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

Re:Other concerns: OSS creep into commercial code

[Anonymous Coward]

And this kind of viral infiltration has been the intention of Richard Stallman and the OSS leadership all along. The intention is to increase the hurdle cost so that developing commercial, proprietary software up to the standard of OSS code will be prohibitively expensive, because development must be done from the bottom up, while OSS is based on marginal improvement, making it impossible to compete and killing off the proprietary software business. Once the complexity of OSS is at a certain level the only development in the area of that software will be the marginal improvement of hobbyists, again because the hurdle cost is too high to enter.

It's no coincidence that Gandhi's saying, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" has such a high profile in the OSS environment. The strategy is designed 100% in line with it.

If the OSS advocates were really acting in the public interest, they would permit resale of open source code. This would not damage OSS, but would increase the variety and quality of software on offer, either free or not free. Instead they have progressively taken the licence in the opposite direction. Embrace, extend, extinguish indeed.

even to Vim...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, banning vi and its ilk is huge productivity gain.

This will no doubt be modded down as a troll.

Re:Open Source means there's LESS chance of malwar

[timmarhy]

wow talk about a swing and a miss. WGA is not malware, it's totally retarded to even suggest it. And give me one example of a copy of windows from a ms genuine partner that contained real malware (not just the annoying stuff from hp etc)

i can think of 2 - 3 examples of OSS repositories being infected with virus code in the last couple of years, most notably debian.

the only valid point you make is paying for red hat. it's a great product, but it's hellishly more expensive than windows.

Re:Don't bother

[jellomizer]

Has any one though of asking why he rejected the software... It could be as simple as you or your small group is the only one proposing the applications, and you all fill out the forms wrong or don't explain a good business decision for it.