Slashdot Mirror
Key Advantage of Open Source is Not Cost Savings
cmcsonar writes "Computer Economics recently conducted a survey of visitors to its website regarding the perceived advantages in the use of open source software. Although not a scientific sample, the results are nevertheless startling."
Since it wasn't mentioned in the summary, I'll post it here. The key advantage they found was less dependence on vendors. <flamebait> Something Linus recently found out :) </flamebait>
Myself, I use KDE on Linux because it gives me the best environment to code in. I used to use Windows, and have a Mac OS X laptop, and find them both awkward compared with KDE. I really don't get why they are considered miles better for the desktop than Linux. Linux was okay for me on the desktop eight or nine years ago, and it's come on leaps and bounds since then. I'd happily pay for Linux, but I wouldn't pay for Windows.
With all commercial software, I spend huge amounts of time just looking at if things are compliant or now.
Can I move an install to another PC and not break the license?
Can more then one user use the software on a PC without problems?
Will license structure XYZ or ZYX suit a particular company better in the long run?
do i get the lite version or premium version?
will it's copy protection/activation become a problem?
All this is totally gone with GPL licensing, the answer is basically I can do whatever bar sell it (In my case I dont modify and code, so that doesnt come into play).
I also find the quality of open source products much higher then that of commercial software, irfanview I reccomend to anyone wanting to make minor changes to digital pics, and in batches, works well and is free.
It has been at least three times in last 4 years that I have seen our company to struggle with dependence on a software vendor and there has been huge efforts and significant resources (10+ developers working on internal product) just to reduce dependency on unresponsive vendors. Its pain to ask for new features or just simple bug fixes in timely manner. We even offered to do them ourselves, but since there is no access to the code... no luck. Its very frustrating and if its some software that is critical for your company, this can prove to be a major pain.
is that I find that I get even better support with open source. There have only been a few times that I could not go to Google, bust out a simple query, and find a whole forum of people who would help me through a problem within a couple of hours.
.conf files, man pages, and other documentation, while Microsoft "support" has a script that they are seemingly not allowed to deviate from.
Sure beats the shit out of sitting on hold with Microsoft for 2 hours, only to get grilled and having to convince them that you are not trying to steal product, only to get charged for support that ultimately ends up with fdisk/format.
Granted that not all of those problems are Microsoft's fault, but in my experience, they could have done some freakin troubleshooting before telling me to backup, reinstall, and restore. At least the F/OSS community will have an extensive reference to
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the advantage is that F/OSS tends to me more modularized, and thus you are more likely to rescue an installation by fixing one component... Thoughts anyone?
bash: rtfm: command not found
> If you're talking about, say, a small business
> that needs basic desktop machines, the overhead
> in say, going with an OS OS will far exceed any
> price savings.
And what sort of "overhead" might that be? A modern Linux distro practically installs and configures itself, comes with boatloads of software, and does not require an advanced degree to sit down and start using for everyday (non-development) purposes.
My last Linux installation took about 1/3 the time of my last Windows installation (on the exact same, very recent hardware) and the Linux installation included setting up hardware, networking, and installing many common personal/small biz apps such as office suite, browser, email, IM, etc. The Windows install did not include any of these "extras", all of which must be done *in addition to* the OS install for a Windows box.
The last time I installed Windows, it took me roughly a day and a half to have everything ready to roll so I could get some work done. The Linux installation took maybe a couple of hours to achieve the same goal. In spite of the fact that I have about 8-10 times more experience using Windows than I do using Linux.
Sure some of the apps are a little different, but most of them have a little "Help" clicky-widget in the program menu just like any Windows app does.
My experience is that the myth that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux is just that, a myth. *Particularly* in the SOHO space.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I can back up this story with a similarish one, but I don't need to post AC, because we're proud of what we've done.
I work at Friendster, and we have... ah... a really big database cluster. It runs MySQL. Not that Oracle didn't try. They sent out sales people to convince us to convert over. After we looked at the dollar signs, we laughed them out of the office.
I was interviewing a candidate for one of our sysadmin positions. He said something along the lines of: "Well, now you're running MySQL. Once you start making money, do you think you'll start using Oracle or something else that scales better?"
I laughed and said exactly what parent AC said: "Oracle scales in theory. But in practice, 99% of businesses can't afford to scale with Oracle. I can build another couple terabytes of DB storage in a redundant replicated cluster tomorrow for $10k with MySQL. With Oracle it'd be 10x that much, if I were so lucky." That's not to mention the overhead of calling their sales guys, licensing hassle, and other crap. With MySQL, you install and go.
There are other huge advantages MySQL has over Oracle and their ilk. Take this for example... Right now MySQL AB tech support is stellar. Front line support knows when to escalate to the proper engineer (InnoDB problems? Two hours later, Heikki Tuuri is emailing you!). I remember talking to a PHB a year or two ago, and he said: "Well, MySQL support may be good now, but that'll change. It'll get bad."
My response? So what? Then I'll find a MySQL support shop that has good support and use them. They can support MySQL just as well as MySQL AB can.
Try that with Oracle. "No, Oracle, I hate your tech support. Starting tomorrow, I'm going to have Sybase support our Oracle installation." Oracle will laugh at you, then double your support costs for your insolence.
fifth sigma, inc.
Yeah, sorry I posted as an AC; but we ended up going bankrupt largely due to stupid spending encouraged by one of the execs and the VCs. Congrats on Friendster's success and smarter leadership than we had.
"Try that with Oracle. "No, Oracle, I hate your tech support. Starting tomorrow, I'm going to have Sybase support our Oracle installation." Oracle will laugh at you, then double your support costs for your insolence."
On the other hand, I have heard of IBM global services supporting Oracle on Solaris with Intel based Windows clients, despite having competitive products to each of those. Of course if Oracle started crashing they'd certainly be unable to fix the problem (no source code access would do that) and probably just refer you to the DB2 sales team. :-)
And my experience is the exact opposite. So what is your point?
I do agree that most competent distros are usable for standard desktop applications (internet, office, etc). However, I don't think it's fair to whine about Windows not coming with any applications. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. First you complain that Microsoft has an unfair advantage with bundling their apps. You want them to be forced to unbundle their apps. Then after they unbundle their apps you complain that Windows doesn't come bundled with any apps. I think Microsoft did have an unfair advantage in bundling their apps, but I'll be damned if my government is going to force them to bundle competitor's apps.
I suppose what you might have meant to say is that Linux gives you choices of these extras, and were installed through various packages off the cd, which there were probably several of due to the added bulk of all the software you could ever need.
What sort of work do you do that requires IM btw? It seems to me that it might take 2 hours tops to install xp, an office suite, browser, e-mail, etc. , unless you count the updates, which you didn't mention (if you did I would understand more where you're coming from, updating sucks!).
Umn... that really depends on the distro. Having friends who are gentoo advocates, I can promise you that some distro's aren't the kind of thing you can just download and install and run. On the other hand, mandrake^H^H^Hiva is about as basic as they come.Overall, yes, some linux installs are easier than windows installs, assuming you like the bundled software. But then again, I happen to have Windows XP Install ISO that has been updated to SP2, which would GREATLY cut back on the install time.
"You know, screw it, time for a change of pace -- lets switch vendors on our database/customer tracking/data mining/image recognition/OCR/whatever solution. I want to spend a couple hundred thousand in transition costs and cause disruptions in our main business to no purpose whatsoever"
Let me tell you what it's like in the real world, using two real world situations I've had to cope with a number of times in my career:
Here's the deal. You've got a ticketing/dispatch system that isn't cutting the mustard, and what's worse, the fine print of the license says that to be in compliance, you need to cut even more functionality, or pay an extra three mill a year. Not even the database schema is available for examination, so you can't jump ship to another vendor, or more reasonably in this day and age, hire a couple of Java geeks and roll your own web app.
Here's the deal II. You've got a mission critical messaging application that can't keep up with demand, pounding the little windows box it's on so hard it keeps falling over. You'd like to put it on one of the big mama-jama Sun Enterprise clusters you've got sitting around with spare capacity. Too bad, the tiny company who licensed it to you had to auction off the sofas in the break room on ebay to meet payroll, and can't really afford to develop a Sun version. Or the megaconglomerate you licensed it from couldn't be bothered to recompile and test on Sun for a single customer.
If it's open source, it's likely someone's already compiled, tested and put it out as a tarball for Solaris10. It's even more likely it's written in a portable language like Java, PHP or Python, using your choice of OSS RDBMS and web server software, making the platform it's deployed upon irrelevant.
Massive changes to infrastructure happen, happen often, and happen for sound business reasons. Closed source applications get in the way of an agile and profit-making IT environment.
SoupIsGood Food