Slashdot Mirror
How OSS Models Put Vendor Support on Solid Ground
Jane Walker writes "How can vendors offer free enterprise software and be financially strong enough to provide commercial support? It's all about hybrids, says expert Julie Hanna Farris. Find out how to determine if a commercial open source vendor has the chops to support products in the long term."
if the product is good i.e. it does what it is supposed to do and the services are prompt and reliable. Product costs only once, service charges last till the the death of the product.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Ofcourse you get what you pay for. Free software does not mean free, there is a service based business model based on it, and what you pay, the service you get. But you atleast can evaluate its usefulness without having to shell out a lot of money for something which is not very useful.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
It's not about the program in OSS but the support / services to it that matter. It is just the opposite in closed source because of the need for continual upgrades. I offer into evidence Microsoft Windows 95. As soon as the "next gen" windows cam out (Windows XP) support for 95 halted. When that happened, the most common response to support answer wasn't "do this..." but "Upgrade!". There are OSS projects out there that are as old if not older than Windows 95 but yet I know that I can still get support from any number of sources.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
But for OSS vendors, I think the most important aspect is that the client gets a horse in the race, so to speak. As a paying client, they get a seat at the table, even if by proxy, and have a voice in what will happen with the product. They become Somebody. True, paying a developer to participate is another way - and even more influential - but if your business isn't software in the first place that is just not feasible. Paying a company to, in effect, pay developers by proxy is the next best thing.
That only works with small products. If I'm paying genericJoeSupportGuy for Apache support, that doesn't mean that I get to influence Apache in any way. But you'd also get this with small products with closed source, as well. If you're one of only a few customers, they'll help tailor it to your wants and needs.
I don't respond to AC's.
as soon as they hear "free" they get this funny glaze over their eyes
Then avoid using the word 'free' until after they're familiar with the product. Talk about 'open source', 'reduced risks/costs', 'avoiding lock-in', etc.
Save the philosophy till later.
Maybe FOSS products should ALWAYS have a defined nonzero price (or several, for different levels of support). To us in the know it should be apparent that licence permits unimited copying once you've got a copy of it, but at least this would put the "ALIEN ALERT!" sign off of PHB's radar screen. I mean, there is virtually no difference in alleged "you get" part of the truism, thanks to ubiquituous disclaimers, no matter how bosses feel about it (warm, fuzzy, "we payed honest, serious, gentelmans' money for it" feeling).
There is no guarantee or formula to predict how long a company / product will exist, closed or not.
A business advantage is that even a halted open source project can be revived, it is always for you to use. And if some company thinks something is missing they can add it. So if you are a company dependant of open software, you want to have a thriving community behind the specific products you use in the first place, besides some support of some OSS-business.
Support first
Professionals don't neccesary care about "free" they want to have a certain level of support. So for OSS companies it's just how they can compete with the support of it's closed source rivals. I think this explains why a lot of business people still haven't really grasped the concept of open source.
product second
For a lot of people "open source" is a relatively new term. They have problems understanding it, let alone knowing what to do with it. Product / market share comparisons are a better basis to promote open software for someone who has never heard of it.
Or your IT group is composed of a bunch of half-wits who can barely tell the difference between an ethernet jack and a phone jack. I hate to say it but it happens. I work for a small company who goes and installs a custom software package that is built on top of an Oracle Database. Now some of our clients will have the database all setup and everything ready to go. Other clients we go, install Oracle, install our software and then spend a lot of time teaching them simple things like how to backup the database. Also some of our clients we can just e-mail them a SQL script for an update and they run it and life is good.... others, we have to go there and install it for them.
So while a support contract may not be for you, there are a lot of companies out there who need one.
Whilst I haven't had experience of Open Office and the like, I have used tools like JBoss, and I've found that these tools (with their complicated XML file configuration) can be just as difficult to set up and use as the non-open ones (WebLogic for example).
My point, I suppose, is that no product is ever 100% foolproof, and if some people can make a viable go at providing services for OSS then good for them
More often than not, I get quicker, and more helpful responses from the user communities of any piece of software I need...message forums, newsgroups, etc...wether open or closed...and in the world of supportive user communities, OSS wins hands down, some of those user communities run on a cultish level of support and cheerleading and it's very easy to get the answers I need.
dB Masters
This is just thinly veiled PR/plug for Scalix by their executives.
I have no problem with proprietary or partially open source companies.
However I can't stand companies that misrepresent themselves as open
source companies, hybrid or otherwise. Scalix consistently tries to
pass themselves off an as open source company. Yes their stuff runs
on OSS platforms, yes they probably include some OSS software and/or
libraries in their product, and sure they have an Evolution connector
that is GPL. But *most* of their stuff is proprietary OpenMail and
OddPost code that they inherited and may or may not be able to open
source. With that little of your code open, wanting to pass yourself
off as a hybrid open source company is like calling your Hummer H2 a
hybrid because you got U/V protection tint on your windows and your
A/C is on less.
It is somewhere between audacious to asinine that Scalix thinks it is
in their best strategic interest to spin themselves as an open source
company. The mindshare around OSS is because things here are open and
honest and even your code is debated. Lying to this crowd seems like
a bone-headed business strategy to me - email admins are not that
gullible and will see through it.