Build Your Business With Open Source

PCM2 writes "InfoWorld this week is running a ten-page guide to building your business entirely with OSS. The guide highlights OSS alternatives for many enterprise applications categories such as CRM, ERP, content management, and so on. It's not exhaustive, but where it skips the obvious categories like databases and Web servers it includes some others that you might not expect."

Comments

woo

[grub]

"Build Your Business With Open Source"
By Darl McBride & Chris Sontag

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to have missed the funny. :(

Re:woo

[jon1012]

Ah, then I'm not the only one to have missed what is funny in his post :)

But, on the subject,
I think it's really interesting to see something like this about businnesses models built around OSS software... Being an open-source developer and a worker in an IT company, I really agree with some things said in it... And I of course use a lot of OSS software in my business :)

Re:woo

[seminole103a]

Darl McBride & Chris Sontag are SCO execs... some might say they're trying to rebuild SCO at the expense of OSS.

Bookkeeping software

[nysus]

I'm stuck with my current crippled version of QuickBooks. Any open source equivalents out there that you'd recommend?

Re:Bookkeeping software

[tzanger]

I'm stuck with my current crippled version of QuickBooks. Any open source equivalents out there that you'd recommend?

Appgen MyBooks Professional. Not affiliated with them, just a customer who's also looking at their AccPAC killer for his day job, Appgen Custom Suite.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[ch-chuck]

there's this - I don't know if they're equivalent tho.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[UnderScan]

The only quickbooks that I have used was a version for DOS back in 1995, so take my advice with a grain of salt. I haven't used this product myself, but Linux Canada makes Quasar a GPL'd accounting program. If you need it, you can buy tech support from them & if necessary you can buy the close source edition too.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall some Gnome and KDE projects for personal finance, but nothing to replace QuickBooks. I suppose the closest you could get would be to put together your own system using spreadsheets.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[Zemplar]

Every version of QuickBooks is crippled! 8^)

Although I've used recent versions of QB and most FOSS alternatives, nothing quite comes close to QB for the majority of small businesses that need payroll, vendor lists, invoicing, checks, and other more esoteric features. I'd think there could be a market for an open source "QB killer" and this might be the final key missing for many small businesses to adopt open source systems. One of QB's best strengths is that many CPA's and tax accountants can take a straight QB file and do the businesses tax return - a feat not to be overlooked by alternative products.

I am absolutely not fan of Intuit at all and would love for someone else to simply make a better product in the same price range.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[nacturation]

Honestly, I wouldn't recommend open source for this. Unless there's a really great hidden business model here, there likely isn't going to be enough revenue generated to support the team of developers needed to add all the boring stuff like... keeping up with the myriad tax changes from year to year. Sure, it'd be nice if a bunch of skilled developers with nothing better to do with their time donated their efforts to poring over tax volumes and writing the code to make sure everything is properly implemented to government standards. However, I wouldn't want to trust my financials to it.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[DogDude]

No, unfortunately that has about 1/10 of the functionality of Quickbooks.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[NickFortune]

there likely isn't going to be enough revenue generated to support the team of developers needed to add all the boring stuff like... keeping up with the myriad tax changes from year to year

Sounds like a good case for a framework and a scripting language designed to be accountant-friendly. Geeks design the framework, gui, and report innterface, and you get an accountant, probably a retired one with an interest in IT to write the initial accountancy stuff and to consult on the script language design.

Do it right and you decouple the application design from the accountancy which means that the software userbase no longer depends upon the initial development team since they can hire accountants to write tax modules each year, or use ones released under a copyleft licence.

A bit of thought into modularity would help too. You could have a basic module for the more static, universal measures, and then have add-ons for people who need to take into account specific circumstances.

There'd even potentially be money in it, if you can get software support contracts for a few medium sized concerns. It sounds an interesting project.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 90's, I made and maintained an accounting program (not open source, of course). Even though it's not a great challenge (if you know what accounting is), it's not as boring as it seems. And it's not as difficult to maintain as you think. In fact, I changed the code only once because of a tax change (during a 3 year period). The big secret was to do a small editor inside the program to let the accountant do it! I still wonder why people are still hard coding everything instead of parsing a data file.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[sribe]

I think you're confusing accounting software with tax preparation software. FYI, my use of QuickBooks has almost zero connection to the tax code. There's the matter of how I relate my categories to tax items, which I control completely, and that's it. (Obviously, I'm not using it for payroll.) I haven't updated this software in 5 years, and haven't gotten a paid upgrade in 9 years. The fundamentals of accounting don't change often, especially for simple small businesses.

Re:Bookkeeping software

[colenski]

SQL Ledger

Re:Bookkeeping software

[TykeClone]

Payroll is tricky enough that if you've got anything more than a simple run, you're probably better off outsourcing it to someone who does that for a living.

CPA's and tax accountants can do that with QuickBooks - but they need to keep up with the most current version to do that. I don't think that an accountant with QB2003 can read a file from QB2005. Given that, a good opensource and free accounting platform probably wouldn't take too much to get into good distribution.

Re:CRM

[Anonymous Coward]

www.sugarcrm.com says you're wrong.

Huh?

[BlackCobra43]

but where it skips the obvious categories like databases and Web servers

Do any businesses that would NEED software to do business NOT use at least one of these?

Re:Huh?

[ucahg]

The solutions are as obvious as the categories.

Does anybody with the required knowledge of databases not know about Apache and Postgres/My/whatever SQL?

Re:Huh?

[TheRaven64]

Actually, yes. I was recently (peripherally) involved with a project that is going to use MS SQL as the backend and IIS as the front-end. The reason? They didn't know there were alternatives other than Oracle (which they couldn't afford). Even pointing out the lower TCO and lack of vendor lock-in, they still went with the MS solution because they'd heard of MS, and not of the other projects.

Not all businesses have competent IT people.

Re:Huh?

[PhYrE2k2]

The article seems more aimed at the software packages and inter-office communication. The web server software is often outsourced to those with more reliable internet connections.
Running 'front-line' servers isn't for everyone.

-M

Re:Huh?

[Total_Wimp]

Not all businesses have competent IT people.

To go with something you know will do the job and that additionally your IT staff is familiar with is the very definition of competence. On the other hand, going with something you've never heard of just because it's 'free' is an incompetent thing to do.

I use Apache and MySQL, but I'd hesitate to recommend them to someone who has never heard of them. If they're not even familiar enough with open source to know the big players then it's questionable they'll get the value they deserve from them. There's tremendous value in using products you already know well, even if those products are relatively expensive.

TW

Re:Huh?

[IANAAC]

Actually, if you llook at most of the apps mentioned in the article, they all use MySQL and Apache, where applicable.

There's never really been a shortage of MySQL/Apache apps out there, at least in the last few years.

Now if only we had as much enthusiasm for PostgreSQL/Apache. There's SQL-Ledger and Mambo that come to mind, but nowhere near the number of apps for PostgreSQL as there are for MySQL.

Re:Huh?

[TheRaven64]

going with something you've never heard of just because it's 'free' is an incompetent thing to do.

This is true, of course. In this particular case, PostgreSQL + Apache would have been a far better choice. They were hiring half a dozen additional staff anyway for this project, so it would have been no harder for them to pick people with relevant experience.

This system was for an area of their business which is relatively low-margin and is likely to need to scale significantly in the next few years. Being locked into a single vendor for something this crucial is never good practice - especially when the vendor charges per-seat/cpu licenses and you are likely to need to add a few more back-end boxes in the next year.

Re:Huh?

[aspx]

It also depends on what you need. SQL Server has features that are just plain missing in MySQL.

Re:Huh?

[AVee]

To go with something you know will do the job and that additionally your IT staff is familiar with is the very definition of competence. On the other hand, going with something you've never heard of just because it's 'free' is an incompetent thing to do.

This is an often forgotten truth in IT, but I would argue that not knowing about product with a high marketshare in your bussiness is at least close to incompetence. And the ability to adapt to other solutions then the one 'you know' is a very important part of the difference between compentent and good...

Re:Huh?

[DogDude]

Being locked into a single vendor for something this crucial is never good practice

That's a myth. It depends on the vendor. Microsoft is simply not going to close it's doors in our lifetime. I'd bet my life on it.
Plus, with databases, vendor-lock in is a moot point. Why? A. No competent business will change it's main database willy-nilly. B. There's no such thing as lock-in with a database. If you need to move the data, you just pull it out. That's what databases do. C. If your company is doing anything with the database more complicated than a recipie list, any competent database developer is going to use stored procedures heavily, which are ALL database-specific.

Re:Huh?

[Proteus]

If your company is doing anything with the database more complicated than a recipie list, any competent database developer is going to use stored procedures heavily, which are ALL database-specific.

Not true. A competent developer might use an abstraction system to deal with all queries in a cross-database manner. For example, Perl's Class::DBI module, which uses the DBI/DBD interface set to generate queries for database systems for whichever database an application connects to.

Competence has many facets, but the main thrust of competence is knowing which tools to use based on the tradeoffs and specific requirements of each individual project.

Re:Huh?

[TheRaven64]

That's a myth. It depends on the vendor. Microsoft is simply not going to close it's doors in our lifetime. I'd bet my life on it.

Vendor lock-in is not about the company going bust. How long will the product you are using be maintained? When it is not, what are your migration options? How much will it cost?

With a Free package, you can pay someone indefinitely to back-port security fixes from the latest branch (which need only be a day or so a month, and can be cheap).

Plus, with databases, vendor-lock in is a moot point. Why? A. No competent business will change it's main database willy-nilly.

Exactly. Which is why you do not want to have to depend on a single source for support. If MS decides to EOL your DB five years after you deploy it, then this is a problem - it means you need to test the latest version, buy copies of it, and migrate. If it still works then all you want is to keep receiving security updates. Sounds like you want a Free DB...

If your company is doing anything with the database more complicated than a recipie list, any competent database developer is going to use stored procedures heavily, which are ALL database-specific.

So there is database lock-in, but not vendor lock-in. These are different things. I can easily use a different consultant to maintain my ultra-stable (only bug fixes allowed) branch of PostgreSQL - I can't do the same with MS SQL.

Re:Huh?

[DogDude]

Not true. A competent developer might use an abstraction system to deal with all queries in a cross-database manner. For example, Perl's Class::DBI module, which uses the DBI/DBD interface set to generate queries for database systems for whichever database an application connects to.

That's what I'm talking about. You're a non-database person that doesn't understand the difference between a query and a compiled, cached stored procedure that lives right next to the DB engine itself. If you can, find an experienced database person and have them sit down with you to explain the difference between a stored procedure and a query. Totally different things, residing on totally different layers. There's really no substitute for stored procedures if performance is important.

Again, I still contend that a competent database architect/developer/DBA will use database-specific stored procedures where performance is important.

Re:Huh?

[DogDude]

All excellent points. I probably should start looking into PostgreSQL before our business gets too much bigger to see if it does what we need, and is stable. It'll be a while (if ever) before we can afford a consultant/programmer to maintain it, but we're adding more MS SQL stored procedures on a weekly basis.

Re:Huh?

[Proteus]

You're a non-database person that doesn't understand the difference between a query and a compiled, cached stored procedure that lives right next to the DB engine itself. If you can, find an experienced database person and have them sit down with you to explain the difference between a stored procedure and a query.

Ah, assumptions. I'm a certified DBA for both MS-SQL and Oracle databases, and have extensive experience developing for those and other architectures.

You seemed to miss the all-important "might" in my original post, as a counter to your assertion that the only choice a competent developer would make is that which would favor performance to portability. I don't know if you're a developer yourself, but if you are, surely you can see cases where portability might be more important than raw performance?

Again, I still contend that a competent database architect/developer/DBA will use database-specific stored procedures where performance is important.

Ah, but you added to your original comment, and herein lies the crux of my point. A competent developer will know what his/her choices are and understand the tradeoffs associated with those choices. If performance was important, then a competent developer would likely choose to use stored procedures and lock into the features of a particular database. If performance was less important than portability, the same competent programmer might use the abstraction approach, thus making porting to many databases essentially work-free. If this consideration is important enough, a competent developer would work with a competent integrator/admin to insure that performance gains are realized elsewhere to mitigate the loss incurred through portability.

I repeat: the main thrust of competence is the understanding of available choices, and what the tradeoffs in making those choices are.

Re:Huh?

[DogDude]

I've never seen a case when portability across several unknown databases was a concern. What kind of project would necessitate that? I've worked on many different projects (generally very large data stores), but I've never seen one where an added layer would be necessary. I'd almost say that if somebody came to me with requirements for "database portability", that would raise a major red flag for me that the project may have some bigger issues.

FYI: I was an Oracle developer (not a DBA) for several years.

Re:Huh?

[airjrdn]

Not to nitpick, but there are a couple of things here that don't quite go along with your post...

First of all, if you're specifically referring to stored procedures within SQL Server, simply having code in a stored procedure doesn't necessarily make the entire process more efficient. In most scenerios, the stored proc is precompiled, but the actual compilation time is a non issue unless you're running that proc thousands of times.

Meaning, if I have a process written to do some work, and that process runs a few times a day, it really wouldn't buy me much time (minutes/hours/etc.) to have the code in a stored proc. However, if it's code that gets ran extremely often, it would be beneficial to have it as a stored proc. The actual real world time spent compiling a stored proc would never be noticed by us humans on a proc by proc basis.

When I stated that in "most" scenerios, the stored proc would be precompiled, that's because you are able to do dynamic SQL within a stored procedure, and those are not generally precompiled.

There are other reasons to choose stored procedures over dynamic/inline SQL. Security and maintainability are two important ones that come to mind. Where I work, it's stored procedures for everything. While that locks us in more tightly with SQL Server, it's a well received tradeoff when compared to maintaining code in files on webservers and more often than not, opening yourself up more to SQL Injection attacks.

I may not be telling you anything you don't already know, but hopefully this will squash some of the "Procs are much faster, I read it on a webpage!" thoughts that are out there.

Re:Huh?

[Proteus]

I've never seen a case when portability across several unknown databases was a concern. What kind of project would necessitate that?

Given your history as a developer, I'm surprised you never encountered that. May I hazard a guess that you mostly worked with large corporations with significant IT investment in a given database platform (or the availability of any major DB platform)?

I ask because the several times I have seen the requirement, it was phrased something along the lines of "We're an MS-SQL shop. But we don't want to stay an MS-SQL shop, because of /some reason/. We don't know what we're changing to — might be Oracle or DB2 — but your app has to work on it."

The other scenario I can anticipate is constructing a database-driven application for sale. If your performance is still acceptable, then you benefit by supporting as many database platforms as possible.

I've never seen one where an added layer would be necessary. I'd almost say that if somebody came to me with requirements for "database portability", that would raise a major red flag for me that the project may have some bigger issues.

Several such layers exist, for several development platforms. Some of the really nifty ones ($$) even generate stored procedures optimized for common databases during the install phase, and use slower portable queries on unknown databases. This suggests that there is significant demand (not that it really means anything). I, for one, am glad of it, since the project before the last one I finished absolutely required portability between MS-SQL and an unknown future replacement.

Re:Huh?

[DogDude]

May I hazard a guess that you mostly worked with large corporations with significant IT investment in a given database platform (or the availability of any major DB platform)?

You got it... Big projects... I converted the USPS' main inventory management system from greenscreen to RDBMS. Same thing with NC's medicare billing system, etc. Even on smaller projects I worked on, there was already a committment to a major database (usually Oracle, sometimes MS-SQL). But in all cases, there was such a vast amount of data (usually in terrabytes), or such a massive amount of stored procs that switching databases would be a *major* deal. Never created a app on my own (sounds like a PITA), but yeah, that seems like one place where portability would be helpful, too.

Still, why would a company say "We're using MS-SQL now, we'll move to something else later"? Were they not using a licensed copy (financial investment)? Were they just really new, and using a trial copy (no real code written against it)? Or maybe they were smaller/low activity databases that really could be switched out without much of a concern for performance? Hell, even in that last case, you've still got the installation, the configuration, the maintenance procedures, etc. that would have to be changed. I dunno. Sounds strange to me. Sounds to me like somebody trying to build a car around a 4 cylinder engine, with the possiblity of dropping a 8 cylinder into it later. I've always been taught (and seen in practice) that the FIRST thing that any company does with any kind of technological assets does is to choose a database, and build their business around it. Hell, I'd imagine that even changing server OS's would be less of a disruption than ripping out one database in favor of another.

Re:Huh?

[robertjw]

Do any businesses that would NEED software to do business NOT use at least one of these?

These days most businesses 'NEED' software. It may only be point-of-sale, accounting or inventory management, but these tasks have to be done and purchasing software is much cheaper than hireing a CPA. OTOH, most businesses don't need to run their own web server or even their own database. Most high level software packages are going to come with their own backend, or have a specification for which databases it will use. I'm sure the assumption is that any business that does need to run their own web server or a database without some type of frontend probably doesn't need this article.

Re:Huh?

[TheRaven64]

You probably shouldn't need to employ someone to maintain it - it's very stable and upgrading is relatively painless (although it does involve a dump and restore between major versions, so there is some downtime involved). I am lead to believe that the lead developers are open to prioritising bug fixes in exchange for money as well, which can be an advantage if a bug affects you and no one else.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

simply having code in a stored procedure doesn't necessarily make the entire process more efficient

Of course it does - by definition it's more efficient to do an operation on a dataset before it leaves the DB, rather than to transport the raw data (which will be larger than the finished set) from the DB across a (network) pipe to a second process.

That's what efficiency *is*

Re:Huh?

[airjrdn]

No, it doesn't. Consider the possibility that the operation you're performing is simply returning a dataset. Take for example - (select CompanyID, CompanyName from tbCompany)

There's no filtering, etc. performed on that statement at the database. It's a table/index scan that will return all of those rows (not records) from that table.

The only way the resulting set would be smaller than the original set of data is with a where clause or inner join.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not all businesses have competent IT people."
...and some businesses do have competent IT people... but incompetent management...
"MS is biggest so they must be best in business"-mentality in the management...

Re:Huh?

[sumdumass]

I don't really know about all the opther stuff but a company might need to create the ability to move between popular databases if they intend to sell thie rproduct.

I have little experience with data bases but i do have several programs that deal with everythign from organizing a paperless office to acounting/imvetory and most of them have support for different database systems. I guess the idea is that if an organizatiuon already has a database license, they can sell just thier program and not have to worry about shuting out potential buyers who don't want (or cannot afford) to spend the money on MS-SQL,Pervasive-SQL or some version of any other popular system.

I would think that might be one reason for this. Another might just be because they want the option to negotiate prices when upgrades or renewals come around. Cities dop thia all the time with MS. They claim they are going all opensource, MS give them everythign they need for about a buck a license and they take the money and run. I guess that would depend on the size and scope of the business and wether they have the ability or not.

Re:Huh?

[Proteus]

Still, why would a company say "We're using MS-SQL now, we'll move to something else later"?

IIRC, this particular instance was a case of building a business environment on MS-SQL, then looking at several new business management (i.e. ERP) systems, none of which worked on MS-SQL. Combine that with a C-level mandate to have "one standard database system, everywhere"... well, you get the idea.

In many mid-size organizations, business concerns often trump technical ones, and the business people often have the authority to ignore the technical people. Frustrating, but a fact of life.

An interesting demographic

[rob_squared]

I've dealt with management at different companies I've worked for and the biggest issue they seem to have is that it will upset "the order of things." It seems that this is the perfect market for F/OSS. If you're already using it, its not as big of a headache to start. Now you just have to worry about the technical level of those that are starting their own business.

Who is listening?

[bogaboga]

While I appreciate Infoworld's piece, I wonder whether anyone relevant is listening. My boss for example will not even take a look. He says, M$ products have been doing fine for him for more than a decade and can still do more for another few years.

Question is: Are the people who matter reading these kinds of reports?

Re:Who is listening?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Actually, I've recommended a few open-source alternatives to my management, and so far we've saved a few grand. My boss will do just about anything to save on the bottom line, and when I tell him that I can fill a particular need with OSS and get out cheaper, he's beside himself wth joy.

Re:Who is listening?

[Chibi]

My boss for example will not even take a look. He says, M$ products have been doing fine for him for more than a decade and can still do more for another few years.

Well, you have to consider that there will be costs associated with switching over. There's manpower to actually install and configure the software, and then there's training and learning curve. All for what? To be doing the same stuff you were before. So, it might not be appealing to your boss from that perspective (this is assuming that you guys aren't constantly upgrading MS apps).

Your best opportunity with your boss might be when contracts/licenses are being renewed, or when you guys need a new application, and an open source solution might work out better.

Note: Of course, it's entirely possible your boss is just an ass, although the two are probably not mutually exclusive. :)

Re:Who is listening?

[djfray]

Think of it like this....if these reports had information that could really benefit them, they would be looking into implementing what they describe. This is true of anything, by word of mouth, in physical or digital format. Some programmer(or even an executive, though, I would assume less likely, but not impossible) could read this, or anything, see potential, and discuss it with their boss, who evaluates it, yada yada, going up the chain of command. Not to marginalize the people who believe in these reports, but I think a good example would be all the people on the internet who claim to have various incredible inventions, but receive no endorsement, because they are not fully representing the reality of their device, or are flat out lying.

Re:Who is listening?

[shmlco]

If you're talking about databases, there's also the costs of rewriting and debugging all those SQL Server queries and stored procedures. Not an inconsequential task at all.

If someone like mySQL or postgres REALLY wanted to make an impact, they'd add a SQL Server and/or Oracle emulation mode that used [ instead of " (ss), the same function names, the same date formats, and so on. I mean really. Can NO one use the same date function names and parameters?

Re:Who is listening?

[hikerhat]

Your boss could be right. Transitioning from one platform to another can be incredibly expensive. It doesn't matter what kind of license the software has. Invariably, the new software doesn't do something the old software did, so you have to re-implement existing functionality. Data gets lost in the transition. The customer might see a few delays as you work the kinks out of the new system, costing very valuable customer confidence.

Replacing existing working software is a huge risk. If the transition doesn't go perfectly you've racked up more costs fixing the problems than two or three years of licensing the old product (compare the cost of a few IT people working on a problem full time over a few days to a one year MSDN subscription, for example).

Re:Who is listening?

[GMFTatsujin]

I'm listening.

As an entreprenuer of small means and no portfolio (yet), this is very, very interesting to me. I would much rather approach the infrastructure decision now while I can build my business from scratch than have to revisit it later with systems already established.

Despite apparent evidence to the contrary, there's plenty of room in the marketplace for little guys like me to get in the game. OSS that gets the job done is a serious consideration; it might make the difference between showing a profit in my first year vs. reporting a net loss due to expensive capital investment.

Re:Who is listening?

[IceAgeComing]

That's cool. I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

1. Which OSS tools, if you don't mind me asking?

2. How could you tell whether you could configure the software for him ahead of time, and that it would provide what your boss needed?

3. Do you find reviews/documentation for various options adequate to assess the software's quality?

I would love to become an expert in OSS software options for businesses. That sounds like a nice consultant-type job.

Re:Who is listening?

[sbump]

One thing I'd be curious to hear about is horror stories of switching some aspect of a business over to open source and getting burned. Is there a wrong way/wrong situation to do it?

Re:Who is listening?

[starfishsystems]

Transitioning from one platform to another can be incredibly expensive.

Particularly when the platform has been deliberately designed to lock you in. That means you lose out not only on less expensive alternatives but also on more interoperable or more secure ones. In any industry, having a single supplier for any critical resource is bad news.

Moral: do everything possible to avoid this type of platform in the first place. It's a trap.

Re:Who is listening?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm working in a small IT company. I suggested various OSS projects, one of the reasons being although it's not my money, we are trying to control costs. Why pay for an exchange license when just about any linux/BSD distro will do the same? Php/python/java/etc vs .net

I lost the argument. It's one thing if the windows platform had some clear technical reason going for it, other than it's windows. The "official" reason I was given that anyone can use Windows - even though a unix box isn't that different, and mail is basically mail. In reality, only one person has access to the mail server in the first place.

"If it breaks, nobody could fix it, other than the one linux guy" - though our clients pay us to fix all sorts of computer things, and my mail server's only failure in 5 years has been a power supply (due to someone running power tools in the server room). We're an IT company. I seriously doubt the box would suddenly decide to stop delivering mail in a way that couldn't be fixed. I've also seen the exchange server fail in various ways. In one case, mail was out all weekend because nobody could actually get to the server. So, lets be fair. Windows was chosen because it's windows, not because it was better.

I suspect that the people in charge either are heavily biased, Microsoft friendly (I've had this conversation many times - Squid vs ISA. Samba vs SBS. etc), scared of the "unknown" unix, and/or brainwashed. I've also been told that people who use linux do so because it's cheap (reading between the lines, they should spend money on a "real" solution)

If you're looking at speed, and only speed, a high-end SUV won't get you through traffic any faster than a low-end hatchback. Yes, it has more toys but are they important? Would you actually use them? If you don't drive off-road, do you really need 4x4?

A linux mail server isn't going to blow up just because it's linux (to be fair, exchange won't either but there's a lot more targetting it). The fact that there's a big company behind one and not the other doesn't make a difference either (look at the most recent Cisco exploits allowing someone to buffer overflow your router) Nothing will change until a fair evaluation is made looking at the feature set and cost, not the platform (hey, it's a box on a network. 99% of the people won't even know).

Re:Who is listening?

[Bert64]

And you have to think long term, the biggest mistake most people make is choosing what's suitable for them *now* without having an exit strategy..
In other areas, businesses would not choose a supplier without there being a drop-in alternative incase something bad happens with their current supplier (bankrupcy, massive price increases, lower quality of service etc)..
This happens when a market matures, the hardware market has matured but software hasn't yet..
If your using something that can be trivially replaced by another vendor, your current vendor has to keep you happy or else you'l move elsewhere, we recently moved from dell (bought because they were cheap) to IBM (better quality) because that best suited our needs, and we could still switch back to dell or to anyone else at any time if the need arose.

Re:CRM

[Dan667]

Just what I was going to say. May not yet be a Pivotal, but won't be long.

Fluff

[goldspider]

The list of packages seems to be the sort of stuff that PHBs piss company money away on after they already have the bare essentials.

How about a list of the bare essentials instead?

Re:Fluff

[Bimo_Dude]

The list of packages seems to be the sort of stuff that PHBs piss company money away on after they already have the bare essentials.
How about a list of the bare essentials instead?

So are you implying that ERP (specifically Financial), telephony, and CRM are not part of the bare essentials? Retailers don't need POS? Every business where I've worked has had many of these types of applications. What, in your mind, is critical (bare essentials) to business that is not on the list (besides database, and web - which was pointed out in an earlier thread)?

Disclaimer: I'm not a PHB. Not even a B. Just a lowly lackey.

Re:Fluff

[goldspider]

All I'm saying is that businesses have gotten along just fine in the past without heavy convoluted packages like ERP and CRM.

I'd be more interested in seeing a list of office suites, book-keeping, and tax software; the kinds of things that even small businesses need.

Re:Fluff

[Bimo_Dude]

Ok. I understand now. You do have a point there, as the article seems more geared towards the larger businesses.

Things like Open Office, TurboCash (Windows only) which includes POS for retail folks. I'm not too sure about tax software. Even closed source tax applications for business are pretty difficult to maintain.

It would be interesting if somebody were to write an article that included absolutely everything a business could need, from the desktop applications, through database, financial, reporting, tax, web, OS, etc..., maybe categorized by small business, meduim-sized, and enterprise.

Re:Fluff

[Bauguss]

not just an article, how about a whole ossbusiness.com site that lists all the choices but takes time to seperate out the best from flock. Perhaps one already exists..if it doesn't, it should. And it should take time out to recognize things like Firefox. It should also not be linux only. Any OSS should apply.

Re:Fluff

[Bimo_Dude]

That is even better. I have never seen a site like that, and even a quick Google search doesn't list any either. Hmmmm...

Could even be a site run by an employee-owned company that does implementation and support consulting for such things.

Good point

[BlackCobra43]

Still, I would think that this book might appear "imcomplete" to PHBs and the likes.

Re:Good point

[Itchy Rich]

Still, I would think that this book might appear "imcomplete" to PHBs and the likes.

I always laugh when I read the acronym "PHB" used like this. To me it always meant "Psycho Hose Beast", a.k.a. bunny boiler.

"build or buy"

[ir0b0t]

I've wondered for a *long* time why coders do not prefer a build-it model to servicing mass-produced proprietary code.

The profession of coding would be stronger as a profession if coders kept the source open and sold time to build individuals what they needed. There is little danger that non-coders will suddenly wean themselves from the need to hire coders just because the source is available.

Doctors generally don't keep their medical knowledge secret to make money. They share knowledge and concentrate on practicing.

Re:"build or buy"

[geoffspear]

That's not really a very good analogy, unless you can download a free appendectomy.

Re:"build or buy"

[plopez]

I don't think it is as much coders as it is PHB's. PHB's look at in-house or contracted 'build-it' projects and are frightened since:
1) They do not know how to manage them
2) It amounts to R&D and is therefore high risk.
3) If your home brew application mangles data, it is the PHB which takes the heat. WHile if the 'off the shelf' application breaks, you blame the vendor.
4) There is a good argument for cost sharing. 5 Companies sharing the cost of an application end up paying 1/5 (in theory) of what the in-house app. would cost.
5) Smaller IT staff, and instead of paying for the best you hire a few monkeys as the vendor is expected to do the hard core support.

HTH

Re:"build or buy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's a very good analogy. After all, not many people can perform an appendectomy, let alone, perform one on themselves. Its a service, not a product after all.

Also, you need to consider the fact that even if you can perform an appendectomy, maybe your time is more valuable if spent doing something else.

Making money on F/OSS more or less requires you to bill time for what is essentially skilled labor. It could be coding, consulting or administration or something similar.

This is just like how a Doctor bills you time for a his expertiese and skill in performing a diagnosis, assisting with rehabilitation, performing therapy or removing that infected appendix of yours.

Re:"build or buy"

[geoffspear]

Yes, but software is a product. There's no real reason for coders not to produce a product and sell it when they can, except the philosophical reasons put for by FOSS advocates.

Besides, the scientific knowledge behind medical practice isn't really analagous to source code. Programmers don't keep language reference manuals, etc. secret, in the same way doctors don't keep medical knowledge secret. Some doctors choose to work for pharmaceutical companies that sell proprietary drugs, and some choose to perform a service for patients and charge the patients. The analogy to software breaks down here; selling proprietary software might be like selling proprietary drugs in some sense, but selling the service of writing software to one person and then giving away the product you produced for them to everyone else for free is nothing like selling the service of healing an individual. There's no leftover healing to give away. If there was, you can bet the doctors would sell it for as much as the market would bear.

Re:"build or buy"

[emurphy42]

I work for a consulting company that sells and supports another company's standard application, and adds custom code for clients who want it bad enough to pay for it. This has two major advantages:

1. No re-inventing wheels. Saves lots of time and money for both us and the client.
2. No debugging wheels. Client doesn't automatically blame every single problem on our coders. "Look, there are thousands of companies running this exact same thing - we didn't customize that part - so if there was a logic error, then all of them would have seen it and complained about it. It's much more likely that your network hiccuped in the middle of the update. Here's how we repair the damage, and here are some options for improving the network situation..."

Re:"build or buy"

[HeyLaughingBoy]

time to build individuals what they needed

The coders may prefer it, but the market definitely does not.

The problem is that it costs more than many markets will bear. If it costs me $10,000 to build a Shipping system, there are many fewer potential customers than if it cost $200. But if I build that $10,000 system, keep it proprietary, and sell it for $200, my market is much larger. Instead of a single $10k sale, I can make hundreds of $200 sales.

Re:"build or buy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but software is a product. There's no real reason for coders not to produce a product and sell it when they can, except the philosophical reasons put for by FOSS advocates.

There is no conflict between producing Free software and selling this software. In fact, RMS encourages the sales of software, for as much dough as you can get! :)

Re:"build or buy"

[DavidD_CA]

IANADoctor, but I would imagine that most doctors who share their research and knowledge do so because:

a) They are paid to do so through grants.

b) They want the ego/recognition/opportunties that come from being published in a journal.

Just my hunch though.

Re:"build or buy"

[DrMowinckel]

I think you are oversimplifying. To give an equally simplified example:

Givens:
A Shipping costs 10,000$ to build.
A competing proprietary off-the-shelf system costs 200$
A basic open source shipping systems project exists (there always is for a thing as basic as this)

Your offer to to the customer will be to install the basic system and make a few customizations, all at the same price as the competitor. You can thereby make a better (tailor-made) solution than the proprietary system.

You then donate 20% of your profits to the open source project.

This is the general idea, anyways...

Re:"build or buy"

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's true that not everyone can perform the surgery , practically everyone can code. There are *so* many more programmers than doctors, orders of magnitude more. So that's where the analogy falls apart. Coding largely is *unskilled* labor, taken on by randoms and rejects in an attempt to stay revelent.

Re:"build or buy"

[geoffspear]

Another horrible analogy. Anyone can write code (the only skill required is typing, after all), just like anyone could cut someone open with a scalpel and fiddle with their organs.

It takes real skill to do either well. Granted, learning to practice medicine takes a lot more study and effort than learning to program well, and maybe even more innate talent. But to suggest that any random person could write a useful application is just dumb.

Re:"build or buy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is almost always none since anyone who could buy it could also do it for free. If people pay for open source software, they are not acting 'rationally', in the strictest economic sense of the word. If that breaks down, all economic theory does too. So which is more likely wrong, hundreds of years of economic theory, or Richard Stallman ?

Re:"build or buy"

[Proteus]

Economies of scale are important, yes. But, a well-run, diverse group of developers and integrators could obtain better economies of scale through open code and billing for time to create customized solutions.

Imagine the following scenario:

It costs $10,000 to build a shipping system from scratch. However, a group of developers sees that many people need shipping systems that share many common elements, and eats the time-cost of development (same as would happen in a closed-source model).

Instead of charging $200 for a pre-built piece of software that will likely not cover every need (as is common with commerical, closed software), this opens the code and allows free access to anyone who needs shipping software.

Now, however, when the software doesn't do /exactly/ what is needed, instead of hiring 2 developers to write a custom extension to a closed piece of software (and spending $2000 in addition to the original $200), they can hire 2 developers who have intimate knowledge of the product and can create the customization more quickly -- perhaps this costs $1800. The company has now saved $400 on the software.

Alternatively, a pooling model can work quite well. I had the honor of participating in a project where several competing companies were organized to solve a common problem with inventory control that was specific to the type of business. The consulting firm that developed the solution billed over $8,000,000; however, no company payed more than $1,000,000 themselves. At the end, they had their product and /all/ of the consulting needed to integrate it into their business.

Compared to commercially available solutions, they all saved significantly. The nearest competition was a $70,000 piece of software -- but the consulting quotes to integrate it into the business were typically around $1.5M (depending on specifics). That's an *average* $500,000 savings.

Of course, convincing competitors that it is in their best interests, occasionally, to cooperate on common goals is a Herculean task - the Prisonner's Dilemma demonstrates that such things tend to be against human nature.

Re:"build or buy"

[falconwolf]

Which is almost always none since anyone who could buy it could also do it for free. If people pay for open source software, they are not acting 'rationally', in the strictest economic sense of the word. If that breaks down, all economic theory does too. So which is more likely wrong, hundreds of years of economic theory, or Richard Stallman ?

Actually AB MySQL shows this may be false in the sense that those who buy MySQL aren't so much buying the software itself as they are buying technical support. It seems we're moving from a production economy to a service economy.

Though I like F/OOS proprietary software has it's place in the market just as FOSS does.

Falcon

Re:"build or buy"

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Now, THAT's a development model that makes sense to me and in fact it was one I advocated here about a year ago (and I was told that I was crazy and accused of having a "dot-com business model"!). It should also reduce support and sales costs by having fewer total customers for the same amount of revenue.

It's interesting to see a real world example of how it could work.

My interpretation of what the parent poster was asking -- and what I was responding to -- was "why aren't all projects created from scratch and then open sourced since new code is more interesting?"

Re:"build or buy"

[tftp]

++$n) Buy the app and use it today. Start your R&D project and, even if all is well, start using it a year from now.

Re:"build or buy"

[Bender0x7D1]

The analogy breaks down in a certain way... There is only one copy of the doctor with that specific knowledge/skill. However, once a single application is created, it can be copied as many times as desired.

For example, imagine a word processing application. Once a single customer has it, they could give it away for free. Or a company like Dell could include it for free with every system. I would consider this similar to having the doctor cloned as many times as required, which is beyond current technology.

Re:"build or buy"

[ir0b0t]

Remedies prescribed by doctors can be generalized, but the profession does not do that anymore. Lawyers and realtors have forms which anyone can get and try to do their own work, but its not usually a good idea.

Re:"build or buy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctors DO NOT follow the aforementioned model you are pushing.

"Doctors generally don't keep their medical knowledge secret to make money. They share knowledge and concentrate on practicing."

Huh? No one else but doctors can practice. It's a heavily restricted trade. Everything else besides knowledge, from membership to the profession, to the licensing to practice, to the drugs, is conrolled and limited; they don't need to limit knowledge because nearly everything else is.

Do you know somewhat what "practice" effectively really means? It means a) flexibility in the choices and treatments, aka limited liability codified by (common and/or case) law--you can screw up but if it's not far off, you're in the clear; b) actions restricted to members of an established and recognized profession as determined by law.

And the law defers back to the profession itself solely. Entry to be a doctor is limited by the profession, a little like some labor unions but legally codified by laws. Even if you have the knowledge of a doctor, could ace the boards (if you were allowed to take them and have it count; you aren't), etc., you cannot practice. Ever. Not unless you pony up and have a degree.

To practice, you must be licensed. To be licensed in most states, you must at least have a medical degree (MD or OD). (An example--most states might say you have to pass boards, but the boards aka tests state that you must have completed X years at an accreditted institution.) The number of degrees in turn is limited to the class size by the number of accredited institutions. Accredition of those institutions is determined by a small circle which is cahoots with the profession itself, who in turn listen to demand in order to determine class size.

A "profession" (in terms of professional schooling) ends up being a mix between a fraternity (accepted members must approve new members), a trust (group monopoly), and a labor union. To refer back to your misguided suggestion re code, the medical profession is easily far more like the DRM and the "buy in" that MS is pushing than some open market of knowledge and based on merit.

A simple proof of this to look at PhDs. There are PhDs in certain areas that know far far far more than doctors in a particular area do, but they could never be accepted into a residency to learn the skills in order to practice without going through medical school. See, it's not based on knowledge or merit, but who has the degree. The degree is the barrier of entry to the entire profession.

You ever hear occasionally about the battle to limit the number of foreign degree'd doctors that can practice? Usually, there is spin on the news about some bad foreignly accrediting doctor with a nasty malpractice case, used to anecdotally smear foreign educated or trained doctors. Then some schmuck, usually an AMA mouthpiece, comes on saying or heavily foreign doctors should be banned or some nonsense.

The real reason they want to ban them is because it's the loophole to practicing in the US they haven't closed; get educated overseas then return. This is still not much of a problem because most places will look at foreign educated degree holders only AFTER they look at domestic ones when accepting folks into residency. And you aren't going to get fully licensed without passing the residency requirements.

But they were hoping to close that loophole around 1998 because the projections by the trade/profession was (due to economic conditions, mainly HMO increasing the number of patients per doctor) indicating there would be too many doctors in the near future; mainly those already trained (2nd, 3rd, 4th year medical students, those in residency but not yet practicing).

They wanted this to protect the domestically trained doctors or those already practicing (strangely, many of those pushing the ban were foreign trained).

Re:"build or buy"

[dsci]

Or, there's another way to look at it:

Medical Doctors (I am married to one) typically share their knowledge for a host of reasons: altruism, ethics, basic human interaction with their customers (patience). When I read the GP's analogy, I thought of Dr. sharing knowledge was a lot more basic than publishing.

For example: my Mom had surgery this past Monday. Last week, I happened to be doing some server work at a Surgeon's office; he took the time to answer my questions about the risks involved in her procedure (she has had a few health problems earlier this year) even though I am not his patient (nor is my Mom). He shared his knowledge and expertise freely because, generally, that's what doctors do.

Anyway, that's the way I read his point. I think the Open Source analogy is pretty good in this case.

Re:"build or buy"

[dsci]

Isn't this somewhat like how web development with CMS's are done? The basic CMS tools are there (and are often open source, such as phpwebsite, and are fairly easy to use in a basic way.

However, many businesses/organizations don't want to internally labor to make that skeleton into their own web site; they might hire a developer to do so. A good web site developer would not only use the CMS, but would modify it as needed to produce the site the customer wants.

I think the model you are describing can work. The general issue, in my observation, is an incredible momentum in business favoring the cathedral model.

Re:"build or buy"

[DavidD_CA]

I think every profession is full of people who freely give advice, such as what you were given about your mother's surgery.

I know I've given tons of computer-related advise to people without expecting anything in return. My barber, the guy at the grocery store, etc.

But if I'm going to take the time to write a full-featured application, especially one that others will profit from using, I expect to be paid for it.

It's more than just choosing applications

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep this in mind: a big-ass list of "open-source replacement alternatives" sort of implies that the closed-source path is the "normal way to do it" in the first place. If you're starting from there you've already lost. Every alternative choice will need to be justified to death and most will lose.

Better to bring the philosophy in this way: "We will use the best tool for the job. We strongly prefer open source for reliability and flexibility reasons; we will consider commercial products where appropriate." And then do the best job you can do with the tools you've chosen. A record of excellent results, even a very short one, is the best way to give open source a toehold.

Re:It's more than just choosing applications

[latroM]

"We will use the best tool for the job. We strongly prefer open source for reliability and flexibility reasons; we will consider commercial products where appropriate."

Are you saying that Open Source can't be commercial? Red Hat, MySQL, QT etc. anyone? If you mean non-free then say so.

Re:It's more than just choosing applications

[doc modulo]

Mod parent up please, I don't have mod points.

Brain fart

[BlackCobra43]

this GUIDE, not book. Oy.

Re:Alternative option.

[LiquidCoooled]

This isn't a troll.

We pay more for ready made items every single day of our lives.
Sure, Linux is excellent, but until a critical mass of support confidence arrives managers won't even look at it (at least from my own experiences)

vertical market apps

[danheskett]

Most business need a line-of-business or vertical market application for day to day use. General purpose apps are great for general purposes, but many many many businesses are based of regional vertical market applications. Stuff like point of sale systems for stores, software for furniture stores to schedule deliveries and inventory, medical billing software which is highly regionalized, software for denists offices, software for small banks, software for warehouse management, software for small movie rental stores, etc. General purpose computing is doing great. But for vertical markets small niche vendors are doing great.

LDAP server moving closer to becoming commodity

[jurt1235]

And I was under the assumption that LDAP servers were dinosaurs quickly heading to extinction. Other SSO solutions work too with just a simple database behind it and not the added complexity of LDAP maintenance.

Re:LDAP server moving closer to becoming commodity

[Tony Hoyle]

Active Directory is an LDAP server (with kerberos storing passwords, etc.)

That's about as commodity as you can get in the business world.

I wouldn't touch slapd with a bargepole in comparison... editing your user list in LDIF format using vi is *not* fun, or productive.

Re:LDAP server moving closer to becoming commodity

[jurt1235]

slapd is the one I am talking about (-:, active directory is miles of ahead of that in way of user interface and how it is used.

All well and good...

[thatedeguy]

Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?
Personal computers are one thing, since at the moment the only people that use open source software are geeks, but in a corporate(business) environment, if something goes down, it has to be back up fast and without support, how does one accomplish that if it isn't withing that admin's realm of expertise?

Re:All well and good...

[GecKo213]

When I have a problem with an Open source program that "breaks" I always head to IRC and jump into a room that has people talking about those type of things for help. When I was first getting into the Linux world I was in IRC constantly asking for help and trying to help others with the limited knowledge that I had at the time. Most people are very willing to help out if you can come up with a specific question or problem.

Re:All well and good...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?

Umm, your vendor or whomever you contracted for support.

...in a corporate(business) environment, if something goes down, it has to be back up fast and without support, how does one accomplish that if it isn't withing that admin's realm of expertise?

If your admin can't manage a recovery plan and/or can't figure out how to run and install the software you need then you need a new admin. This has nothing to do with open vs. closed source or commercial vs. free software. Do you work for the government or something? That is the only place I've heard of where decisions are made that way. "We wanted to build a concrete building but the contractor we hired only knows how to build log cabins, so the building will be made out of logs." You choose your employees and your software based upon their strengths and weaknesses. If you can save 100K a year by using Apache instead of IIS across your whole enterprise, but your systems administrator can't figure out Apache, fire his ass pronto. He's got to be incompetent. It's as bad as those correspondence school programmers who want a job at a real development shop but can only program in visual basic and are completely unable to learn any other languages. It's just sad.

Re:All well and good...

[Dogers]

You don't deploy until you know what you're doing with it, same as with MS stuff.

When MS stuff breaks, what do you do? Call MS and pay them $250 for each problem?

When OSS stuff breaks, what do you do? Call someone with expertise on the subject (a consultant?) or ensure you have someone on site who knows what the hells going on! :)

Re:All well and good...

[thatedeguy]

Umm, your vendor or whomever you contracted for support.

And when you download it from a website somewhere without contact info? Which does happen btw.

If your admin can't manage a recovery plan and/or can't figure out how to run and install the software you need then you need a new admin...your systems administrator can't figure out Apache, fire his ass pronto.

Managing a recovery plan and running and installing software is completely different from finding a bug in software. Where I'm from(North Dakota, USA) admins only get paid about 50k, so finding one who can handle everything is fairly rare. And there are some errors/bugs that are rare enough that until you run into them, you haven't a clue how to fix them and thus need some form of support. The thing to remember is that not everyone is an UberGeek.

Re:All well and good...

[La Gris]

Open source or Closed source have nothing to do with operating software and engaging responsability on installation and services.

Imagine you run a wood factory and need accouning software and stock application.

Your domain is wood, not IT. So you Hire someone or you buy service to an IT company to provide you with proper software that feets your computing needs.

Wether the provided software is open source or closed source is not your business. You just like it to do the intended work. If something's wrong you tunr back to the entity who can fix it: the IT company that sold you the installed and operationnal system and support service.

Open source risk is a non question for the final user.

Open source is all about source and none about providing installed binaries for an operationnal application.

Re:All well and good...

[thatedeguy]

ok, but the inverse is that many companies are now integrating their own IT departments. Also, alot of not IT people will look at hiring a consultant as "your hiring someone anyway, so whats the difference?" I realize that there is a monetary difference of course, but try convincing a MS office drone that OS will be better, and its like talking to a wall.

Re:All well and good...

[chris_mahan]

>Where I'm from(North Dakota, USA) admins only get paid about 50k, so finding one who can handle everything is fairly rare.

Then obviously the businesses don't care enough. If the salaries were running $130,00/year, plenty of competent admins could be found. (they'd move from other states/countries in droves).

Maybe the reason why North Dakota is short of Unbergeeks is that other states pay better so it's suffering from a slow but telling brain-drain.

Re:All well and good...

[delta_avi_delta]

Yes, but presumably your expert is rather expensive, either to keep on site (expertise costs) or to have consult (external expertise really costs).

Either way it's facile to imply that it's somehow more expensive to have Microsoft software break down on you. Or was your point that you'd have to pay Microsoft, specifically?

Re:All well and good...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And when you download it from a website somewhere without contact info? Which does happen btw.

So here are the possible scenarios:

• download software and run it - if you know what you're doing and are confident you don't need support for this software this is the cheapest option.
• download software and contract support or get the software and support through a vendor - if you don't know what you're doing or just want to make sure your ass is covered this is usually cheaper than closed software and gives you the option of going with a different vendor in future without expensive migration costs. This also insures that migration is possible if the software becomes abandoned.
• Buy closed source and support from a proprietary vendor - this usually costs more than any other option and often locks you in to a single supplier. If they raise the price or abandon it you're probably screwed.

If you download software and don't arrange for support, or use software written by some shmoe who doesn't even post a contact e-mail address then whether or not the software is open source is the least of your problems.

Managing a recovery plan and running and installing software is completely different from finding a bug in software.

...your point being? If you find a bug with any software you can ask your vendor to fix it and hope they do so. With closed source if they don't want to for some reason you're screwed. With open source you can also hire any number of competing developers to fix it. You might even get it fixed for free if you ask someone nicely.

...admins only get paid about 50k, so finding one who can handle everything is fairly rare.

Any even halfway decent admin should be able to learn. I've never hired anyone who knew how to run all the software required for their job. Everyone I've hired has had to learn, which they are capable of doing. Learning is really not that hard.

...and thus need some form of support. The thing to remember is that not everyone is an UberGeek.

They don't have to be ubergeeks. If you need support, buy support. It's not like there aren't dozens of companies like IBM that provide exactly that support. With open source you can often even choose from among a number of good, competing vendors. For some reason that often makes your support costs much lower than when you are locked into one vendor. All your arguments have been, "But if I don't know what I'm doing and don't buy support I'm I'll have problems." Well either figure out what you're doing, or buy support. This is not rocket science.

Re:All well and good...

[DogDude]

You didn't read the parent post. He was talking about mission critical in a business environment.

"Jumping on IRC and asking somebody" isn't a solution for a what he's asking.

Re:All well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

a wood factory

I think it's called a tree.

sorry...

Re:All well and good...

[HangingChad]

Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?

If you have your system set up right you go the store room and get a new desktop or laptop, plug it up, login and start working again. For the company users it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

Start moving your critical apps to web-based applications and migrating productivity software to OpenOffice. If there's some application that you just have to have in Windows, consider running a Windows machine as a kiosk instead of paying for a full Windows license on every desktop. That really does help ease the transition.

It's really not that hard but listen to the whiners come out of the woodwork. Sheez! Most people won't except equivelent functionality from Linux, it has to be better before they would consider switching.

Re:All well and good...

[falconwolf]

Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?
Personal computers are one thing, since at the moment the only people that use open source software are geeks, but in a corporate(business) environment, if something goes down, it has to be back up fast and without support, how does one accomplish that if it isn't withing that admin's realm of expertise?

If the admin doesn't know how to do his/her job then it's tyme to get another admin, have the one you do have get training, or get someone to help the admin who knows what they're doing. A business should have someone they know can do something in any mission critical position.

Falcon

Re:All well and good...

[falconwolf]

Yes, but presumably your expert is rather expensive, either to keep on site (expertise costs) or to have consult (external expertise really costs).

Either way it's facile to imply that it's somehow more expensive to have Microsoft software break down on you. Or was your point that you'd have to pay Microsoft, specifically?

Only speaking for myself but I'd rather have choices. With proprietary software there may be only a few experts but as FOSS becomes more popular more will learn it. As the number of those with the ability increases the costs of hiring those abilities decreases. I'm not saying there isn't a place for proprietary software, not at all as I believe there's enough room for both proprietary software and for FOSS in the market, the trick is to know what works where.

Falcon

Re:All well and good...

[n0ah84]

You don't *make* trees..

They do however have lumber yards or factories I guess..

Just my $.02..

Re:All well and good...

[jimicus]

since at the moment the only people that use open source software are geeks

I keep seeing phrases like this being trotted out in the last few weeks on here. Yet I keep seeing Novell, IBM and RedHat appearing in press releases and news articles about ordinary businesses moving systems to Linux.

Perhaps "the only people that use open source software voluntarily as the basis of their primary desktop system are geeks". But there's a whole world of servers out there which have never and will never run Windows.

Re:All well and good...

[jimicus]

Which is fine. Now you have a system, and if it breaks or you need it extended, you know who to call.

I think the benefit of open source from this perspective is providing an alternative if the person who you want to call has been run over by the proverbial bus. Reduce the risks inherent in owning the system, not the risk of having it installed in the first place.

Re:All well and good...

[TykeClone]

Remember that $50K in the midwest goes alot further than it does on the coasts - especially in smaller towns.

Re:All well and good...

[Dogers]

Not specifically MS, but you're paying either way.. Someone supports you whichever way you go.

Re:All well and good...

[GecKo213]

Why not? I have used IRC many times to solve Mission Critical problems as well. I ran a small PC repair shop. Our e-mail went down. I jumped on IRC and found someone to help fix it. (Groupwise) Same type of things have happened many times. Try the vendor specific Tech support first, but while you wait jump on IRC and try. Just a thought really. It's worked for me before.

Re:All well and good...

[GecKo213]

Why not? I have used IRC many times to solve Mission Critical problems as well. I ran a 19 tech PC repair shop with our own accounting/customer DB/rather large warehouse etc. Our e-mail went down. (Mission Critical) While I was waiting for Novell to get on the line I jumped on IRC and found someone to help fix it. (Groupwise) Same type of things have happened many times with the business' DB (Oracle). The general OS stuff I or someone else in the shop could fix mostly on our own. Try the vendor specific Tech support first as always you should, but while you wait jump on IRC and try. Just a thought really. It's just worked for me before on numerous occasions.

We listen we just don't believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we are not listening or reading these things.

We basically say the same thing as your boss.

MS seems to be doing fine, we don't need to retrain, and the money is an operating cost we have already accounted for.

While open source is nice, a big concern is support.

Most staff is resistant to change, no matter what the source model of the software is. They want to keep doing what they know.

With our servers we use some BSD's because they are secure. We had one person say we should have a Linux box acting as our firewall, I promptly ordered them a new server and a nic with 8 risers (we only needed 4 machines behind it as it was and extra layer of protection). I then promptly told him he had to use NetBSD on it.

It seemed to piss him off some. He wanted Linux. Whatever, he did what he was told.

I digress.

Anyway, no we want things to run smoothly and OSS throws a monkey wrench in that. People expect the crashes, expect the problems that windows brings so we know our enemy. Adding OSS to the mix is just opening a whole new can of worms.

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[absurdist]

And it's creative vision and foresight like this that made the British automobile industry (BMC was once the third largest manufacturer of cars in the world) into the juggernaut it is today.

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

you asked a question.

I gave the answer as it applies to the organization I work for.

sorry you don't like it.

we will never go out of business, we are goverment (state goverment)

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Trelane]

With our servers we use some BSD's because they are secure. We had one person say we should have a Linux box acting as our firewall, I promptly ordered them a new server and a nic with 8 risers (we only needed 4 machines behind it as it was and extra layer of protection). I then promptly told him he had to use NetBSD on it.

...

Anyway, no we want things to run smoothly and OSS throws a monkey wrench in that. People expect the crashes, expect the problems that windows brings so we know our enemy. Adding OSS to the mix is just opening a whole new can of worms.

That's rather funny. Open Source Software (the expansion of "OSS") seems to be working quite well for you (NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD).

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

we will never go out of business, we are goverment (state goverment) That has to be one of the funniest comments I've ever read on /.

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

OSS in the server room is great. Those people are a small portion of our staff adn trainign is not a large cost.

the desktop is another matter.

I see no contradiction

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Trelane]

I'll assume you're the same Anonymous Coward as before. If this assumption is incorrect, then skip to the "If the latter interpretation is correct" paragraph. Actually, whether or not you're the OP is irrelevant.

[now]: OSS in the server room is great. Those people are a small portion of our staff adn trainign is not a large cost.

the desktop is another matter.

I see no contradiction

[before]: With our servers we use some BSD's because they are secure. We had one person say we should have a Linux box acting as our firewall, I promptly ordered them a new server and a nic with 8 risers (we only needed 4 machines behind it as it was and extra layer of protection). I then promptly told him he had to use NetBSD on it.

A firewall is not a desktop system. You were claiming that:

[Introducing] OSS throws a monkey wrench in [things running smoothly].

So we have two cases

1. You were talking about "[introducing] OSS thows a monkey wrench into [things running smoothly]" when used on the desktop where the whole Linux/BSD story is entirely tangential and pointless because you were actually talking about the desktop
2. You were talking about "OSS" meaning "Linux" and talking about Linux throwing a monkey wrench into a BSD/Microsoft shop.

My post assumed the latter; my apologies if your Linux/BSD story was irrelevant to your post; it threw me off of your true desktop discussion.

If the latter interpretation of the OP is correct, then I stand by my post and your new post discussing OSS on the desktop is the irrelevant one and there is a contradiction--BSD is OSS!

This disregards several aspects of the OP and your new post, but this is what I'm choosing to argue for now. Others will likely argue the other aspects and I have no desire to argue for hours with Anonymous Cowards.

End of [my participation in] Thread.

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify.

I am the OP.

I again see no contradiction. The article refers to using Linux not on the desktop but as an interface for the general population of users. This is what throws a monkey wrench.

The Linux/BSD story was a complete tangent, thus the "I digress"

Since the article is specifically referring to Linux when mentioning OSS I followed suite in talking about Linux as the medium in which these things would occur.

As I said before BSD's in the server room are a good thing.

Re:We listen we just don't believe you

[Trelane]

The Linux/BSD story was a complete tangent, thus the "I digress"

Heh. Ah, there it is. I am the monkiest of all monkeys and hereby retract my point; it was pointless. My apologies for wasting your time.

Re:CRM

[Linker3000]

Having experienced Pivotal, I hope SugarCRM doesn't follow that path - maybe it was the fault of those who implemented it, but I found it ugly, slow, unintuitive, lacking in good workflow practices and unnecessarily complex, with no concept of click-minimisation: we used it to register students for training courses we ran on behalf of another company (it was their system and we had a remote Citrix login for it) and it took roughly 5 minutes to navigate back and forth between the 'student details', 'company details' and 'course details' sections - ie: approx 50 mins to register a class of 10 students.

Now we 'work alone', we have implemented pretty much all the same functionality within SugarCRM. And then there's Pivotal's licence/software costs!!!

Home Office

[doombob]

The company I work for always provides me with Non-OSS supplies like Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Frontpage, MS Office, and Windows XP. But my work at home involves various types of media projects including audio, video, and web. Right now I use Nvu for development, Audacity for my audio editing, and I'm trying out Jahshaka for video editing. And of course Open Office for everything else.

Re:Home Office

[robyannetta]

...I'm trying out Jahshaka for video editing...

Hmm, I'd go 100% open source if a GPL'ed non-linear video editor was available for Linux. I'll check into this, thanks.

Re:Home Office

[Lazarian]

For the video editing, you may also want to check out Cinelerra. It's a powerful non-linear editing suite that is focused towards professional and industrial users, and even though the hardware requirements on the site are severe, it works quite well on more moderate systems. There's also Kino and Lives, which I haven't had time to check out much. Jahshaka, which I've used a bit, seems alright. But I've had stability problems with it a lot.

Human Resources Management

[Linker3000]

Almost as confirmation of an 'ask Slashdot' question of mine a while back, there still seems to be a big hole in the area of Employee/Human Resources Management.

Re:Human Resources Management

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found most IT folks don't like HR folks ...

Re:Human Resources Management

[Linker3000]

Yes, but we still have to provide them with some apps!

Re:Human Resources Management

[Anonymous Coward]

If anybody is going to code an app for HR, *PLEASE* do something about the way they can specify open positions.

What I mean is, I don't want to look for a job in programming and see a 120+ requirements all mixed up like OOP, C++, photoshop, dreamweaver, MDX queries, Oracle DBA, 8051 asm programming... :)

Re:Human Resources Management

[Anonymous Coward]

A shameless plug for my OSS HR software.
http://paymaster.treshna.com/

Still needs work but its getting there.

If a company was smart...

[MarkEst1973]

... they wouldn't need this kind of thing. It's kind of like Paul Graham when he mused about his competitors and how it didn't really matter whether they knew he was using Lisp or not because, in the words of Robert Morris: "If they were that smart they'd already be programming in Lisp."

If a business was smart, they'd already be using open source as a competitive advantage. Google knows about servers and handling load. Your local PHB does not. Your PHB wants to buy Windows Server 2003. Google customized their own Linux distro.

I know enough to follow the really really smart people, like the ones at Google.

Re:If a company was smart...

[Joehonkie]

Yes. Because all companies can afford to keep a large amount of development staff on hand. Espescially business who do not have an IT focus.

Re:If a company was smart...

[YrWrstNtmr]

If my company was in the 'insanely huge search engine' business, I'd likely do it pretty much like Google does it.

As we're not in that business, what works for Google (customized Linux distros running 10's of thousands of servers) may not work for me.

Re:If a company was smart...

[MudButt]

If a business was smart, they'd already be using open source as a competitive advantage. Google knows about servers and handling load. Your local PHB does not. Your PHB wants to buy Windows Server 2003. Google customized their own Linux distro.

You can't seriously believe that nonsense logic... Let's use exactly the same logic in a different example.

If a mass transit system were smart, they'd build a light rail system to transport thousands of people to and from work every day. So it follows that if I'm smart, I'll also build my own light rail system for myself and by work buddies to get to a from work. Hmm... Let's rethink this...

Re:If a company was smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

cince when did google come into existance as the giant?

last I knew they started small. Sounds like they grew lots faster than thou simply because they were smarter, not spending money on silly things like server licenses.

google started smaller than you did. and it worked just fine.

N3P - Project Entrepreneur in Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Project Entrepreneur in Open Source

N3P offers a brand new, contrasting and intrepid two-year college level training in how to become a successful Project Entrepreneur in Open Source. Students will learn not only the technical possibilities, but also how to exploit new business opportunities, manage profitable ideas, and create flourishing businesses.

Starting August 15 this year, N3P will admit 40 students - 20 at our classrooms in Stockholm City and 20 through a system of advanced distance learning. There will be one new class each year 2005-2008, with the possibility to expand the concept into other regions and markets.

The typical student is between 20 and 30 years old, driven by one of three motivations; 1) the desire for prosperity, 2) independency or 3) to radically innovate. N3P will carefully screen the applicants for doers, not talkers, while persistence, passion and the ever so important ability to sell, are other important criteria.

The training will focus on how to generate business using open source. The future will show a great demand for individuals that have the ability to implement necessary changes. They should be entrepreneurs, fluent in new technology, project management and marketing. They also should excel in sales and development of new products and businesses. N3P identifies them as "Project Entreprenerus".

Missing items

[Lumpy]

and many times it's specific to what industry you are in but overall Sales and marketing tools are always missing from OSS. Where are tools for customer prospecting? how about tools for industry research off of aggregate databases available for purchase? Let alone a decent 4gl accounting package that exists as OSS.. dont get me wrong, I can buy a closed source real accounting,Inventory,and POS system for linux (no not that newbie crap like quickbooks or peachtree, a REAL accounting system) but there is no OSS stuff available that has a nice set of modules and Open scripting programming language set like 4gl so I can whip up a nice custom shipping module.

hen we get into the specalized apps, where can I get an OSS program to mine my Scaroborough or Nielsen databases I get sent monthly? How about a Traffic and Billing system for commercial sales in broadcast?

It's a neat idea, and with crossover office I can run those "special apps" but you can not realistically run your entire business on OSS. your accounting system at a minimum still needs to be a closed source app.. No commercial quality Accounting system exists in a useable state yet.

Re:Missing items

[KingOfBLASH]

Part of this is probably due to the lack of fun / demand. Typically people doing OSS projects are doing it because either they enjoy it, or because they feel that it helps fill a need of some sorts. Commercial grade accounting systems and the programs you mentioned simply do not help to scratch this itch. IMHO, the only way these programs will evolve as open source is if a company says "What I'm paying to ____ I could use to write my own software," does it, open sources it, and then other industry insiders join in. But I fear that may be many many years down the road. :'(

Re:Missing items

[foo fighter]

I'm looking for a project to work on.

What are the big commercial packages in the 4gl accounting space? Are you talking about software like Microsoft Great Plains' offerings?

What do you consider the most critical features of these packages? What would a new package need to offer to be considered as a possible replacement to the established players?

Thanks for a reply, it'll give me something to work on now that I just finished some other projects.

Re:Missing items

[Lumpy]

This is what we currently use. because of the informix legacy compatability we can rapidly design custom modules. The fact that I can also data mine out of it for special reports helps as well.

the great part is that this stuff just works is easy to back up and follows standards.

honestly, this stuff is certianly not "fun" I dont think anyone thinks that accounting is a hoot and enjoyable in any way which explains why very very few oss items exist in this realm.

Found the article interesting

[chia_monkey]

I actually read the article (talk about good reading in bed...) and actually found it a bit interesting and useful. Not only did the have a section for each application of OSS, but there was a list at the end. That way we didn't have to go through the whole article and find the applications again. Hey, time is precious. I ended up tearing out that last page and some day I'll get down to checking them all out.

Re:Heaven Forbid!

[TheRaven64]

Software companies can profit a lot from OSS. Most software sold is some kind of bespoke solution, and software companies can make a lot from taking Free tools and customising them to a particular business case. Databases aren't much use to a business - it's the application built on top of the database that's useful. The software they sell can also be Free Software - the customer can have (and should demand) all of the rights present in the Free Software definition.

It is very difficult to for a software company make money from off-the-shelf F/OSS, but very easy to make money from bespoke F/OSS. For this reason, I suspect the gaming industry to be the last closed-source segment of the market - and even they manage to make their code open while keeping their artwork non-Free in some cases (such as the Quake series).

Some other factors

[plopez]

I read the article but if it is mentioned, I missed it; but there are 2 factors which should be considered in the 'build or buy' equation:

1) Lower risk of orphaned applications. If your vendor goes casters up or is bought out you may find your most useful application(s) unsupported.

2) I have a real problem with the 'one size fits all' ERP model. Suppose you have a business process which gives you a real advantage over your competitors. If you go with an ERP package which requires you change to the same business processes your competitors use, you just lost an important advantage. There is nothing to differentiate you from the competition (not to mention the fact that all real software should model the business process, not vice versa).

1) seems to be poorly understood by most PHB's, the thought never seems to come up.

2) I think this is due to PHB's being trained in an industrial paradigm. A paradigm which says it does not matter, all 'widgets' are the same and so the process should also be the same. Which may be true when building dishwahers and refigerators, but since most of the US economy is now a services economy this does not work in a services based industry. Services should be unique, otherwise you are *only* competing on price, which is insane.

Re:Some other factors

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go with an ERP package which requires you change to the same business processes your competitors use, you just lost an important advantage.

If you change your already working, gives you an advantage over competitors, business process because some software you buy is inflexible enough to adapt to it, then you better well have done a cost-benefit analysis to support that change. Otherwise, you deserve to go out of business.

Re:Some other factors

[Lumpy]

1) Lower risk of orphaned applications. If your vendor goes casters up or is bought out you may find your most useful application(s) unsupported.


yes and no.

I have several apps here that broke horribly when linux upgraded to the new GCC and Kernel. they need to be completely re-written or run on a older install.

we choose to run them on a old machine with an old GCC for compiling them. I'm not good at C++ so we let it be until we can rewrite in C or Python.

Granted it's not orpaned bcause we havethe source but not having a C++ guru on hand , they might as well be.

Kind of like how all my legally bought games for linux are not useless as they will nto run/install. Funny how I can still play a 15 year old game on windows, but my copy of SimCity3000 from loki will not.

Re:Some other factors

[dbullock]

Haveing done an ERP, most ERP systems are already highly customizable.

I highly doubt any serious closed source ERP cannot be modified to support the hypothetical new business process.

Re:Some other factors

[mikefe]

And what you are using unmaintained software for?

So asuming it is OSS, you can go to guru.com and find several programmers that can do the work for you.

Excellent Fit...

[wgray8231]

My department at a research hospital/university was recently (almost 2 years ago) formed. (Formerlly a division in another department.) The new chair moved everyone to GNU\Linux (Debian) because he hates everythin M$ stands for. It works out great with limited funding b/c the department spends less on software and many of the tools used in the field are available as OSS anyway.

What doess XPPro and Office cost for 20 or so computers, anyway?

Re:Excellent Fit...

[secolactico]

The new chair moved everyone to GNU\Linux (Debian) because he hates everythin M$ stands for.

... And everybody knows that personal feelings are the best justification for business decisions.

Re:Excellent Fit...

[gbjbaanb]

God, so right! At one company I used to work for, they moved from cc:mail to Lotus Notes as the email application, simply because the admin hated MS.

Meanwhile, we all wanted an email app that worked and was easy to use (this was in the days before thunderbird, and OSS in general) and we had to use Notes. pathetic.

Re:Excellent Fit...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...many of the tools used in the field are available as OSS anyway

And the tools that aren't avaiable as OSS? Too bad...find a workaround?

Re:Excellent Fit...

[wgray8231]

That's what Win4Lin is for--BA3 (accounting app) is standard around here. However, it gets used entirely too much for things like Internet and office suites.

Re:CRM

[Cigarra]

This really sounds like a flamebait, but anyway, here you are:
OpenCRX.

Re:Alternative option.

[TheRaven64]

You are not paying extra for ease of use, you are paying more for vendor lock-in. The choice is:

1. Buy a single-vendor solution and hope that vendor keeps supporting it. It won't really fit your needs, but you can pay someone else to customise it and then be locked into using two vendors. Next year, support will run out on the solution you paid for, and you will be required to pay more for the upgrade.
2. Start with a Free solution and pay someone to customise it. Require that they release the customisations to you as Free Software (usually by assigning copyright to you). Next time you need to migrate systems, you have all the rights you need to employ a different contractor to do the work. You might stick with the old one, since they are more familiar with the code, but you are not forced to.

No system lasts for ever. Eventually you will need to migrate to something new. The cost of migrating away from a platform should always be factored into the initial purchase decision.

missing from the list

[lkcl]

http://erp5.org/ is missing from the list of ERP solutions in the article.

Re:CRM

[LDoggg_]

Compiere also says you're wrong.
It is both an ERP and CRM and open source.
Only drawback is that it currently requires an oracle database, but work is being done on a Postgresql port.

Re:Alternative option.

[dylan_-]

Sure, Linux is excellent, but until a critical mass of support confidence arrives managers won't even look at it (at least from my own experiences)

I really don't understand this. Sure, your boss may not even look at it, but you read Slashdot don't you? You must have occasionally seen links to stories about Linux server shipment figures? Like this?

I mean, how can you write that "managers won't even look at it" when it's clearly a matter of fact that they do?

Seriously, I would like to know, because I keep seeing people posting in this way. It's not just you. How is it that people can post their simplistic theory and argue that it must lead to this conclusion, when it's flatly contradicted by basic reality?

Re:CRM

[Lumpy]

Holy crap!

I have been looking for something like this for 2 years now. This thing rocks compared to that crap we use here (A.C.T.) I cant wait to demo this to management!

thank you very much!

GIMP, CinePaint, and Hollywood

[Sundroid]

Don't forget that Hollywood is a big user of open source software such as CinePaint, which is basically a "Son of GIMP". Hollywood studios like DreamWorks, Sony, ILM use CinePaint. A bit ironic if you think about it -- the most profit-driven business, Hollywood, uses free open-source software.

Personally, I use GIMP extensively to create graphics for my blog (http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/), and have written a blog entry in praise of the good old GIMP (http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/2005/04/in-praise-o f-gimp.html).

Oh, yeah, open source all the way!!!!

Re:GIMP, CinePaint, and Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no irony at all. The people I deal with with the biggest interest in migrating to Linux are seriously large financial institutions.

Their Financial Directors love the idea of something 'free' - it increases their profits - plus with massive servers and hundreds of desktops there are savings of millions to be had, rather than hundreds.

The majority of businesses have less than 10 employees (and even less PCs) - the savings don't outweigh the familiarity. It's like asking why businesses don't always buy the cheapest available car or office space.

Plus if I came to you and said 'here's a car, have it for free, I'll just make the money on customising or servicing it for you' what would you think?

Re:GIMP, CinePaint, and Hollywood

[falconwolf]

Hollywood studios like DreamWorks, Sony, ILM use CinePaint. A bit ironic if you think about it -- the most profit-driven business, Hollywood, uses free open-source software.

What's really ironic is the "G" in "Dreamworks SKG".

My question about GIMP is if can do what Photoshop does. As an amateur photographer who wants to break into the freelance market I can't justify the price of Photoshop CS never mind CS2. I tried GIMP about 3 years ago but it's capabilities weren't good but I've heard it has improved a lot since then. What I've been thinking of doing is trying to find a good book on GIMP and try it out again.

Falcon

Re:GIMP, CinePaint, and Hollywood

[glasse]

For someone not "in the know", could you explain what's ironic about the G?

Most people that I've seen on Slashdot accept that GIMP has features and quality comparable to Photoshop but a less user-friendly interface. For my part, I only used Photoshop once, back before I was quite as skilled with computers as I am now, couldn't figure it out, and hated it, and I basically had the same reaction to my first experience with the GIMP. :) Eventually I got over that reaction and really dug in -- there are good manuals available online, so learning to use it is not an expensive proposition (but it is time-consuming). Every task I have wanted to do in the GIMP, I have been able to do -- shift all the colors a certain amount but maintain the same shades, draw something that looked like it was shiny metal, draw a picture that could tesselate -- but the trick in both programs was always finding out how. (I suspect I don't "think like an artist".)

GIMP is a free-as-in-beer download, so why not try it and see what you think?

Ethan
P.S. Layer->Colors->Hue-Saturation, http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Golden_Text/, and http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Tileable_Textures/.

Re:GIMP, CinePaint, and Hollywood

[falconwolf]

For someone not "in the know", could you explain what's ironic about the G?

The "G" in Dreamworks SKG is Bill Gates. One of Gates' companies, Microsoft, spread FUD about Open Source Software. Meanwhile another of his companies, Dreamworks, works a lot with OSS.

Most people that I've seen on Slashdot accept that GIMP has features and quality comparable to Photoshop but a less user-friendly interface.

I've heard about how some don't like or have trouble using GIMP because the UI isn't like Photoshop. But in another story thread on /. maybe a few backs someone posted a link to a page for a version or plugin for GIMP that gives it a UI like Photoshop.

For my part, I only used Photoshop once

Never used Photoshop myself. GIMP and PSP, Paint Shop Pro, but not Photshop. Those and Quark Express about 15 years ago. I've got Deneba Canvas but haven't tried it yet and I don't know how or if it works well with photos.

GIMP is a free-as-in-beer download, so why not try it and see what you think?

I do have GIMP though it's not the current version. What I have is 2.0.4. As I said though I'd like to get a good book on it and work my way through the book I used to be able to just take a leap and dive into learning something, I prefered to learn that way. But now as I'm a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury survivor it's hard for me. Especially remembering, my memory is real bad now. I may pick up and learn but if I don't use it I loose it. This presented a problem for me when taking Java. I did alright in Java I but in the four weeks between semesters and Java I and II I almost lost all I learned. If it weren't the few weeks of review in Java II I won't of been able to stay in class.

Falcon

TurboCash

[Anonymous Coward]

free and open source

http://www.turbocash-usa.com/
http://www.turbocashuk.com/

enjoy

Re:Alternative option.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, Slashdot reader's narrormindedness prevents them from differentiating between what is true and what they WANT to be true.

OSS is less easy to use, almost all across the board. Anybody who says Linux is easy to use needs to go try and TRAIN somebody how to use it. Anybody who says OpenOffice is awesome, go try and train a MS Office user, see what THEY say.

Re:CRM

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yes, but Sugar Open Source is only a watered down version of Sugar Pro, which is not available without a license.

Exchange Replacement?

[cca93014]

Until someone comes up with an all-in-one replacement for Exchange Server, there will be no rest.

I run a small (5 person) business, and we try to use FOSS as much as possible. I could not find anything out there to replace our Exchange Server. It works, it's stable (2003 is, anyway), it syncs with our PDAs etc. etc. etc...

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[amcdiarmid]

the hearsay mill says openexchange. You will prob have to compile ldap for it though. (Man, I wish they would get pre-built packages for it. I'm pretty sure it was opened like six months ago...)

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[3CRanch]

Go check out open-exchange.org. Supposed to be equivalent to M$ Exchange...

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[cca93014]

That's the problem though. I dont have time to be compiling LDAP. I just need things to install and work.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[rsax]

GroupWise isn't free or open source but it's cheaper than the MS & Exchange combo. The backend can run on Linux, has Windows clients and support from Novell.

If you want a better deal then Novell has their Linux Small Business Suite package which includes SLES9 and GroupWise licenses .... along with a few other products. Still cheaper than MS small business offerings.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[Deagol]

Sheesh -- the Exchange juggernaut always rears its head in these threads, doesn't it?

Why a 5-person shop requires the behemoth combo of Windows 2000 (or is it 2003?) Server and Exchange 2003 is beyond my grasp.

Yeah, I know of all the whiz-bang "groupware" features Exchange has. Sure, they're kinda useful, but is that much expense for 5 people necessary?

Scheduling automation bugs the hell out of me. Maybe that's just me. I didn't buy into the Exchange way of life when I worked at a 200-person shop who lived and died by Exchange and sent Office attachments rather then simple emails. I'd laugh if a 5-person shop tried to wrangle me into that.

Personal preferences aside, isn't that just overkill? No, really -- what's the big draw? I may have been an intentional ass with my comment until this point. I *genuinely* want to know why there's such an Exchange fettish in the corporate world (which, until the parent post, I had always assumed was confined to mid-to-large organizations).

Sure, running three 21-inch monitors per workstation would probably increase productivity for most office workers. But would any sane company really buy into that?

Exchange, to me, seems to be a prime example of technology for technology's sake. Seems the gadget-happy "cosumner culture" is no stranger to business spending habits.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[Proteus]

There are advantages to a corporate-wide scheduling system, especially one that can manage resources like video-conference suites and teleconference bridges. Planning a 20-person meeting would be hell to coordinate over-the-phone -- with an enterprise scheduler, it's a snap to see everyone's schedules and select a time that works for everyone, and where the room and materials you need are available.

What I've always failed to understand is why an extremely small company needs such features, and why it's always Exchange (which, IMO, is the worst of them all).

Need groupware that syncs with PDA's? Great! Use the stuff that comes with KDE or Gnome. Or, use one of the excellent web-based FOSS groupware packages that export to iCal, combined with an iCal conduit. Yeah, you have to write a couple of scripts, but really... that cost is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining a Windows2003/Exchange2003 server and supporting (and tracking licensing of) Outlook clients.

I think so many small businesses get caught up in the game of playing "big company" that they waste their money on products that may make perfect sense in gigantic corporations, but have little advantage for smaller organizations and come with a corporate-sized price tag.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[cca93014]

Let me expand on my original post. We use Exchange for the following reasons:

- It works, is fairly low maintenance and IS stable.
- It allows us to share contacts, calendars and email if necessary
- It allows us to schedule meetings without the other attendees being present.
- It syncs with our PDA's perfectly, both at home, at work and over the air
- It has an excellent, usable web based interface when away from the office

I'm no MS fanboy. We write Java based web applications. We almost always deploy to Linux. We recommend Linux servers to our clients. We love Linux.

The thing is that I want my company to succeed, and that means using the best tool for the job. In the case of serving up java web apps, Linux is est. In the case of a groupware server, Exchange is best. Simple as that.

How much is exchange? About 1.5 days of my time. Now, if you can find me an OSS application that does all of the above and will take me less than 1.5 days to install, configure and support, I'm all ears. As it is, I'll stick with Exchange. Sorry.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[Deagol]

No need to apologize. Your lucid response to my inquiry was all that was required.

I may not necessarily agree with your reasons, but they are your reasons, And hey, it's your company, so who am I to criticize?

IMO, the most convincing point was the value of your time for the install.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[Anonymous Coward]

We threw out Exch 18 mths ago for Suse OpenExchange. Works great for us (90+ users). We used Outlook as clients for a while but only until we had moved over to Thunderbird. Had the usual compliment of whiners because it ("was different")but even they have stopped now.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[killjoe]

THe problem with exchange is that it's a headache to maintain and does not include any virus and spam protections. This makes it pretty expensive.

The thing that puzzles me is that you seem to think there are no alternatives to exchange but there clearly are. Openexchange, suse openexchange, citadel the list goes on and on.

There are lots of exchange alternatives and most of them will work with outlook.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[cca93014]

Thanks for the link to openexchange. It looks like it performs a lot of the functions of outlook, the problem is that, just looking at the install instructions, I need to be worrying about DBMS's, SMTP and IMAP servers, I need a C compiler, Java, Perl modules etc. etc.

I'm not quite sure how that is going to make it less of a headache to maintain than Exchange?

Suse OpenExchange is over $1000 US?

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[cca93014]

And how do you sync your PDAs?

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[imemyself]

The problem with a lot of the alternatives is that they aren't real easy to configure/integrate with Windows auth, and that a lot of the cost more when you factor in the price of Outlook extensions that work with them(and unless they have their own client like Groupwise, Outlook support is rather important-despite all its issues, its still probably the best groupware client for Windows). When they would cost more than Exchange, probably won't be as quick to set up, and probably won't have a lot of extensions and such from third parties(AV, antispam, backup, etc), there is no real advantage to use them.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[killjoe]

It depends on what distro you are using. I don't think anybody installs these things by hand anymore. It's usually a matter of using apt or rpms or ports.

Either way, you can always pay somebody to install it for you and it would still cost less then exchange. Plus you don't have to pay per user.

Suse openexchange was recently open sourced.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[killjoe]

" The problem with a lot of the alternatives is that they aren't real easy to configure/integrate with Windows auth,"

Microsoft tries it's best to be incompatible but the open source people are keeping ahead of MS efforts to break this compatibility. Virtually every single one authenticates with LDAP and AD using the LDAP authenticator.

"lot of the cost more when you factor in the price of Outlook extensions that work with them(and unless they have their own client like Groupwise, Outlook support is rather important-despite all its issues, its still probably the best groupware client for Windows)."

Personally if there is a worse groupware client then outlook I don't want to know about it. IT's horrendous interface, it's bloated and slow, it's annoying, it's hard to configure, it's impossible to overlay calenders on top of each other, I could go and on about exactly what a steaming pile of crap outlook is. The only people who like outlook are people who haven't used anything else.

Having said that some of the products have free outlook connectors, and there is an open source outlook connector too.

"When they would cost more than Exchange, probably won't be as quick to set up, and probably won't have a lot of extensions and such from third parties(AV, antispam, backup, etc), there is no real advantage to use them."

Well OK then. Since they don't cost more then exchange, are not harder to install and maintain then exchange and since there are an order of magnitute more third party plug ins, and since they all come out of the box with spam and av products there is no reason to use exchange at all.

Re:Exchange Replacement?

[bajaguy]

http://www.scalix.com/

Why no Open Source SSL VPN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't believe SSL-Explorer isn't listed. It's probably my favorite OSS solution this year!

Re:Why no Open Source SSL VPN?

[Anonymous Coward]

SSL-Explorer appears fundamentally flawed to me. Two things immediately caught my eye on the site. One, they are *NOT* the first open source, SSL based VPN - see OpenVPN. Second, why in the HELL would I want to enable a "borrowed" (insecure) computer to access my VPN? If I am using a VPN to secure my internal network, why introduce insecurity like that?

I did think the other management features and uch were nice, but the lie about being a first and the flawed logic about security really turned me off to the project.

Re:Why no Open Source SSL VPN?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you on about? Do you not realize there are people out there who don't have the ability/permission/wherewithal to install and configure something like OpenVPN just for occasional access to a file on their PC?

Remember that not everybody in the world has even a tenth of the computing ability of someone like you or me!!

Also, remember that browser-based VPN access is one of the fastest growing areas of info-sec today.

Actually...

[bobalu]

if they're smart they do what works for them given their employees, time requirements and other resources, regardless of the prevailing fashion.

SugarCRM sells support for its product

[mindaktiviti]

That's what you're buying, and yes you are correct about corporate people not being tech saavy.

My dad is the best example. He doesn't want to bother with do-it-yourself or free software because in reality, it's cheaper for him to buy something with support than it is to get something for free and it may not work exactly.

Of course I load up his work computer with firefox, thunderbird etc, but when it comes to his website, he'd be more interested in a company that would do everything for him, which is the right thing to do since he charges his customers $100+ an hour.

Re:Alternative option.

[LiquidCoooled]

Basic reality is the people I am around on a day to day basis.
Slashdot and the web in general are a large scale MMORG.

If I pushed for full OSS solutions to the majority of my customers they wouldn't be my customers for very long.
Sure, a long term solution is in the works, and starting small with OSS projects helps (converting the offices to Firefox for example).
I am certainly not against OSS, and someday hope to see offices full of tux, but as of right here and right now, there is only one customer who would be willing to even fire up a Linux disk, the others would just stare blankly.

NO! NO! NO!

[panurge]

Don't do it. You will get into a hell of a mess. The biggest problem you will face is that basic business accounting consists of two parallel threads: cash in and out, and debtors/creditors. Reconciling them is key to producing management accounts, and you cannot do this with spreadsheets. If you have sales tax to deal with as well, it's much worse.
If you didn't understand the above, then you need to (a) learn basic accounting and (b) shell out for a commercial accounts system such as MYOB. If you do understand it, I will offer a comment. The small business system I have developed has about 1 man year in it, spread over about 100 customers. Is it really worth trying to save yourself a few hunded $$ for that?

think like a boss to convince your boss

[Brigadier]

My boss knows nothing about computers and doesn't care to. Once they allow him to meet his bottom line he will never change a thing. I've learned that whenever I speak to him instead of dicussing details and technical mumbo jumbo I break it down into profit and loss. I explain to him that by moving to a linux based OS server we can reduce our number of servers and downtime, and that the productivity incurred will = profit. Our P200 firewall/vpn/ftp/www servers have been running straight for over a year. While our windows boxen have brought the company to a hault on more than one occasion.

Re:think like a boss to convince your boss

[jimicus]

My boss knows nothing about computers and doesn't care to.

Unless your boss is employed in a technical role (and it doesn't sound like it), he shouldn't have to. IT people need to think in business terms because the business sure as heck isn't going to think in IT terms.

Basically, the one question you need to ask yourself before requesting anything is "What does the business benefit from this?". If you can't think of a good answer to that, and your idea costs money, time or other resources, you're probably wasting your energy.

Open Source Shared Calendaring??

[Zarquil]

I've been searching for a small shared calendaring option for a while.

I'm not looking for a full-blown groupware suite - our email is done off-site by our ISP. I only need something I can tie everyone's calendar's together with - I want it small and focused on just a single task.

Boss is married to Outhouse, one guy has a Mac, I'm using Sunbird (although I'll adapt if I *have* to), so we have to tie in a bunch of platforms.

My current leanings are to Kolab with the Toltec connector (Note to OS naysayers: I'm not averse to spending money here! I would prefer Open Source.)

I'm reading TFA in the hopes of finding something - but I've seen nothing on a quick scan through it. Any other tips I could be following up on?

Re:Open Source Shared Calendaring??

[NatasRevol]

Try this:

http://hula-project.org/

Re:Open Source Shared Calendaring??

[Zarquil]

Under clients, Hula only lists Outlook's calendaring as "Planned". Quote from the FAQ:

The Outlook connector should be a set of MAPI providers that speak native Hula NMAP protocol to the Hula server. The work we are doing for CalDav Support will provide the underpinnings for the Hula calendar, which the Outlook connector will use.

A cursory look at it makes it a non-starter, unless there's something coming down the pipe "real soon now." (Boss has to be happy first. Damn, I wish I was a better coder..)

Re:Open Source Shared Calendaring??

[wmorrow]

Also have a look at http://phpicalendar.net/documentation/index.php?ti tle=Main_Page which works with Sunbird or Mozilla calendar it seems.

No offense (really) ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but those are some pretty ugly graphics. Doesn't really sell me on GIMP at all.

Linux Still not "Out of the box" solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have made a few attempts to get the ball rolling and install Linux on a spare computer here or there. Just the other day I tried Ubuntu and even though it is "linux for real people", I still think you need to be a hacker to get it fully running to the point of windows. Now if a home user has a hard time getting their sound to work, imagine the considerations of a manager to switch given time crunches, etc.

I'm all for Linux (especially in the light of vista), but Linux has a ways to go before it is an out of the box solution for business.

Exchange ?

[KurtisKiesel]

Is there an M$ Exchange/Outlook03 equivalent out there that is open source?

Re:Exchange ?

[3CRanch]

Go check out open-exchange.org. It is supposed to be equivalent to M$ Exchange...

Re:Exchange ?

[KurtisKiesel]

http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/ That is the link.. they call it xchange instead of Exchange. Thanks for the lead I will check it out.

I can think of a few counterexamples.

[QMO]

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" -- George Santayana

Re:Alternative option.

[dylan_-]

I wasn't talking about Slashdot and the web, except as a news source for these figures. I was talking about the IDC figures that I linked to. Are you perhaps suggesting that companies are buying these Linux servers and then never looking at them? Or perhaps you're suggesting that the industry figures are wrong, because you've never seen a Linux server in use in a business? Where are you coming from here?

Also

[QMO]

Lots of business have gotten along just fine without computers. Many have succeeded quite well without electricity or running water either.

Re:Also

[jimicus]

Many have succeeded quite well without electricity or running water either.

How many are still doing quite well without electricity or running water today?

A few tips...

[Saggi]

The article provide a very good set of entries for those who wish to use (on not) open source.

I have quite a few times (I work as an IT Consultant) met clients who did use open source. I my opinion there was some base indicators when it was useful:

You'll need in-house support.
For those who wish to use open source in the desktop environment, it usually requires some in-house supporters. Most employees are use to MS Windows from home and can therefore more easily engage with a windows environment. But after a learning period, it's possible to switch entirely to OS.

If anyone tries to switch their software to OS without the in-house support will often fail... but a lot of companies out there already has an in-house support team in place to help with daily routines (printers, new mousse etc...)

So a good rule is; if it's possible to "upgrade" your in-house support team to OS, you may "upgrade" the company desktop environment. (Do expect the cost of a learning period, compared to license savings).

Servers
Servers are often very expensive, but the operational users are usually less than the full range of desktop users in the companies. Therefore it's often more easy to switch servers, and use OS.

It still requires some fairly good administrators, but that issue goes for commercial products as well.

As most commercial server software is fairly expensive, good savings can be made here.

But check out for various issues. The basic stuff like mySql is much easier to hack than MSSql. (I know as I have been working with security on several projects). This is often not due to the product limitations, but the lack of knowledge by the administrators and developers using these platforms.

Sadly I have often seen sites that allow for SQL-insertions. In an MSSql environment, you just dictate the use of stored procedures, and your safe...

Other stuff
There are some other parameters any company needs to consider, but they are often not as general as the two above. Basically it all comes down to a simple return of investment calculation: Is the expenses in regards to OS, less than the licenses?

My own site uses OS (see link above). Why not? In my spare time I can be nerdish enough to play around, and here the OS world have it all... the only other option was to use pirate copies. So in a sense the really smart consultants and developers are forced to train and us OS. (Oh, yes I do have access to MSDN, but that's an other story).

Re:A few tips...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch as more companies set up providing hosted applications on OS for small businesses - they will connect via the web and not even know their business is running on OS.

People are already working on hosted back-office solutions for small businesses - no need to run your own Exchange server, just have clients to rich client web apps.

Re:CRM

[daperdan]

I've been watching Compiere for years. The Postgresql port has been in the works for years. I think it's a dead project. I hope I'm wrong but you won't find many messages on the subject in the Compiere forum.

OpenConnector.Org

[Kunta Kinte]

We're working on it at OpenConnector.Org

But help is always needed. The code is still in alpha, though I'd like to release the first public Beta in November, in time for the projects 3 year aniversary.

Problem is that this is not a simple piece of software; there's a reason it hasn't been done. Very few people understand MAPI, and those who do, understablely want to get paid for doing it.

We need people experienced in MAPI, funds to offset coding time, etc.

Re:OpenConnector.Org

[dbullock]

Join the long list of alpha quality Exchange replacements that will be around Real Soon Now.

(sigh)

Sorry I'm one of the people that project competition in the OSS space is WAY overblown and just spreads the talent thin. The lack of an open source Exchange alternative and the lack of Linux penetration on the desktop are direct results of this.

Re:OpenConnector.Org

[Kunta Kinte]

Join the long list of alpha quality Exchange replacements that will be around Real Soon Now.

Before you choose to critize, the project has over 12K lines of code and proof-of-concepts that work.

Sorry I'm one of the people that project competition in the OSS space is WAY overblown and just spreads the talent thin.

That's the talent's decision, now isn't it? Attitudes like that that give me second thoughts on releasing my code open-source.

The lack of an open source Exchange alternative and the lack of Linux penetration on the desktop are direct results of this.

What does that have to do with me?

Nobody owes you anything.

Re:OpenConnector.Org

[dbullock]

And, I choose to criticize knowing full well. I actually did go visit the website.

It's alpha quality by the admission of the website in the link listed. One of many. Yawn.

Exchange is the holy grail windmill that opensource teams tilt at, but never knock over. Proof of concepts aren't alternatives.

It IS the "talent"'s decision to release code, and the "talent" gets judged by those of us ("consumers") who are intended to use the project. Certainly an Exchange replacement with it's own URL is intended to be used by IT people? Or do you think your target is home users? Do you think that just because it's OSS'd that it can't stink?

Releasing code into the public space is either ego masturbation or intent for it to be adopted. If the link gets posted on slashdot then I'm sorry I didn't meet your expectation of fawning adoration for your "generous contribution of proof of concepts that work" when I splashed you with a cold bucket of consumer reality.

Those of us pushing OSS against Windows/Exchange/IIS in the Enterprise and SMB space DON'T need yet another proof of concept, or another failed project. We need well thought out, well coded working systems. I have a great proof of concept that my management has bought into called Exchange 2003. I hate it, but you guys (the aforementioned "talent") can't seem to match it, let alone beat it.

If a developer can't handle having their code and projects judged by their target audience then maybe they should keep it to themselves after all.

Certainly I judge what corporations put out, just because you're doing it for ego/karma instead of dollars doesn't exempt you from evaluation.

Lastly, you are correct the inability of Linux to penetrate the desktop has nothing to do with you directly. You're only a symptom of the problem that is holding it back.

Nobody owes me anything, nor do I owe you a fawning adoration or even a "pass" if your project doesn't rate it.

And hey, if you manage to climb out of the "alpha proof of concept hole" I'll be the first to apologize.

Best regards,

Dave

I am

[DogDude]

Actually, I'm one business owner who's a geek and who does pay attention. I can tell you from my point of view (small company... ~5 employees, growing quickly), the *vast* majority of the OSS offerings out there are embarassing when compared to what's already out there are regular proprietary software. I'd *love* to make the leap, but the quality and functionality of most of the things I've seen is laughable, really. About all we use is VNC, and while it's a great program, what we use it for isn't mission critical by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:CRM

[LDoggg_]

There's a somewhat active fork called Kompiere Libero that apparently has compiere working on postgres and they've added a manufacturing module
Haven't tried it yet, but take a look

Re:CRM

[Anonymous Coward]

And just what does the Professional version provide that the FOSS version does not?

Support?

I suppose...

[dlefavor]

I suppose I could build a package delivery company out of parts I get at Autozone and Parts Plus.

As an academic exercise, I guess there's some value, but as a practical matter, I think I'll just buy trucks.

It is also a question of scale.

[amcdiarmid]

If you envision needing lots of servers, you go open source: It may not be "the best" for service, but it scales financially in a way that purchasing stuff does not.

If you are a small shop, with part time tech support that is paid on a per-incident basis - MS is a good solution. Why? Because you avoid loss of productivity for a learning curve (for apps you have), and because if your tech gets hit by a bus - lots of monkeys can do the job mimimally.

I may love Open Office, and use it at home and work. However, my wife does not like it for working at home (and I have to provide her MSO), and I have to switch to MSO for *most* client site use. (They have what they have, and are not going to change untill forced to with a big heavy cluebar.)

Re:Alternative option.

[LiquidCoooled]

Of course I Have seen Linux servers in use in lots of businesses, and I know they exist and do the job well.
However, the customers I deal with barely know how to use a computer let alone requiring their own servers.
If I still worked at my previous employers I would be giving completely different answers now (5 years ago, Linux installations were growing even back then), but in my current backwater environment, talking about Linux and OSS in general is a foreign language to them.

IDC stats and industry figures don't mean much to small companies and partnerships dealing with local customers, they go with what they see working and tbh its a nicer simpler way to live.

Re:Exchange ? and...

[Overzeetop]

...is there a plugin that will make it play nice with a pocketPC?

Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[Kozz]

This past weekend I had a discussion with my aunt who works as a sales person for Oracle (and is also a qualified DBA). We were discussing my resume and she claimed that all the Open Source-related skills on it would scare potential employers.

She basically tells me that no business operator with brains would deploy OSS, because there's nobody to "stand behind it". I countered, I thought brilliantly, by offering the example of Apache, the most shining and long-running example of Open Source. She replies that Oracle and others take Apache and create their own customized versions, suggesting additional code audits, etc, so that versions that Oracle might run are NOT your average httpd.apache.org downloads.

I was just flabbergasted, speechless, and clearly unprepared for an attack on OSS which I feel most certainly have proven themselves in numerous software packages.

Was I simply battling the "sales-droid" mentality? Is this a battle worth engaging in, or should I nod, smile, and slowly back away? ;)

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[DogDude]

I don't know much about Apache, but as a business owner, I tend to agree with her. The apps we run, especially as a small company are the definition of "Mission Critical". If the apps that we use stop working for any reason, we're shut down, and people don't get paid. It's that serious. With my proprietary point-of-sale system, for example, if I have a register go down at rush hour, I call the manufacturer's help desk, and get it fixed on the spot. The service may not always be exceptional, but they have the manpower and the money to stand behind it when the shit hits the fan. I don't want to be told to "leave a message, and somebody will call me back". I don't want support from somebody who can't get a developer on the phone if need be. I don't want to have to search through newsgroups, message boards, etc. to find my answer. Few programmers/OSS advocates understand what "mission critical" really means. No matter how good the software is, "mission critical" software backed up by a team of 2 developers and a bunch of volunteers doesn't qualify.

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is this a battle worth engaging in, or should I nod, smile, and slowly back away? ;)

Study her more. She might have more misconceptions. Negate everything she says and you'll find something new and interesting.

(Sounds like a deprived little girl. Votes republican?)

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[mopslik]

She replies that Oracle and others take Apache and create their own customized versions ...

Score 1 for OSS there. If Apache wasn't an OSS application, Oracle would (likely) not be able to do this at all, or to a limited extent. Available source code = easier** customization.

Just because a product is Open Source, it doesn't mean that you have to run that application using the default settings/flags/code. You're free to modify it, as above, to give yourself a product that meets your own needs. Her example illustrates this benefit perfectly.

** Easier compared to an identical product, with no source provided.

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[jhiza]

get a real IT department that has intelligent employees to adminster applications. Apache is one of the easiest applications to administer and additionally provides excellent performance for enormous environments.

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[Anonymous Coward]

Where "Mission Critical" stuff is concerned, a mature, well known OSS application will likely give you less trouble, particularly if you're running it on any version of Unix. I use OSS on Linux exclusively, mainly because the stuff almost never crashes - and by almost never, I mean that in a year of heavy use, Linux has never crashed, Open Office has only crashed twice, and I've never had to worry about viruses, popups, or spyware.

It's true that getting support is harder. But since I almost never need support, I probably spend less time coping with crashes and support issues than you do.

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[starfishsystems]

I think it is a question of mentality rather than logic.

In fact, there was nothing wrong with using Apache as an example. Clearly the world is with you on this one.

Now, if some third party such as Oracle wants to make a customized version of Apache, that can only mean one of two things:

• It needs to add some specialized functionality. Fantastic! That's one of the great advantages of open source, that it empowers every organization and individual to do this. This would not be possible without open source.
• It needs to fix some general problem, add some general functionality or security. In the spirit of open source, those sorts of changes should be given back to the community so that the entire codebase becomes more functional and more secure. It obviously benefits everyone, including Oracle, when this happens. This would not be possible without open source.

So it seems to me that, working with your example, your aunt has given you a logically compelling argument in favor of open source. Of course, she might not understand this, but then that's the usual problem, isn't it?

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[tftp]

Now you save a few thousand dollars on the proprietary software but spend $100K or more on a competent admin who, hopefully, will be doing nothing most of the time? People who run businesses are all too aware of where (or who) the -real- expenses are - it's the employees.

Re:Convince the Unconvinceable (not flamebait)

[dsci]

Keep a consultant on retainer; call him when you need him. That's what I do for some of my clients, and I *ONLY* support Linux.

(depending on the size of the company, of course; if large enough, you'd want in-house staff, but you'd have that anyway).

Try Lucane

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lucane.org/EN/

Even so...

[hummassa]

IIRC mySQL AB's MaxDB has an Oracle emulation mode, and so does Firebird with Fyracle.

In two words

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Use Open Source
2. ???
3. Profit !

Re:In two words

[coolGuyZak]

In two words
1. Use Open Source
2. ???
3. Profit !

It seems that you are off by a factor of 2.

Re:Alternative option.

[Anonymous Coward]

OSS is less easy to use, almost all across the board. Anybody who says Linux is easy to use needs to go try and TRAIN somebody how to use it.

Done it. Quite a lot. They usually say: this is strange and just work with it.

To be true, usually no training at all is needed. Only IT support staff needs it.

Anybody who says OpenOffice is awesome, go try and train a MS Office user, see what THEY say.

Done it. It's quite more difficult. Specially when people with good excel expertise should change to calc. Writer is usually grasped quickly and easily. Draw is ignored at first, but lots of people love it al last :).

Migration is also quite difficult, specially because file formats issues. But the big cost savings usually convinve managers.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[gbjbaanb]

Web based... who in their right mind would use a web app for retail sales?


Everyone who has an online, ecommerce shop?

Re:missing from the list (ofbiz.org too.)

[Bobzibub]

Anyone use this?

Opinions?

Cheers,
-b

Idea!

[serutan]

What would be really cool is to go to a website and create your own custom distro by selecting from a list of apps and features. Then the server would generate an ISO and burn it for you, and you get it in the mail or download it. There could be a few templates for starting points, or you could start from scratch. Linux installation programs usually let you select which apps to install. A smorgasboard distro generator would just move that step upstream. I wonder if a pay service like this would make money.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[DogDude]

I said "retail", not e-commerce. Have you, personally, ever seen somebody behind a counter, trying to ring up customers via the web??? That's like pounding nails with a sausage. It can be done, but it's a terrible idea.

www.backcountry.com

[davejenkins]

We are on our way to another record year of growth, and our entire system is built on OSS, taken and customized by our in-house engineering team. We have a full customer support, order management, and warehouse-inventory-shipping process built out.

The servers run RHEL, and the ERP runs on various bits and peices of OSS. By this time next year, I hope to migrate the entire staff of 150+ over to OpenSuSE or Fedora for their desktops, but I have already given the order that all new desktops come in OS-free (no MS tax).

Eventually, the only proprietary software will be the 5-6 copies of PhotoShop on Macs used by the product photographers, and maybe some Financial stuff from the banks.

Re:www.backcountry.com

[DogDude]

More importantly, what were the estimated cost savings of using proprietary packages vs. paying for in house development? Was it done for philosophical reasons, or because you needed functionality that wasn't available from off-the-shelf software?

Re:www.backcountry.com

[davejenkins]

We went this route originally to save money-- OSS ecommerce stuff was free, albeit not very well done-- but then again, no one really was, so might as well save some cash.

Now we are to the point where we are going with the in-house development on OSS for the flexibility it provides. in a straight e-retail environment, the speed to market for new features and functionality is crucial, as is trying to squeeze every penny out of our inventory processes and vendor integration. Given our market segment, things are kinda non-standard, which means that some off-the-shelf ERP from IBM or SAP or MS would need to be highly customized, and now I am paying the same money to someone else, but without the flexibility, responsibility, and most importantly, without really knowing what they are doing in the code. Even if I bought a big something from some 'solutions provider', I would still need the same team of engineers to customize and tweek it to where we need to be.

Sure, there are some philosophical edges to it-- I and a couple others used to be Red Hat employees-- but I can honestly say that we are pursuing the most flexible environment at the best price.

Works for us, sort of.

[jbdodson]

I work for a a OSS company, we only use OSS. The only gaping hole at the moment is collab tools. We are betting on Hula becoming a good piece of software soon, I am hoping the Evolution calendar support is well enough to trust. It looks good sofar!

stop paying taxes!

[jahknow]

It worked for Willie Nelson...for a while.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Web based a terrible idea (intranet/http)? When there are many stores, it would reduce the overhead for software deployment, configuration and maintenance. If a POS doesnt work take any computer off the shelf and have it up and running in no time.

Compiere

[alexborges]

Ever seen http://www.compiere.org/ ?

You can make whatever modules you want with a full fledged ERP api, normal database and very scalable architecture.

No downside as well if youre not an really large operation since this can run on a simple and unexpensive version of oracle + java.

So... next request please.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[Quince alPillan]

Not to mention the security risks (which can be mitigated somewhat) of running a web server with point of sale info.

The idea of some poorly managed retail store stupid enough to let people on their network (unintentionally or intentionally e.g. Starbucks) in combination with a web server running on the internal network just screams "Hack Me".

It's my opinion that you shouldn't need a computer (running Windows!) just to ring people up. That's way too much computer for something that simple. Same goes with ATM machines running Windows 2000.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[DogDude]

It's my opinion that you shouldn't need a computer (running Windows!) just to ring people up.

If you're gonna compete in this day and age, you MUST HAVE a sophisticated inventory management system, which requires the use of a PC. Retailers that use the old-fashioned registers are quickly either dying off or switching over. Of course, there are exceptions... retailers that sell just a handful of products, or those who sell very large items infrequently could get away with not using a PC. Personally, I couldn't imagine *not* using a PC to ring up customers.

competent developer

[falconwolf]

Not true. A competent developer might use an abstraction system to deal with all queries in a cross-database manner. For example, Perl's Class::DBI module, which uses the DBI/DBD interface set to generate queries for database systems for whichever database an application connects to.

The key words being "competent developer". This spring I took Perl and some of the projects we had to do was to tie into an MS Access DB to run some queries and write the output to a webpage. The final was along this line. As I have the Firebird DB I couldn't use the Access DBI module and I spent a few days trying to find the correct one for Firebird but wasn't able to find one. Because I just have Firebird and haven't learned how to use it I couldn't write my own module. I asked the prof about it but he couldn't help. As I didn't have Access I wasn't able to run a test to make sure it worked with Access and ended up getting 50% on the final.

Falcon

Re:competent developer

[mikefe]

Oh, you mean this?

Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Edwin Pratomo

And since it has a copyright from 1999, I don't see why you couldn't have used it in any class project in the last few years.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[DogDude]

How is Web based a terrible idea (intranet/http)?

Much too slow. Poor, if any support for hardware.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here... move along. don't feed the troll.

MIA

[anomalous cohort]

I went to the Content Management page and was surprised to see no plone. What happened? Are the pythonistas no longer in vogue?

Wrong distro

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the other day I tried Ubuntu ... but Linux has a ways to go before it is an out of the box solution for business.

Your problem was that you tried Ubuntu, rather than a more geared-toward-business distro like SuSE, RHEL, or CentOS. Try one of them, and see if things go a bit smoother.

Re:Heaven Forbid!

[kevinwal]

Thanks for your response, you make good points regarding the OSS business model, and your reasonable approach is a breath of fresh air. I refer specifically to the broader notion prevalent in this community that proprietary producers of software (or books, or movies) are somehow less noble than those who would chose to build a business with F/OSS.

My post attempted (perhaps ineffectively) to use irony to make the point that we've somehow come to understand that to consult is divine, and to produce foundation code is worthless in the marketplace since, economically speaking, that which is free is worthless.

Sounded a lot better when it was phrased as a troll. :)

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

2. None of them integrate with established accounting packages such as Quick books or Peachtree.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! that is a funny line. those are NOT accounting packages but "accounting for dummies" software apps. call us when you buy a REAL accounting system. real retail outlets do not use those... go look at what Staples and Compusa use, they certainly do not use toys like Quick books or Peachtree.

when you are ready to graduate to real accounting software, please let us know.

http://www.2020software.com/ lists some of the real stuff...

note: if you can buy your accounting software at staples then it's not real.

I started from scratch

[guacamolefoo]

Transitioning from one platform to another can be incredibly expensive. It doesn't matter what kind of license the software has.

Bingo. I had the option of starting my business from scratch. Nothing was in place, and I picked and chose from OSS and traditional software. I run a law office, and I ended up with the following:

1. Windows XP (needed it for my accounting package, plus training my minions on LInux was not an appealing idea)
2. Server OS: GNU/Linux
3. Website/Content management: PHP-Nuke
4. File server: Samba
5. Search tool for office network: Swish-e
6. Mail: Thunderbird
7. Office suite: Open Office
8. Browser: Firefox
9. Accounting: Quickbooks
10. AV: AVG

That's really all I need. I have a few pieces here and there: Paperport (which came OEM with my MFC machine) and Palm Desktop (came OEM with my Treo) for instance. I tried to mix and match based on my needs, budget, and consideration of implementation costs (that killed the idea of Linux on the desktop, though that's not out the window (so to speak) just yet -- I may ultimately make that move).

My standard rule in-house is to look OSS first, commercial second. I am clearly the exception in my community right now, by I am spreading the word. I'm not taking a ideological standpoint, simply a cost/beneift approach when spreading the word. I know OSS wins on initial cost (which is important to me now) and my staff has transitioned to Open Office pretty easily since there isn't a huge installed base of MS Office forms in place. In other areas, if an OSS app scratches an itch, I go that route if the software works inthe manner I need it to. If there is no OSS option, or there is a bad one, I do not hesitate to go commercial, and I don't feel badly about it.

FWIW, I know people who still run their offices on DOS Wordperfect versions, and these folks are giving serious consideration to OOO right now as a way to upgrade to a GUI office suite. They don't want to shell out hundreds per seat for MS Office.

YMMV, but ultimately, I think OSS will win/lose on the merits of the software rather than any ideological notion about how software should be created/licensed/distributed, etc. Upfront costs are a significant issue for me as well, but if the OSS software was not good, I wouldn't use it, even if it were free.

Re:I started from scratch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope you paid for every license of AVG. It is only free for personal use on one machine

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[DogDude]

Staples and CompUSA are major, multi-billion dollar international corporations. Right tool for the right job, buddy. It doesn't exactly make sense to spend more on an accounting package than the total value of the business.

Re:Alternative option.

[kevinwal]

Mod 4, insightful? Puh-leeze. These are NOT the choices I as a business person face.

1. Vendor lock-in is a red herring, IHMO. Business is about delivering value for value. If I'm receiving value from a solution, why would I change, and more importantly, why would I dump a vendor who consistently delivers the goods? The economics of migration just suck, regardless of whether I'm moving from or to OSS.

2. Customization is absolutely the very LAST thing I want to do with the software that runs my business. Doesn't mean I don't do it, it means that I don't want to. If I can get along with off-the-shelf features, I will. The use of most software in my business can be considered a negative differentiator. Email is a great example. I'm dead if I don't use it, but my competition has pretty much the same thing. The opportunity cost of funds spent on customization is much too high. And how do I monetize the risk? Yikes. The best risk/reward scenario (for me) is to procure solid off the shelf stuff from reliable vendors who have been and will be around for a very long time. To do otherwise is irresponsible to my business and my employees.

No, I do NOT have to migrate sometime. To migrate means to disrupt. Ideally I will run this software till I am very, very old, at which point we will all be on quantum computers anyway and vendor lock-in is a moot point.

Thanks.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[Blacken00100]

Working on my own Linux application for this--unfortunately, I am entirely fucking roadblocked because I can't find specifications for a number of common POS scanning devices. The manufacturers sure aren't helping, either. Me: "I'm writing a POS tool. I'd like to include support for your hardware." Them: "Our hardware information is proprietary." Me: "This will help increase your userbase." Them: "Our hardware information is proprietary." Me: "I just want to know how to cue your system to check its goddamned scale!" Them: Our hardware information is proprietary."

Open Source PLM developers needed

[JPyObjC Dude]

Many business inefficiencies can be reduced with Product Lifecycle Management solutions. Such systems could make any paper based business processes and most manufacturing processes much more effective and profitable. Hopefully also reducing redundant and tedious work allowing users to do more intersting things :}

Anybody explain why has there not been any serious Open Source alternatives in this domain?

The alternative is...

[Anonymous Coward]

QuickBooks Online What you need tho is IE (damn them!) running under Wine plus Acrobat Reader plugin. Crude, and most definitely NOT OSS but it works. BTW QB Online is a good product otherwise, perfect for a distributed company. I am not not affiliated with Intuit, just a customer.

Re:CRM

[Cigarra]

"...I think it's a dead project."

Of course it is. They get money from oracle for keeping it oracle-dependent.

Documentation?

[Biodrin]

I have been researching CRM and ERP solutions for the past couple of weeks. I haven't been impressed with many of the packages because there is no user training. Sugar CRM has almost no training materials; Microsoft CRM seems to suffer from the same problem especially on the administrator side of things. Most products are also missing an API and proper API documentation. I can't really see going with sugar CRM where there is no support or training and even if they had support and training wouldn't I have to pay for it? Seibel and Salesforce both include training as part of a user license It seems that you end up not really saving any money by the time you account all the resource that open source cant provide at least in the case of CRM and ERP systems.

Re:Documentation?

[tyen]

I haven't been impressed with many of the packages because there is no user training. ... even if they had support and training wouldn't I have to pay for it?

This sounds more like you are reluctant to pay for anything, rather than you ran into a lack of training options. It is true that SugarCRM doesn't put up their training workshop material for download. They offer their training workshops as a for fee service.

That is not a drawback of how SugarCRM uses Open Source, that is a benefit. When you say "It seems that you end up not really saving any money by the time you account all the resource that open source cant provide at least in the case of CRM and ERP systems" you are indicating that the only value you see that Open Source offers to you is the potential for zero software code acquisition cost. When the real value lies in the control you can exert over the code base to customize it to your business' specific requirements.

Even if SugarCRM ends up costing you the same as Siebel or Salesforce.com after training and support are factored in, you gain one additional benefit for that equivalent cost: you are not dependent upon SugarCRM's developers to fix/modify the code. If you really need something done, there are third party developers out there who can offer to deliver before SugarCRM's own coders get around to your request. After what I've seen conventional CRM and ERP projects suffer through, a benefit like that can make or break your ability to implement a new business process dependent upon automation that you think will give you an advantage over your competition.

That might not be important to your business. Fine. But to say what you posted is to miss the key long term business rationale for Open Source enterprise software. The economics of low cost software acquisition are gravy, almost a distraction because software at this level of complexity is not a product. The strategic opportunities offered by Open Source solutions to a business due to its open-ended nature as contrasted to closed software are the key differentiator. For example, your business or your business' trade association can add the API and API documentation you find lacking in an Open Source solution. If a similar API in the equivalent closed source solution doesn't offer a particular capability you want, you could be waiting a very long time before it is implemented, if ever.

Note that this is a separate issue from your general unhappiness with ERP and CRM software in general. I noticed your complaint against Microsoft CRM's lack of training material as well. I share your general disappointment, and have some strong opinions on why users in general are only reluctantly satisfied with this category of software. This is not the place to discuss that. I just wanted to point out that knocking SugarCRM, or complex Open Source solutions in general, for not providing a zero cost end-to-end deployment solution, could cost you to overlook a valuable tool and way of thinking for your business.

I am looking for a solution...

[linuxlover]

that *easily* integrates
    - version control system (svn)
    - bug database (trac / bugzilla)
    - managing automated builds (gather stats from issue tracking system for changelog..etc)
    - run JUnit tests and aggregate stats (test pass, fail, cpu/memory profiling ..etc)
    - generate HTML pages

I know individual products exist for each, but combining them to have a kick-ass build system is not possible without a lot of GLUE code.

any one have any recommendations?

thanks

Re:I am looking for a solution...

[militiaMan]

I use all of that together and more. Just download each package and use them. Is it really that complicated. Although, it does take time to setup, but that wouldn't change if it where in one download.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[DogDude]

I did something similar for a warehouse system using one of those hand held scanner thingies. The ones they were using were ancient, and had no documentation. I had to reverse-engineer. I can tell you that as far as point-of-scale barcode scanners go, the vast majority simply go through the PS2 keyboard port, and send the equivalent of the numbers typed out, with a carriage return at the end. But credit card swipes are different, as are receipt printers, and pole displays, and like you mentioned, scales, etc.

Sounds like a cop out.

[Anti-Trend]

Your attitude goes to show the average level of gnosis when it comes to open source software in general. What you're talking about is an old stereotype of OSS that is false more often than not. Many OSS solutions are actually easier to use than their proprietary counterparts (take Jive messenger for example), and most are easier to manage in the long run. Besides this, I find that our particular mixture of OSS 'just works', where much of our proprietary software requires a lot more attention. From personal experience, I've spent about 1% of the time maintaining my company's Linux infrastructure than our Windows systems, and we've clocked about (No B.S.) 1200% less downtime on our Linux boxen to reflect this. A good IT professional will know or be able to quickly learn the OSS equivalents of status-quo software, negating most of the deployment costs everybody's always talking about. Write me off as a foaming OSS zealot if it makes things easier for you, but Linux/OSS has already saved my company hundreds of thousands. to OSS in general.

-AT

Re:Sounds like a cop out.

[dlefavor]

we've clocked about (No B.S.) 1200% less downtime

No, that's actual verifiable BS by a factor of at least 12.

If you have, say, 15 minutes of downtime last month and 0 minutes of downtime this month, how much less downtime did you have?

100%.

Zealot, no. Authoritative voice, also no.

Re:Sounds like a cop out.

[Anti-Trend]

Would it make you feel any better if I had said "Our Windows infrastructure has 12x more downtime on current record than that of our Linux infrastructre"? It's true, 1200% just looks like a bigger number, so I used it. It's no less true the other way.

I rant in your general direction.

[jhantin]

You're a non-database person that doesn't understand the difference between a query and a compiled, cached stored procedure that lives right next to the DB engine itself.

So what's a prepared statement for then? For database engines that benefit from it, connectivity drivers will create temporary stored procedures behind prepared statements. Other databases, like MSSQL 2000, match the repeated, identical (except for argument values) SQL string against an in-memory cache of recent queries and re-use the prior query plan. Dynamic SQL may need recompilation whether it's generated at the client or the database. Either way, you get application queries at stored procedure speeds.

If you have processing to do that doesn't express well in DML but has to happen server-side for performace, you're probably not using SQL, you're using a scripting language with embedded SQL such as PL/SQL or Transact-SQL, or maybe Java on Oracle, C# on MSSQL 2005, or even a custom C library loaded in-process on the server. From one perspective it's a subroutine rather than a DML statement-- but invoking the stored procedure is still a query.

Again, I still contend that a competent database architect/developer/DBA will use database-specific stored procedures where performance is important.

The number of queries for which performance is even an issue is probably 5% or less of the total number of queries written. The bulk of queries I've seen are trivial DML anyway. Those few queries that are taking too long or soaking up more than their share of the server's resources are the only ones that should need to be tuned, and it's not that big a deal to migrate a few queries into stored procedures.

Granted, often the slow operations are indeed things that could benefit from specialized features, like Oracle's CONNECT BY clause or Microsoft's CONTAINS predicate. After all, it's less work than restructuring graph traversals and free text searches to work well on pure ANSI SQL after the application is already deployed. :-)

And if they were smart...

[Prof. Pi]

If a company was [sic] smart... ... they wouldn't need this kind of thing.

Yeah, but then, if they were that smart, they wouldn't need to read a magazine like InfoWorld in the first place, since they'd already know everything.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[paulbiz]

1) Line monitors or 2) Buy new hardware that has open specs

More than the hardware

[identity253]

Our volume license pricing is about $140 ea for XP Pro and $300 ea for Office 2003 Pro. That's $440 per machine for Microsoft. 20x = $8800.

Re:More than the hardware

[wgray8231]

"20x = $8800"

...And with that money, the department bought a dual-processor machine JUST for number crunching.

R > SAS

nobody to "stand behind it"

[dotlin]

When selecting any software package rather than solely concentrating on open vs. closed source you should consider the following factors and weigh them as appropriate for your circumstances:

• does it do the job you need
• are you locked in to a single vendor
• are the protocols and file formats open/interoperable
• customization options
• market mind share (are you willing/worried to do different from most)
• price and licensing mode (per CPU, user)
• quality
• security
• support
• training and documentation
• other

If support is important then depending on the application in question you may have wider choices of who you can use to support it and the level required with Open Source. Some Open Source software packages such as Red Hat's Enterprise level of their Linux distro, JBoss or MySQL offer various commercial support levels for their products. As well you can hire local expertise to come over and setup and customize for your particular needs. Of course there are trade-offs in time and money and flexibility. Vendors will be less likely to let you make your own customizations if they have to provide it with 7x24 support level agreements.

Right mix

[ducomputergeek]

In my business all of our office computers and servers are Apple. Yes quite a bit of upfront costs, but we don't have to spend the time dealing with virus of the week. Plus we're in the graphics and video industry (ie we use Final Cut Pro). Also, we can take advantage of Xgrid when needed for rendering tasks. Then comes the other part of the puzzle for office/business use: software. We use quickbooks. We are a small business and this is the program our CPA recommends and offers a rather substantial discount for using Quickbooks. In fact its enough that Quickbooks ends up only costs about $50 a year if you factor in that savings. Also, our bank supports Quickbooks. Bottom line: Use it because its the easiest way to work with the worlkd. No OSS app can match that at the moment.

The other nice thing about quickbooks is that many potenial employees we hire have used the application in the past on Windows and there is little to no difference. We don't have to spend much time/money to train them. And accounting is frankly the most important aspect of business operations. If the books aren't kept right, real shit can happen that costs lots of money to hire lawyers for...

We have Microsoft Office for Mac for the business computers. The machines mainly used for video editing, Photoshop, or Lightwave have OpenOffice installed on them.

The SAN are made up of Xserve Raids. Yeah damned expensive, but having a 100% Mac shop saves us a lot of time and effort even though programs like Lightwave now support a Linux Screamernet rendering option. Our database server is MySQL on OSX.

Now our website is hosted on Linux from 1and1 internet and we run MySQL with Mambo Openserver CMS.

We have two Windows XP Pro systems in the office for the rare times we need Windows Only Applications such as Adobe Premiere or 3D Studio Max or if we get back loged and need to burn more DVD's, however they are rarely even turned on.

Re:Point of Sale: Very funny

[Quince alPillan]

Sophisticated information management system, yes.

That does not mean your cash register needs to know the inventory of every item in the store. It just needs to tell a main server that a customer just bought 5 of item 10100101001 at register 16. The server can then say "That can of cat food costs $0.44" and subtract 5 cans from the inventory database after the sale is confirmed. All the cash register should be concerned about is displaying the item and dispensing the right change.

Why would you want to have your inventory on the cash register? That seems to me like an easy way to have redundant data that could be outdated (wrong price, or wrong item) if someone forgets to update the database on the PC (or if automated, something goes wrong in the update process). Plus, you'd have to poll every PC at the end of the day to find out what your inventory was provided you don't talk with the main server after every transaction

If you did have the inventory of every item in the store you would definitely need a PC, however.

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:

1. Go OSS
2. ???
3. Profit!

Oh, you mean this? [cpan.org]

[falconwolf]

Oh, you mean this? [cpan.org]

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will read through it later. Though I see that page does say Firebird, it made me realize I should of also of tried Interbase, Borland's DB before it became Firebird, as well.

Falcon