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."
....Rely on it. The online edition I work for has just as many Linux boxen as Windows boxen. And only 1/2 of them are serving pages. The only ones using Windows is us journalists and the suits. And we journalists could have done it with Linux as well. Although I prefer to do it (the writing, pervert! ;) with MacOS X
The mirror of http://www.cata.ca/Media_and_Events/Press_Release
In Canada, when they say 9 out of 10, they mean 9 out of THE 10 developers.
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.
43% of respondents weren't home.
39% of respondents pretended they weren't home.
20% of respondents were unsure/undecided.
Margin of error was 2%
Unknown host pong.
It's cuz' we're cheap!
Okay, I know this is the typical response but it has to be said: Where the $#@ is the credibility in this piece?
There is no information on how the people being surveyed were selected and how they were surveyed. I always find it suspicious at the least and downright misleading at the worst when people do their own surveys without revealing the details of data collection. A sample size would be nice.
It doesn't have to be super-detailed for the press release but it ought to at least say "Through out Internet survey to 100 of our members" would at least give context to their results.
If it's skewed I want to know. If it's accurate, I want to know that too.
Sunny
Be my Friend
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.
Closed source software is a worse form of exploitation, more akin to slavery. If you work on an Open Source project, you get to keep everything you invested in it as well as a dividend from everyone else's investment in it. If you work on a Closed Source project, some faceless corporation owns everything you put into it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is the way professional advertizing etc. work.
Get one cigarette, then buy 600 after you get addicted.
...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.
I guess two of the three Canadian moderators are upset.
There goes the karma.
Most IT guys Ive worked with knew and respected Linux. On one hand is the credibility thing, you need someone to point fingers to. For that reason I've been using the RedHat company and OpenBSD organization. Spend the money and buy copies (CDs) of the OS from them, and it becomes cheaper than Windows rather that (gasp) free! Companies want someone to point fingers to.
Theres also a strong affinity towards Linux. There are VPN technologies out there but most prefer to run the VPN box on Linux. However most applications needed by the organization are dependent on win32:
(1) ERP system. This requires Win32 or iSeries V5R3. Win32 is cheaper.
(2) Office suite. I could roll out OO but that will take some training and struggle.
(3) Lotus Notes. This runs only on OSX and win32. I cant switch to OSX because of the other apps.
(4) All the reporting tools like Crystal etc. They are resisting Linux for now.
(5) Active Directory Integration. Using OpenLDAP its still a bit of a struggle.
So gentlemen, it will take time!
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
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...
I am not at all contesting that open source is disrupting proprietary software in a big way, but its not dominant (as of yet). Personally though, I think it eventually _will be_.
But it is taking the traditional low-end route: getting traction first through developers, and then moving its way up the food-chaing slowly but certainly.
I am actually in the process of ending my work at said "big global consultancy" to start out on my own with a couple of friends: we will most likely use mostly OSS software, all the way form linux desktops. So for a smaller company, open source is definitely here and a wonderful possibility for small companies.
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.
Almost all major companies use "Open Source" all over the place. They have for years, decades even.
The only difference might be that the muppets who think they are in charge now have to have an "open source stratagem", mainly because "Open Source" is now a brand all of it's own.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
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 used to be a coder. I was very good at it. Top of my class in fact. But you know what? It's just not for me. I found programming to be tedious beyond all measure. But I love computers, always have, ever since I started playing with the first primitive models in the late 70's, early 80's. So what to do? This: I'm a "network monkey", like the grandparent poster. I'm responsible for a very sizable installation, but that doesn't stop me crawling therough cobweb-infested ducts to repair cable faults, because I enjoy it. I like playing with routers, and servers, and satellite links. I get a kick out of diagnosing faults in buried cables as much as I do formulating and implementing enterprise-wide security auditing policy and procedures. I certainly like that stuff a whole bunch more than I ever enjoyed coding. It's interesting and it's fun. And we use a mixture of OSS and proprietry products, ssimply because I make the most from whatever tools I have to hand. And the thing I notice often is that developers with your attitude -- namely that coders are gods, and network people are clueless lusers -- are usually the most technically-unproficient people around. They can't even reinstall an OS properly half the time. Now run along and play some more CS, and bitch about the obvious cheaters who keep 0wning you.
It's not because 9 out of ten person answered considering/using open source that 9 out of then entreprises use it. open source can also mean some P2P software, server software or digital thieving tools (playfair and the like). It doesn't mean that 9 out of then company uses Linux. I work in AV for coorporate events (amongst other things) I do a lot of conventions with a lot of entreprise in various domain, pharmaceutical, business associations, health, governments, technology...
The most Linux box I've seen at the same convention was 6-7, I can assure you that more and more scientific coorporations/peoples are now using macs, in the past 3 month we saw more macs than ever before at conventions, if the convention was about pharmaceutical, health, genomics, physics or nanotech, the proportion of macs even surpass the windows one (one of those convention had around 60% macs, out of 5000 attendees from around the world... (APS) ).
As for the people I speak with in those conventions (rough proportions: 20% salespeople, 30-40% employees/students/consultants, 20% presidents/CEO, 20% marketing/public relation) most of them don't use, aren't interested in open-source or Linux (they know it exist but they haven't used it), the exception being tech and science people.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying the result of the survey isn't right all I'm saying is that it puts open-source in the wrong light, I believe it is indeed very common in Canada but not as much as those results reflects.
If you work on a Closed Source project, some faceless corporation owns everything you put into it.
That's why you get a paycheck. In case you haven't noticed, EVERY job that involves working for a company, they get to benefit & keep whatever it is you're working on, whether it's a manufacturing plant, a retail store, a service company, etc. Working on closed source projects is no more slavery than working at McDonald's.
...OpenSource Mainstreams you!
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.