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."
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.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
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.
The owls are not what they seem
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.
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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???
*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.
IMO this is THE biggest barrier.
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?
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
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.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
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?
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
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?
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.
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.
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 FutureUh, 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.
organizing ANOTHER organization's project should NOT be a CIO's job.
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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.
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
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.
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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
It is really good. I will concider buying the offical version when it comes out!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I couldn't come up with any better sign....
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 $$$
AT&ROFLMAO
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
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!!!
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?
You are allowed to make up your own words.
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.
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.
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?
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.