Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Part of Mainstream IT in Canada
Sxip writes "A recent survey of advanced technology companies indicates that Open Source software is becoming an explicit component in enterprise Information Technology (IT) strategy and architecture. Some nine out of ten respondents include Open Source in their planning."
Well, this all depends on the perspective:
Open source is an integral part of the enterprise environment these days in larger organizations, but that doesnt mean that its "linux on every desktop".
Working as a developer for a very large global consulting firm, I can say that the way open source is penetrating enterprises is by being "parts of the machinery", for example, if you are developing custom applications, it is almost unavoidable to use open source components such as Struts, Dom4j and tools like jUnit, Ant etc.
But we are still some distance from "open source dominating the environments", open source is gaining traction mostly in the areas where the developers have a big say in what is chosen. When it comes to the choice of "backbone platform", this is still very much a management choice of commercial platforms.
I know I try and use OpenSource whenever I can on all my client's projects, it works out better for everyone.
It's cuz' we're cheap!
Technically, don't MOST companies include open source in their planning? I mean after the widely publicized MS discounts given after the mention of anything Open Source, you'd at least try to leverage that.
The cynic in me thinks the term "Open Source" is used more as a bargaining tool than anything that gets implemented. I'm not sure I like that idea.
Does the survey include a statistic on who "relies on open source"?
I'd like to see that number, and I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near "9 out of 10"
...we use open-source software for nearly everything at the datacenter, and on a few desktops in the office (GAIM has made inroads among the marketing staff, and I run a GNOME desktop). Our attempts to use commercial software have usually meant restrictions that we couldn't live with (we tried using Zeus for our hosting customers and ended up trashing it and using Apache 2.0 because we couldn't extend it as we wanted to. Expensive mistake!)
The only commercial software we are seriously looking at on the server side right now is Caucho Resin Enterprise - it definitely beats out Tomcat for our purposes.
It just seems to be the default here. If you run a company, open source is the first option. Everybody worth hiring has a background in Unixish operating systems and open tools. Resumes from people with Microsoft credentials tend to end up in the circular file unless they have some serious programming achievements under their belts and at least _some_ familiarity with common open software.
To play devil's advocate here, while you get to keep the results of an Open Source project, you don't get paid for it. At least with closed source, sure some faceless corporation owns the work but you got paid for it, and you can use that money to do stuff like, oh... pay your mortgage so that you can own a house in exchange for not owning the software. Eventually, this "work for free" thing has to break down. Not everyone can live with their parents forever.
From their website:
CATAAlliance (Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance) is Canada's leading, most influential and entrepreneurial technology alliance, in regular contact with twenty thousand high tech business executives.
Assumably they surveyed their members. How many, and exactly how, I don't know. It seems to me that being an tech industry group (but not a Open Source group) it is there job to provide as acurate information as possible to there members. They are not a OSS loby group. There target audience is their members, and it is there members who pay them. They have no reason to lie.If you realy care, you could email the person who prepare the release. Its at the bottom of the artic.. Ah, fuck. Nevermind.
OSS has more traction than you think, friend. It's the best friend I have right now, and I'm a hardware monkey/network admin/IT manager.
Open source is an integral part of the enterprise environment these days in larger organizations, but that doesnt mean that its "linux on every desktop".
Agreed, except for the "in larger organisations" part. I do the above job for a not so large outfit, and Open Source is something I try to employ as much as possible.
But we are still some distance from "open source dominating the environments", open source is gaining traction mostly in the areas where the developers have a big say in what is chosen. When it comes to the choice of "backbone platform", this is still very much a management choice of commercial platforms.
Open source may not be deployed everywhere in my company (yet), but it does affect any decision I make - in a round about way, it does dominate the environment. "Do I need to pay this company licensing fees, or is there an OSS equivalent package that will do it for less?" is something I muse every day on he job. I manage infrastructure, and right now, I'm deploying Linux as the backbone of my network, replacing a proprietary systems that adds no value when compared to the OSS alternative. I'm not a developer (any code I write shows it, too), but I like having the OSS clue stick to apply to the heads of any arrogant vendors (Quark, you are sooooo next in line for lumber off the forehead). The threat of OSS to thier bottom line is extremely valuable to me in keeping costs down and vendors honest.
IMHO, one of the main reasons that OSS exists is because some developers got a little too full of themselves and in thier arrogance pissed off the wrong people - end users like me. If most people weren't willing to actually use OSS, it simply would not be as pervasive as it is.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I wish we could use open source management. The problem with proprietary management is the same as software: overpriced, bloated, slow and full of bugs. As a consultant, I've spent a great deal of time at some corporate dinosaurs and they all seem to be bogged down by the same ineffective, self-important conventional idiots. I won't name companies, but be weary of the cars you drive...
Trolling aside, you can interview 9 out of 10 business in Canada and they will chant Linux till the cops beat them up. But the missing #10 is the most important: Government. Canada is really just a big awkward government with a nice back yard, and Gov't is dead scared of free software, for several reasons that were hammered into my skull the hard way:
1. It's built by "evil hackers"
2. Since it's free, Mr CIO can't farm it out as a big money contract to one of his mates, or one-up that and hire them all under his wings as 'consultants'.
3. Since it's free, there is no one being paid to answer the phone when stuff breaks.
4. Billco likes Linux, and Gov't doesn't like Billco; therefore Gov't doesn't like Linux.
Ok so I pulled #4 out of my ass. The other 3 are still quite true. I'm not taking stabs at the PM either, even though he's in deep dog-poo for doing #2 (and getting caught), but like anything it's far too easy to spend other people's money irresponsibly.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Sometimes I like commercial. Often, the support is better, particularly if you want something mission-critical and the OSS software project is small (some OSS projects, it's one or two guys doing it in their spare time. I'd rather not have a support contract on that basis).
Sometimes I like OSS. You can see the code, so that's some insurance, you can modify it quickly yourself.
One library that we've paid for, I'm looking to replace with OSS, but I want to make sure that it's proven as reasonably stable before making the switch, and that we've done some work on the source code ourselves to ensure that we are familiar with it.
As long as there are closed-source products that can benefit from open-source products ("benefit" may not necessarily mean "include code"; you can sell proprietary software through GPL'd webservers running GNU/Linux, etc.), OSS will be mildly unfair at the border between OSS and proprietary software. Many believe that OSS's intrinsic benefits outweigh this "exploitation", as you put it, and still continue to support OSS.
I'm confused, is it bad for a CEO to go for cheaper resources that can harm employees or is it good?
When it's Open Source it seems to be good, yet this harms other developers (those that actually charge for software), but when it's outsourcing your high cost developers to cheaper developers India it's bad?
Chances are, in a few years I'll be self-employed in the legal world and, although it's it extremely small scale as far as IT deployment is concerned, I plan on using as much OSS as I can.
I'm sure I won't be able to get away from some proprietary software (office suite?), but at least I'll try to encourage the companies doing good things (ie. Mac workstations but Linux or *BSD servers).
I've always been curious (maybe this should go in a Ask Slashdot post -- hmmm) to know what others are doing in the legal world.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
I can assure you that more and more scientific coorporations/peoples are now using macs
Open source does not mean Linux. Last time I checked parts of OS X were open source. Therefore if a company that uses OS X can say they use open source.
It would be more interesting to know what percentage of companies see OSSing their own stuff as part of their IT strategy.
I have used OSS tools in all of the 5 companies I have worked for. All but one of them could be considered that a critical part of their business would stop working (in the short term at least) if those tools disappeared in the morning. None of them however has ever had any intention of releasing the source to anything they develop, even if they didn't make money directly from that SW.
It's a small sample I know, but I would imagine that most companies are the same as those I have worked for.