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
At one point or another, all companies and or services and products were new. Every company has faced this at their inception. Any hesitation on this matter is nothing new, it's just open source now. With the lower overhead of open source software and many proven examples of viability thereof (see the external article for more details on how this model is working) I think it should make a very enticing offer for many companies. As the owner of a small IT services startup, I advocate a mixture of closed and open source software to my clients based on their budget and needs and it has worked beautifully so far.
Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
What do you do if you're just starting out?
There's been a couple of times when I've mentioned F/OSS to business owner as a potential addition or replacement to his IT infrastructure (MySQL, Open Office) and as soon as they hear "free" they get this funny glaze over their eyes. Small businesses LOVE the word "free", but I think they equate "free" with junk - "you get what you pay for" attitude. I think they're also afraid of things not working, which equals no revenue coming in. This is a hurdle that I can't seem to get over.
Yeah, I'm a shitty sales guy.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
This is a very insightful interview. This company trudges past the fud and explains solid business models based on open source. They basically are saying that open source isn't an end all in itself. If you have a failing product, simply making it open source isn't going to make you a successful company. Seems obvious, but a lot of people don't understand it. They also go on to say a lot of people open source things because it's hip or cool.
She goes on to state that you must have a solid revenue stream based off the open source product somehow (then goes on to list various ways such as support, open sourcing parts of the program and closed source for the innovative part).
It sounds like this company has a good head on its shoulders and will be around awhile. Sure, there are those of us who open source for the freedom part (and this will always continue in universities, government, private individuals), but this company has figured out how to add value to a solid core business model using open source.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Businesses believe they need to pay something to ensure that there's a viable organization behind it.
I think this is pretty important. It's not just a simple "if its expensive, it must be good" kind of misattribution that some advocates argue. In part it's a "if everybody does it" kind of argument that actually works: "If we find it worth it to pay for this, then so do other businesses. Which means these people have a real, sustainable income stream, and a real future."
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.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Not really.... if the software is good, then little to no service is needed. The "service" model is bogus. It already assumes that broken or difficult to implement software is being sold, and that you're goping to have to pony up to fix it/figure out how to use it later. That doesn't instill very myuch confidence in me. I try to buy software that requires as little support as possible.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.