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.
IMO this is THE biggest barrier.
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
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.
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.
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.
Linux is not a religion.
... zealots". Its passion man! Enjoy it. And it makes not one whit of difference.
...". 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.
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
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
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
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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!!!