Slashdot Mirror
The Benefits of 'Vendor-Free' Open Source IT
mjasay writes "IDC has released a report looking into industry adoption of open software. In the study, analyst Matt Lawton stumbles across an intriguing trend: IT departments do most of the services around open source, rather than third-party consulting companies. While IDC believes this is a bad thing, the data in the report suggests otherwise. 70% of the enterprises surveyed did their own implementations, while roughly 90% supported their own open-source deployments. This might be a cause for alarm if the projects weren't so successful: 70% of the projects were deemed to be of "Critical" or "High Importance" compared to other IT projects and 90% plan to maintain or increase their investment in open source projects. Could it be that open source is liberating enterprises from an unhealthy dependence on vendors, and that early results suggest that this will be a Very Good Thing for the success of IT projects, many of which have failed historically."
78.32% of Statistics Are Just Stark Raving Mad...
Terrible security: who knows where the software is from.
Legal concerns: Lots of stolen code.
Bad quality: geeks don't like to finish what they do, just do the "fun" parts.
No testing: geeks don't like to test.
Laughable documentation: geeks don't like to communicate with users.
Expensive: Hooked on the initial $0 price, customers get shafted on support.
No help: Open source support, especially paying one, rarely brings solutions.
And on a global scale, damage to the economy, reduction of research and knowledge production, moving of capital to foreign (and potentially ennemy) countries, providing technological material support to terrorist groups.
Open source? It's bad..
It might be good if the laws were better. For instance, more patents, and more prison time for violators.
(you know it's true)
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
How in the world do you infer that the projects are "so successful"?
Because if you define success as somebody using open source (as slashdot editors and most posters do), then all open source projects are by definition successful. Failure would be if they used closed source, and if they used microsoft it would be a disaster.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
http://www.openoffice.org/
Not sourceforge but it's so bloated there has to be an Air Traffic Control System in there somewhere.
OOo 2.3.1 : 107MB
MS Office 2007 : 388 MB
Judging by those numbers, it looks like MS has given Excel its flight sim back, given Word an air traffic control app, and judging by the frequency of its crashes, given Powerpoint a demolition derby...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
This is British Airways joke number 666 currently cruising at 30,000 feet right over pembo13's head. Cabin crew: please jettison the toilets... WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHH!!!
>>Most in-house developers are clueless dimwits
You are being too harsh.
Clueless, yes.
Dimwits?
I have seen some work up to half-wits.
Then there are a few in-house developers who are pretty good - and going to leave.
Working in-house almost always degenerates into doing at least some tech support, and that kills developer productivity.
>> Certifications.. do not, in any way, indicate a person's ability to do a particular job.
Exactly correct.
I have seen a negative correlation - more certs = less skill.
Perhaps my sample size is too small or perhaps those without skill and experience really need to bolster their resumes.
Hmmmm.