Bringing OSS Into a Closed Source Organization?

Piranhaa writes "At the major corporation I work for, there is currently a single person who decides what software to approve and disapprove within the organization. I've noticed that requests from users for open source Windows programs get denied, nearly instantaneously, on a regular basis. Anything from Gimp, to Firefox, even to Vim don't make the cut due to the simple fact that they are open source. Closed source programs from unknown vendors have a much better chance at approval than Firefox does. The whole mentality here is that anybody can change the source of a project, submit it, and you never know what kind of compiled binary you're going to get. I'm a firm believer in open source code, but I also know closed source has its place. So what would be the best way for me to argue, with all the facts, to allow these people to come to their own conclusion that open source is actually good? Would presenting examples of other big companies moving to open source work, and if so what are some good examples? Or can you suggest any other good approaches?"

Comments

forget it

[timmarhy]

don't stick your neck out like that OSS people won't thank you and ALL mistakes in any software you somehow get approved will be your own personal fault. it sounds like your too low in the food chain to be steering the direction of the company

Re:Don't bother

[DerekLyons]

And the whole point of the article, and the grandparent, is that OSS cheerleaders don't even try to perform that analysis.

Sure, and the reality is that performing such assessments is just as much of a specialty as kernel development.

So the fuck what? That doesn't excuse being ignorant of the need.
 
 

That's not something that an open source advocate or a programmer could or should be expected to do.

An open source advocate or programmer shouldn't be expected to think rationally rather than blowing smoke and spreading FUD?
 
 

Besides, this goes both ways. A solid risk/benefit analysis is an activity that a large corporation with vast resources could easily afford to take on. Many do (hence IBM's massive investment in Linux) but others don't.

ROTFLMAO. That has to be one of the most delusional (and utterly clueless) things I've ever read. When you stop cheerleading, and actually bother to learn what the fuck you're talking about and then actually bother to think before writing... It just might occur to you that same set of circumstances yield different risk/benefit results depending on the type of corporation and their business models.
 
 

It's often easier to take the expensive dinners and lame "open source is too risky" excuses offered by well-paid salesmen from closed source outfits and forget about alternatives.

(Yawn.) More ignorant handwaving, smoke blowing, and cheerleading.