300M project, come on money is being bled out of that thing, no question. Please post a budget for any project over 2 million and you will have substantial portions spent on licensing, prof services, god forbid bloodsucking project management companies like Accenture (for managers who can't manage their projects), support, etc but it would kill these projects to throw down 100K or so to someone who has taken single handed (often) responsibility for developing a package.
The model is broken, business can't deal with the truth about how software is actually created - by one person or small groups. Try reading "Software Craftsmanship".

And that is a funny joke about Vendor Z actually coming through with the promised features on time and/or actually working and documented. Oh, sorry, but a bigger customer wanted a different feature, so we had to divert resources from the one you wanted, maybe next time though, btw your yearly support payment is due...

The smart CIO's will be the ones who say, if there is a FOSS project out there that is doing 90% of what we need, offer the developers 20% of our licensing costs for the commercial software are using now to add the other 10% of what we need and then offer them the same deal for yearly support as the commercial outfit is giving us now. OMG, what would we have then? Happy, well paid OS developers and happy corp clients who would actually get good response to their problems and upgrade requests.

[ot]: Dependency Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Dependency Hell Is A Solved Problem

It is? After about 15 apt-gets my system ties itself into a knot that looks something like this:

Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
xbase-clients: Depends: cpp-3.2 but it is not installable
Depends: libfontconfig1 (>= 2.2.0) but it is not installable
Depends: libfreetype6 (>= 2.1.4-1) but it is not going to be installed
Depends: libpng12-0 but it is not installable
Depends: libxft2 (> 2.1.1) but it is not installable
xfree86-common: Depends: debconf (>= 1.2.9) but 1.0.32 is to be installed
xlibs: Depends: libfontconfig1 (>= 2.2.0) but it is not installable
Depends: libfreetype6 (>= 2.1.4-1) but it is not going to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages

Its probably my fault. I hope its my fault because that means there is hope for GNU/linux, but from where I'm sitting, package management is a damm big issue.

Slack style = cant win, don't try
RedHat style = works 30% of the time
Debian style = 15 freebies, then you get a knot.

Either I, and a lot of other people, are doing something really wrong, or apt ain't all its cracked up to be.

[i committed the cardinal sins of: 1) admitting i don't know how do do something, 2) criticizing the system. flame away]

Re:[ot]: Dependency Hell

[dasunt]

Dependency Hell Is A Solved Problem

It is? After about 15 apt-gets my system ties itself into a knot that looks something like this:

Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
xbase-clients: Depends: cpp-3.2 but it is not installable
Depends: libfontconfig1 (>= 2.2.0) but it is not installable

Well, looking over at packages.debian.org, libfontconfig1 is not part of the stable debian release.

I suspect that you are either using one of the development branches of debian, or else using debian-stable with packages from the development branch. Perhaps you are using non-official packages that are outside of the three branches.

Btw, you might want to do a 'man apt-get' and look at the difference between 'apt-get upgrade' and 'apt-get dist-upgrade'.

As for the link, the problem occured on debian unstable!

Unless you are comfortable with a system, do not use developmental branches -- use the main releases!

[ Btw, I've been using apt-get to maintain the same server for the last several years without a problem, even with an upgrade from potato to woody. I have another debian machine that has survived three different sets of PC hardware (including HDD migrations). If you don't kick it, debian works nicely. If you start installing applications without forethought, you get the same situation as with ever other OS -- things break. Windows does this. Linux does this. The BSDs do this. Damned if I know how, but if you try hard enough, even MacOS X will do it.]

Re:[ot]: Dependency Hell

[mpe]

If you start installing applications without forethought, you get the same situation as with ever other OS -- things break. Windows does this. Linux does this. The BSDs do this.

It's possible for an incompetent admin to mess up just about any system. The problem with Windows is that it is often also possible for a user to send things completly fubar. The same also applies to the likes of Lindows which attempt to emulate Windows using Linux.

Missing fact

[fm6]

Where can I find Open Source children available for adoption?

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously - If some company needs to make stupid excuses not to use free software, let them. More competitive advantage for those of us who do use it.

People's linux or IBM's linux?

[ignavusincognitus]

So let's imagine a world where these hurdles are all removed.

• Lack of support: you can buy phone support service for linux, on a per-instance or periodic rate. But it's only guaranteed to work on a particular version of a kernel and provided you did not install any third-party modules. Any support company that gives you better guarantees will so go bankrupt as it'll be paying its employees to do google searches for you on why module X does not work in configuration Y. Actually this part has largely already happened.
• Lack of Roadmap: The features that go into "enterprise" versions and their timing are determined by big companies which are the only ones who can develop them in the first place. This applies to mainframe kernels, big databases, major software packages, etc. This is the only way to keep the big customers happy.
• Licensing caveats. Sooner or later everybody that has a legal department gets cold feet and orders their IT department never to use any linux distribution that doesn't offer lawsuit protection.

What do we end up with? A flavor of linux which the enterprise world is willing to accept - level-headed, release-engineered, supported.

And what happens to the grassroot linux? The lonely hacker coding for fun into the night. The reckless sysadmin replacing a windows group server with an old box runing samba. The enthusiastic team making up yet another distro. Who will take care of them? Will linus keep accepting their lowly patches? And even if he does, will IBM and Red Hat pay much attention to his kernel anymore?

I think that having Linux the kernel well-accepted and established is the worst thing that can happen to Linux the social movement.

I'll tell you my gripe- with g++

[BluedemonX]

I'm used to using standards conformant C++ compilers, with which I use Alexandrescu style techniques in doing templated cantrips which allow me to make better code.

Naturally, g++ barfs when seeing this kind of standards compliant code, whereas Microsoft C++ does not, and in fact handles it quite well.

It's a sad day when a Microsoft compiler is better at adopting a standard than an open source solution.

Don't bother suggesting the Comeau frontend - it isn't available for the hardware we need. (Neither is Microsoft, but enh.)

Re: Mod parent up!

[BluedemonX]

You've never tried compiling template-based generic code under g++ then, I gather.

Re:No decent HTML/PHP Editors!

[aldoman]

Nvu will do the ftp site list.

But I still use Dreamweaver for PHP code editing - it's FTP site integration is pretty great and you can mockup designs quickly..

In other worlds...

[bonch]

Play the blame game and blame everything else for OSS lack of acceptance.

I hear you!

[mabhatter654]

If OSS is going to be adopted, it will have to come from the bottom up. Big companies have too many software solutions already. Most of the medium to large companies are barely keeping their MS solutions bandaged together...WITH offical support!!! They all changed from nice simple mainframes because MS was supposed to be "easier". Now most companies just want to leave well enough alone and simply cut costs as much as they can by cutting IT labor and using old versions until they break.

The problem is that MS has got everybody fooled that simply updating the OS from 1 version to another is "porting" their systems. I never understood how MS has got away with it for so long. Look at the IBM AS400. Most companies have had 10 year old plus software running on these things and simply "upgrade" by "restoring" the old software from backup and continue on their merry way. We just moved and entire company from one box at our location to another box at the new company overnight! and they kept running on monday morning...try that MS!!!

Re:I hear you!

[JPriest]

MS does do that, all our stuff that ran on 95 and NT4 runs fine on XP. It's Linux that does not seem to do the binary compatibility thing very well. You used the biggest flaw Linux has, claimed it is a flaw with MS instead, and got modded to like +10 Insightful.

I don't know about other large companies, but many tech companies are using some Solaris/Linux work stations with most of the web servers and databases running on UNIX or Linux.

It seems like many of the smaller companies that are using the domain controller for the database, web, ftp server etc.

But hey, someone must agree with something you said.

Re:I hear you!

[Jexx Dragon]

One of the main reasons upgrading MS products is so difficult is cost. Updating to Office 2003 costs over $300 USD for example. I still use Office 2000 because :
1) I use OpenOffice more; I don't use any of the MS Office products enough to warrent updating
2) I don't need this "added functionality" of office XP and 2003
3) I don't feel like paying several hundered dollars for a software suite that is bound to a single platform
4) I don't want to bother because I'll have to upgrade agian soon anyway.

I really don't even see the point. People have already paid hundreds or thousands for Word, Excel, Access, etc. None of which come preinstalled on Windows. These programs are very nessasary for most people, even if they don't use them often. Then, to upgrade and get the "new and impoved" version they have to pay agian. People have asked me how to veiw a .doc fle, some don't know what it is, others just don't want to pay, I either give them my Office 2000 CD or direct them to OpenOffice.org. It seems that Microsoft is all to happy to give people the privalige of getting a licensed copy of their (Microsoft's) software for a great deal of money, money that most people cannot afford, and then they give them a very restrictive EULA...

Re:I hear you!

[caller9]

We did the same thing a while back. The biggest problem was that the old programs were so old and poorly written that the newer AS400 got tied up when they'd do one of their overly broad database queries. So we had to buy a new one. (the programs came from a dinosaur onto a 4 year old box, then stayed on the 4 year old while the rest of the software migrated to the new box.) So you're partially right, but what about all of those serially connected tractor-feed greenbar printers? And I'm talking twinax *shudders*

Re:I hear you!

[mpe]

It seems that Microsoft is all to happy to give people the privalige of getting a licensed copy of their (Microsoft's) software for a great deal of money, money that most people cannot afford, and then they give them a very restrictive EULA...

Interestingly the original article considers open source licences a "barrier". But fails to mention that they typically entail no restriction on how the software is used (only a tiny minority of business redistributes software to third parties) and are typically written in fairly simple language whereas proprietary software tends to come with EULAs, which do attempt to control how a piece of software is used and likely to require a lawyer to understand (especially if they don't acknowlage the idea of corporations as "legal people".)

Real cost of MS "upgrades"

[mabhatter654]

You know how much setup you have to do in a MS back office?

My boss is sitting on a Win2k3 site license for a dozen and a half servers because installing it will require nearly 200 hours of his schedule simply to ensure everything is working properly before he turns it live...that's a heck of a lot of money!!! Not to mention all the software he'll loose because it's simply not compatible with the new version and have to buy MORE stuff.

but of course Linux is too difficult and untested to give it even a small shot. Gotta love those blinders!!!

Blah, blah, blah

[HangingChad]

Someone please remind me again why open source has to be pushed into the same development box as proprietary software? Seems to me OSS developers subject to the same stress as paid developers are getting all the crap without any of the benefits.

Besides, OSS has come along just fine without being subject to other people's ideas about how it should work or a roadmap or any of that other bullshit. If you want predictability and a roadmap and all that, go buy it. If you want particular features on an OSS product, pay someone to develop it for you on your schedule. Now you've got the roadmap you want, in the time frame you want, at a price way under what you'd pay for licenses and everyone benefits from your upgrades.

I say leave well enough alone. Trying to stop OSS now is like trying to stop the wind. It's going to get adopted anyway because it's a smarter way to do business. Don't feel like you have to dance to anyone else's fiddle.

http://www.openadaptor.org

[schouwl]

http://www.openadaptor.org is some kind of solution to the problem. Lars

I think google has them all beat!

[mabhatter654]

I think 90% of the time I have better luck with Google than phone support for just about anything with any number of users. Heck Google is even better at searching MS own site than MS own agents are!

And because OSS is almost exclusively on line nearly everything is "googleable". If they're going to expect you to use google anyway...why bother to PAY them lots of money? That's the real question to ask.

mod this guy Way up!!!!

[mabhatter654]

yep, you've hit the head on the nail. The problem is converting a MS shop over to OSS instead of continuing to shell out for MS solutions and wasting tons of time supporting them.

When I was at a small shop I was wanting to do the same thing. Most small companies have dozens of Win98 boxes as workgroups...which is fine except that there's always those 1 or 2 pesky Windows-only apps that some manager HAS to have.

The key would be to start where it will hurt your customers most...if it's a small job shop start with linux on shop user's PCs. Most of them only use them as dumb terminals anyway. convert the front office document systems to Openoffice.org. Don't toss the MS stuff, just get management to agree to use the free stuff...even if you just use OO.org to make .docs! Try for OSS on the back end...firewalls, email, web servers, etc. all the ugly stuff that only you see normaly. Also try to learn unix-style systems management. Then you can make YOURSELF money by not having to run around putting out fires. Realize that you won't ever get MS entirely out of most business, but try to set up the idea that MS is "Deluxe Computing" for management types and that the drones need something cheaper and hassle-free.

It's about Freedom...to make more money, to be more efficent, and also to fall on your fact with no body else to blame!

Commodity

[Anonymous Coward]

Enterprises need and want interchangeable employees. Open source is fine but you will need someone that knows it. That someone is probably a terrible fit for an enterprise. Enterprises want psuedo-slaves that do and not talk back.

Ray Lane's comments from Open Source Business Conf

[securitas]

I accidentally pressed Submit before adding this important piece of context to the post. In case there's any confusion, Dan Farber did not come up with this list by himself.

The comments were part of a keynote address at the Open Source Business Conference 2004 in San Francisco by:

Ray Lane, former Oracle executive and a general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, [who] outlined six objections gleaned from interviews with a few dozen CIOs at Fortune 500 companies.

6 Reasons for not using calculus

[clovis]

1) Lack of formal support,
Just try and find out who's responsible if you use calculus to design a bridge and it fails.

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'),
Not much change since we went from using fluxion to differential notation 300 YEARS AGO!

3) Lack of roadmap,
Nobody seems to know what innovations will be forthcoming in the next release. It's almost as if Newton and Leibnitz were dead.

4) Functional gaps,
What can you say about a tool that solves hard problems with 'Monte Carlo simulations' sheesh

5) Licensing caveats,
Do you have a copy of the TOU?
I've never even seen it! Is it OK to reverse engineer Green's theorem?

6) ISV endorsements
I haven't seen a single Fortune 500 company advertisement that even admits to using calculus in making their products, much less endorsing it.

From a recent /. post

[Anonymous Coward]

Here

ARGUMENT: Installation and deployment costs

FACT: Many of the same methods used to deploy MS-Office work equally well, or better with Open Office. There are no software keys or other serial numbers to deal with in Open Office. You do not need to invest time and money into administering software licenses, audit trails and license compliance reports with Open Office. You do not need to worry about entering 25-digit CDKey codes on each PC or performing Microsoft Product Activation. You do not need a Microsoft Passport or the risk of associated unintentional information disclosure to use Open Office.

bs

[cratermoon]

The 6 bullet points, from the sidebar:

• Informal support
• Velocity of change
• No roadmap
• Functional gaps
• Licensing caveats
• ISV endorsements

All are complete PHB bullshit. Paying money for software doesn't guarantee any of these. For each of those points it's trivial to point out an example of the exact problem with closed-source/non-free software. Nothing in the license or EULA gives a company buying from any vendor any way to force that vendor to address these or any way to get damages after the fact. There's nothing behind those "reasons" but ignorance, a desire to build and keep little business fiefdoms, and single-skill tool custodians who'd lose their jobs if software just worked.

Road Map

[hey!]

I agree with you. In particular, let's take the road map argument.

Suppose there is something that you really really need in your web server. If you are using IIS and its not on the road map you are sunk. If it is on the roadmap, you may still be sunk if MS changes its mind.

With Apache, call somebody who knows the Apache code and tell them you'll pay them for the feature. Maybe you'll find somebody who's written some well known apache modules or even is one of the core develoeprs -- there's somebody out there who has the expertise and who will do it for money. Heck, you probably could get some of them who maybe can't work on a contracting basis to do it in return for a donation to their favorite charity. It doesn't matter -- you can solve the problem with your checkbook if it is important enough to you, and probably for not much money.

This reliance on "road maps" is bullshit. In business, the one certainty is that money talks, and people who spend it get listened to. The question is which business model is more responsive to the customer, the one where a single company is in total control of a piece of software, or the one where customers ahve the right to hire anybody they want to fix one of their problems.

Like the Intel X64 Roadmap

[bstadil]

No, We all need Roadmaps otherwise you would never know for sure you were lost.

What are you talking about?

[AchilleTalon]

I don't know for you, but for myself, I can tell you one of my customer is running mission critical applications on Linux nodes. And by mission critical, I mean a banking system. We are talking about something like 20 critical nodes monitoring about 10000 stations and about 3000 automatic-teller machines.

The Windows servers are for the AD purpose only or as local servers in branches. So, yes, the workstation is a Windows XP station, but, it's not because it is well supported, standard or anything else, it's just because it's the de facto standard for this kind of usage.

Each Linux node is much more critical than any other Windows XP workstation. Would you pick it, if those 6 reasons were true? I mean, as a Bank?

MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!

[bob_calder]

One of the problems with this whole issue is the lack of a long view of corporate adoption and upgrades from the early eighties.

The changes have been frequent AND massive. People who have been in a single office for twenty years could have moved into nice new buildings several times for the money they put into automation. They are damn tired of it and rightly feel that if they could only have held off a few times, they could have bought a jet. Of course, they might miss opportunities as well. Who knows? Mainframes, minis, PCs with DOS, punch cards, reels of tape, huge aluminum disks, clay tablets et cetera. Microwaves, leased lines, messengers, sattelite uplinks, 1200 baud, 2400 baud, frame relay, TSU/DSU, serial cable, coax, cat3, cat5, fibre, routers, switches, wi-fi.

Twenty years is both a long time and a not-so-long time. What is certain is that they will talk to their friends who will *always* know more than you or me. They will ultimately make another unbelievably expensive move and hate it just as much as the last.

Is he serious?

[47PHA60]

1) Lack of formal support

This is true. Microsoft and IBM fix bugs the minute I report them.

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')

True enough. Microsoft lets me upgrade in my own good time, and never forces me to adopt new software on their schedule.

3) Lack of roadmap

Yep. Hate to say it, but proprietary companies follow their roadmaps; I can set my clock by them. During the wait for Linux 2.6, I had to close up my business!

4) Functional gaps

Expensive software from companies both large and small does everything I could possibly need.

5) Licensing caveats

Yes. The only power a proprietary license grants is the right of the vendor to audit my business at my expense, and the right to send the BSA after me. The GPL and BSD licenses grant me nothing comparable.

6) ISV endorsements

Just what I look for when setting up my databases.

Is this really how a Fortune 500 company CIO thinks?

Implications of OSS are good

[Dystopian Rebel]

What keep bringing me back to open-source applications are (in order of importance):

solutions to specific problems (a person decides to solve a problem so he writes some code and makes it available; I find I need to solve the same problem),

portability (same app running on different boxes with different OSs), and

learning opportunities (I want to understand something better; open-source means Free Information).

I always recommend open-source solutions when making proposals. People may have to learn how to use the tools, but they will be better employees for gaining the knowledge. Any company that systemically refuses OSS doesn't want to empower anyone and (foolishly) feels somehow safer if their figurative balls are in the grasp of Microsoft (for example).

1. "Lack of formal support"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that the "formal support" comes primarily from the employees that are lobbying for the use of given OSS platform instead of a commercial POS platform because they often find it one helluvalot easier to do what they want to do with open source than with the "officially supported" commercial software.

English is Open Source

[T-Ranger]

You are allowed to make up your own words.

NOT a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is NOT a hobby anymore.
It might still be to a few individuals who
participate in the process but Linux is big business.

Go to any Linux show and you will see the same snakes that you see at other confs.

Look at the money that big business like IBM have put into it and tell me that its a business.

I play music with some buddies on weekends to get away from the CRT's we stare at all week. We book our gigs, rehearse (well...), do all the paper and legwork that is involved.
Is it a hobby for us?
yes.
Is the music industry a hobby?
No.

People have to learn to stop generalizing based on their own personal experience.

By the way, I am using Windows (and IE) to post this with, and the world hasnt come crashing down...you rabid, frothing zealot.

What happens when Linus

[PotatoHead]

does not agree with a specific kernel change?

The author should look closer to SGIs business model. They grappled with this early on and came to the right conclusion:

Linus is in charge, it's his kernel.

Where did this leave SGI, and what does it mean for future development?

They decided:

(1) they can resubmit their changes after adjusting them,

(2) they can provide what they want as an add on (SGI ProPack),

(3) they can forego their project and embrace another one that gets what they want done,

(4) they can choose to not do it.

I was at a conference in 2000, I think, where their head technologist gave a speech on OSS and what it means to SGI. He outlined these options then. I thought about it quite a bit afterword and realized SGI gave quite a complement to the process actually, and Linus in particular. Rather than fight things, they accept them and begin engineering accordingly.

Funny many folks in the audience scoffed at this, thinking the OSS model would get in the way of things. The reality is that is has somewhat, but SGI now has Linux running single image 256 proc machines. Those same machines will run a stock linux, but will run better with the SGI Pro Pack loaded.

Eventually,

(1) Linus will accept SGIs changes,

(2) the kernel will perform the necessary tasks some other way, making those changes moot,

(3) everyone will discover the changes are not needed and move on.

The key here is that users of SGI machines will have clear choices open to them they would not otherwise have.

You can buy SGI IRIX machines that are sweet machines really, but finding applications on them is tough outside of user ported OSS. SGI developed fast and hard early on, but failed to achieve application capture which ultimatly limited their future.

Today IRIX users are dwindling as the mindshare leaves the platform. Make no mistake, IRIX is a sweet OS that can do amazing things, but its closed nature hurt its chance at gaining enough marketshare to survive long-term.

To me, this is a shining example of the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary solutions. Users come first because the process forces the issue, not because it makes more money. Having somebody in charge of core development that is not compensated on its use keeps things clean and workable for everybody.

Linux may not be able to match IRIX today, but the last 3 years or so have been simply amazing really. Give it another 2 or three and it will be there. On a side note, I have invested considerable time and money into IRIX only to see it slowly wither away. Same for various win32 iterations. The primary attraction Linux has for me is that my time and money investments are going to last a good long time. I don't want to go through another transition like that and with Linux, I won't have to.

In the longer term, this kernel is going to eventually spank every last one of the other kernels because it will be developed in a way that actually forwards the art of building and running kernels, not making money. As it continues along this path, the numbers of users grow as does mindshare. You can't get that kind of insurance for proprietary software no matter what you pay because money is the motivator. Think about it, if the software gets too good, what exactly will they charge for?

Clearly SGI sees this because they have embraced the process and appear to be back on track with what they do best; namely, large single image NUMA systems with low latency and high I/O. This time they are building on a kernel that has mindshare and a growing number of applications.

They get to make money, while their users retain choices they would not otherwise have, while they forego the expense of building all that stuff in house. Supercomputing just got one hell of a lot cheaper as a result.

Looking at all of that compared to the proprietary way seems like a no brainer to me really.

Re:Roadmap? Roadmap! Don't make me laugh!

[k_head]

Look what happened to those kind of CIOs with the MS select license. MS promised them something on the roadmap and then pushed back the release till the select license expired. Now those CIOs are totally fucked because they paid for something they thought they were going to get but wont.

In you scenario above the CIO could have simply said "there is 5000.00 for the first person to deliver us feature Y" and they would have gotten it in a week.

physics 101

[Anonymous Coward]

acceleration is the derivitive of velocity w.r.t. time. speed neq velocity.

Apple fanatics put Linux zealots to shame

[Nice2Cats]

"Rabid zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder.

As the new owner of an iBook, I have had a lot more to do with Mac owners lately, and let me tell you: Linux zealots can't hold a candle to an enraged Apple fanatic -- take for example the death threats this guy got when he did a parody of changing his PowerMac G5 into a PC. Linux users just don't get that excited, certainly not over hardware.

But then, everybody seems to think Mac users are some sort of peace-loving hippies, and the Linux people are radicals. Guess Steve Ballmer running around and calling us anti-American communists does have an effect after all.

I'll tell you the biggest hurdle...

[NerveGas]

"This app only runs on windows."

Really. Here's my example: As the systems admin, I've convinced the IT manager to let me migrate the entire company over to Linux on the desktop. Terrific, right? Well, there's one itsy-bitsy hurdle....

The expensive phone system in which they've invested a very large amount of money and time requires a client app on each workstation. And you guessed it... it only runs on windows.

I've even spoken to the company that produced the software, and offered to create and *give* them a Linux version. Nope, they can't be bothered - they're just too busy.

steve

Winge lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

The number 1 reason why open source fails to be adopted in corporations is that open source fails the largest costs of using a software package:

1. support
2. installation
3. deployment
4. documentation
5. deploying updates


Well, if you are medium and large size company, you should hire software engineers to deploy free software and support it. The total savings from per seat deployment of free software gets spent in focused corporate improvements of the software. Winge on about support and die in this new climate for open source if you must like all dinosaurs. But don't blame the OSS movement - blame yourself.

Obviously, it's not a lack of buzzwords.

[stephanruby]

2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'), 3) Lack of roadmap, 4) Functional gaps, 5) Licensing caveats and 6) ISV endorsements.

Obviously, it's not a lack of buzzwords or acronyms, or ZDNet/CNet would surely have mentioned that.

Here's why.

[Kjella]

So fuck off, use your Windows, AIX, cha-cha-cha, and leave us ALONE!

I don't understand, and have never understood, what the big deal about "Linux adoption" is.

Microsoft is lining up for a show-down. Trusted computers and DRM will make it a) practicly impossible and b) a DMCA felony to reverse engineer anything.

Does that matter for you? Perhaps when you get that Trusted Email(TM) with your Trusted Word(TM) attachment and Evolution and OpenOffice (or KMail and KOffice for that matter) can't do shit with them. Or your Trusted ISP(TM) will only let you go online with a Trusted Computer(TM) running a Trusted OS(TM), running Trusted Services(TM).

That's why there's a real need to speed adoption - to ensure that by the time Microsoft does get this in place, it's simply too late. That there's a considerable minority requiring open formats that they can not ignore.

See now, if I send something to 100 people, and you're the only one complaining, you've got a problem. If lots of people are complaining, I got a problem. That's the whole difference.

Kjella

Re:Is that some sort of commune thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is this flame bait, its wrong. Unless you live in a differnt country then any whos laws I've studied.

You forgot one...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "Lack of money-making possibility"

There is also quality control and usage awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Last week in Montreal, the APS (American Phisical Society) did an internationnal learning convention in Montreal, at the Palais des Congres, around 5000 attendees were participating, from around the world. I was one of the AV tech there, you guessed it, specialized in computing. Not that I've been to school in this field specificaly but I actually went to a sound design school (in Quebec, you cannot say sound engineer so they use all sort of different names for it...). I quickly became highly specialized in digital audio, MIDI and hybrid systems (analog-digital), hence I know quite a bit about computers but from a different angle then most computer specialists, I care about the system as a whole, not about specific languages. I do not trust a linguist to do an open heart surgery on me and I do not trust a programmer to suggest me a system, the guy knows a language, not the body interpreting it, and that sadly is, most of the time, a fact.

Enough about me lets go into the subject, open source adoption.

At this convention I saw more Macs then I ever did in any convention other than a media related one, and more Linux box too. About 50-60% of all machines used were Mac laptops and there were about 5-6 Linux box. It seems Apple truly made a foray into scientific computing after all and that Linux isn't as popular as many would like it to be. It was the first time that I saw Linux boxes in a convention. 2 of them were runing Red Hat and the rest were runing Mandrake.

They were horrible, truly horrible systems, far from being ready for prime time. None of their users actually like their boxes, they all felt hoaxed by their IT or whoever told them it was as convenient as Windows.

All of them needed different routine to send the video to the VGA port AND to their screen, even amongst the same distros. The Red Hat boxes had this system setting thingie where ALL the possible video drivers were listed, VERY confusing for someone who doesn't know about computing, like their users. To be able to display on both output you actually had to select the appropriate drivers (which I did) then go to system tools, in display, and then select 1024x768, the only resolution at which it was accepting mirror display! Even though the native resolution of the LCD was different! Then and only then would the Function F8 trick (or F5 or F7 or whatever) would do his job of switching between VGA out or Laptop only, dual displays (mirror) were impossible to use on one of the Red Hat box for absolutely no obvious reason (obvious to me at least), only one output at a time was possible. When the VGA out was activated on Mandrake boxes, ALL of them displayed distorted video, like the screen would have been squeezed horizontaly, even in 1024x768 (native resolution of the projectors in use) the screen couldn't be contained in the image, the mouse had to be used to travel to diffrent part of the image, hardly a good trick for presenting you research.

Burning a CD, for one of the poor guys using Red Hat (he was too pissed at his box so decided he would burn his presentation to load it on a winbox of a colleague) was a serious pain. You first had to move the file to be burned in a directory called burn:///* (* being the file name), copying the file trough the terminal (which you are FORCED to use in all distros) didn't work, you had to graphically find the file in their very weirdly laid out browser, right click on it to copy it, manually enter the burn:/// address (you couldn't ravel there graphically!) in the browser address bar, right click in the empty space and paste it, THEN you could click on write to cd to open a dialog letting select all sort of meaningless options and then the burning would start. That is called ease of use!

None of the boxes were accepting USB thumbdrives, even after playing with the USB panel of system settings (or tools or whatever the other system setting entry was named, 3 of 'em to do 1 thing were sometimes needed!).

Enough, just reminding me of all the hassle I had to get tr

opern source

[cinnamon colbert]

From where I sit in my cube, this whole discussion is kinda unreal. We are a 200 person company making scientific instruments; 2/3 of the employees are engineers, scientists or senior mgt. So far as I can tell, no one cares that much about MSoffice vs OO; it is just not an issue (you could say we are all brainwashed stupid MSslaves, but that is kind of an arrogant [liberal pay taxes cause its good; conservative obey my morals]point of view. So, like it or not, cares about the evil empire are irrelevant - we have concerns like shipping product, supporting customers, etc, and MS is just off the screen. I could probably suggest that we swithc to OO because MS is bad, but I'm a known wierdo scientist type - if one of the biz people suggestd this, they would probably be fired. Again, you might not like it, but we are happy with office - it works for us. This change occured with office 2000; the idea that there is better software out there is simply not known, and the discussions i see on /. and elsewhere on the beneifts of OO leave me underwhelmed; office works for us - and the first rule of any bizness is dont fix what aint broke. And since it is working, all the arguments about bug fix in open software, online help community, etc are irrelavent - it is a null argument (logic here guys, you do undstand logic? if problem = 0, fix to problem =0) cost of office license simply not an issue; maybe we r lucky there (honestly; teh 350 bucks per person once every three or four years is just not a biggie) But there is a lot of downside to open office swithc. For instance, I tried the word program last night, and it took me 5 minutes to figure out the dic feature for docs; multiply that by 200 features, over our company, we would probably go out of biz if we swithced to open office, due to loss of time. That is us - again, call us stupid, but this is what we are facing. We use a lot of scientific software; it is all in windows and office compataible; loss of compat with a single office program wd doom open office. we have NO it staff to write scripts - no budget for that and not going to get approved int eh future (for a company our size, cost of IT support > cost of office licenses) we constantly exchange docs with customers, all using office; loss of a single sale cause customer got irrateted at wierd .sxw file > cost of office; actually, loss of a single sale due to customer irratation >> entire IT budget !!! In short: in our company, no upside, lots of down side.

bitch [about] an upgrade from Office 97...because

[Anonymous Coward]

>Then they'd bitch when you asked for an upgrade from Office 97 to Office 2000
>because some nymrod in Accounting wouldn't Save As and you couldn't read his files.

I'm no BillG fan, but c'mon. This is the best argument you can give?
Go over to the nimrod's box and configure it

gewg_

TCO

[Anonymous Coward]

A Windoze box that is dead because of a bug that M$ has *still* not resolved
is *no less dead* than a Linux box with a bug.

Windoze:
Shrinkwrap licence: costs more than it's worth
Support contract: not free
Chance that your bug will get fixed soon if it's not already in M$ Knowledge Base: nil

Linux:
GNU licence: gratis
Support contract: not more than a M$ equivalent
Chance that your bug will get fixed soon: good (YMMV--compare to M$, above)

gewg_

Re:Software is a service

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently on Andrew Grygus's Microsoft page and your point certainly resonates.
It also brings to mind the "ESR and the printer" story.

gewg_

Aren't there _any_ long-term barriers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pleasing to see that all of the barriers facing Free Software adoption in the short term are areas in which Free Software has a clear long-term advantage over the proprietary model. Does that mean that Free Software will, in its day, become even more entrenched than proprietary software is now?

What we should be asking ourselves, though, is whether there are any long-term drawbacks to Free Software, and how they might be surmounted/traded off.

-Greg Mildenhall