Slashdot Mirror
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."
3) Lack of roadmap
That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
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.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
My step-dad tells me they have a saying where he works: "Ten thousand unemployed software developers can't be wrong."
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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)
Windows XP costs $299. Linux costs $699. Therefore Linux is better.
Rank Presidents by th
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.)
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.
Surprise! And Fear!
And a fanatical dedication to Linus!
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.