Slashdot Mirror
IT Leaders Now Expected To Be Open To Open Source (enterprisersproject.com)
StewBeans writes: Typically it's developers — not senior IT executives — who have been pushing their IT departments to adopt open source software, but the tide is beginning to turn. The Weather Company's CIO, Bryson Koehler, says if IT decision makers are not bringing up open source solutions to business problems, they will start to lose credibility as leaders. He references recent moves from major players like Apple, Google and IBM as evidence of open source going mainstream. As it continues to increase in importance, "companies that are still shying away from open are clearly being led by people who are probably not fully informed about the decisions they're making." Koehler hypothesizes that as these leaders are replaced by more informed decision makers, "expect to see a continued rise in the use of open source technology solutions, especially in modularized ways so that it's easier to replace one set of libraries or components in your stack with a new set as open source projects ebb and flow throughout their life cycles."
Which is all these Management types want is Solution(S) to problems they have and not "Well just buy off the shelf product X, it'll do" when there are alternatives available.
Open Source solutions are not always the best solution but they are A solution to the problems. Remember you need someone that can tinker around with the software unless you are buying support from a vendor.
Nothing worse than some PHB saying "It's free! No payments! Saves us tons of money!" and completely forgets that the only person that knew how to use the software at all was some intern that left a month after the project was done for a better paying gig somewhere else.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
If Microsoft is going the open source route, open source must be a good thing.
"OHMAHGERD, what a paradigm shift that will have earth-shaking ramifications throughout the IT world!!!!!111111"
Come on, guys...even when this sort of story promotes open source, it's still clickbait.
So when is free software going to properly replace domain controllers? Because that's the only reason why Windows Server still has some manner of prevalence in server sites. That and exchange.
1) The CIO is saying this because they just got bought by IBM, who pushes "open source" until you look around and your whole operations is being run by H1Bs fresh off the plane who say "open source" to distract you while they Google for how to open a command prompt. http://fortune.com/2015/10/30/...
2) I agree. That's why I use a free, open API for weather instead: http://openweathermap.org/pric...
I've always been open minded when it came to OS solutions. The big issue that I see from the management perspective is support for the product. I happen to have very limited software development experience in my crew, mostly systems management. If/when something breaks we need to be able to assure management that we have the resources or support contracts in place to get the issue resolved ASAP.
I'm assuming that most other people are in the same boat. It's all about covering your butt.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Corporations are still profit-driven, but now sometimes the financial gain from a network effect of open-source exceeds the economic rent from licensing closed-source.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I've been in I.T. since about 1997.
I've been pushing for Open Source acceptance almost just as long.
What has stood in my way? College grads. Turns out schools in the 90's and 00's were fed Microsoft money and free software to teach the likes of Microsoft servers and Front Page. When I mentioned the word "Linux" at a large oil company around a decade ago I was branded a heretic and nothing I said on any subject was taken seriously by project managers or developers who were on the M.S. Gravy Train during that era from that point forward - even when the subject was along the lines of electrical engineering and had nothing to do with software. Turns out I was right on that one too.
Just like web developers from that era who didn't go to college wrote the best web pages because they shunned Front Page server/network guys who didn't go to college had a leg up from not being taught bad habits. Pair that up with the modern PC (not the computer type) culture being taught at school you're pretty much guaranteed a brainwashed in multiple ways spineless slug if you hire a college grad, whereas a self starter got a real education in the school of hard knocks.
Those people like software without agendas.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
2 Years ago I convinced my IT manager to let me implement the FOG project for our System Imaging on site. Its been the best decision we've ever made, and because of that I was able to convince him to donate a good chunk of change to the group. Now, whenever I have an open alternative to a problem, he has no problem with saying "lets test it first, and we'll see".
Sure why not (fyi: that's simply the first 3 Google hits).
Yes, there's a lot that's not "open" in iSomething land. But at least they understand open source, and work with a variety of open source projects (well okay... as long as it helps their business ;-).
I have to say that in that one respect, and only in that one respect (For the first time our clients are seriously considering getting rid of Windows..), Windows 10 has some redeeming virtue ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Sounds like someone has confused the difference between bringing in open source systems / platforms and dumping your closed source project into the open ecosphere because you've lost your interest or developers.
In the short term, doing the closed source thing can benefit you vs your market competitors. Most of the time, however, the needs of market economics force design decisions away from what is technically optimal. Dosing up on stims gives you a short term boost, but eventually you have to pay the price. Heres to the hope that business leaders learn to kick this habit.
John_Chalisque
Open source software is completely forbidden.
Even existing open source products are being replaced. Apache and Tomcast servers are being replaced with Websphere servers. Mediawiki is being ripped out and replaced with Confluence. Virtualbox replaced by Vmware. MySQL by Oracle or MS SQL.
I even had to uninstall Notepad++ and replace it with a commercial text editor. If we use any perl or python, it needs to be ActiveState with a valid commercial license.
The only thing we still run that is open source is Linux. But we ONLY run Red Hat or SLES. Even our dev boxes are RedHat, and not CentOS.
Some open source is good and some sucks. ..... "Open Source" is not axiomatically good.
Of course this is true, and it is also true of closed source software or software in general.
But at least with open source, if it's almost but not quite good enough, and there are sufficient in-house skills, there's a chance of getting it to do what you want. (A better choice might be to find better software, but sometimes the only other option is something very expensive.) With closed source, there's nothing you can do to fix it if the vendor doesn't step up.
I've come across special-purpose "not quite good enough but promising" open-source tools/software that simply didn't exist in other forms (or in a form that I could afford to pay for). My classic example is OCR software. Really good OCR software typically runs on Windows, not Linux[1], and is very expensive for personal purchase. Open source OCR used to be vastly inferior, but the community tinkered enough and now it's quite decent, and free.
[1] This example may be dated; I'm thinking here of Abbyy Finereader, OmniPage, and competitors. I've noticed that as open-source OCR software has improved, the price of proprietary has been dropping (but still, not inexpensive). This is perhaps an interesting benefit provided by the existence of viable open-source options.
What an idiot. How did he get that job?
It's been that way for a LOOOOOONG time. Remember when everything needed to be "CORBA compliant" and CORBA was going to magically make a bunch of apps that were never designed to work together into a seamless and all powerful whole (somehow)?
Then it was Java because the JVM made it run absolutely everywhere with no effort at all and was brand new tech (as long as you don't remember p-code from the late '60s that is).
These days, it's "the cloud" (it's so fluffy!) Suddenly, companies that used to lock data behind a guarded door and you needed a password, a 10 digit combination, and a letter from the Pope just to peek at it are perfectly happy to upload it to "the cloud" where nothing can go wrong.
As for Open Source, the big change is that managers can no longer instantly disregard a potential solution just because it is Open Source. That doesn't mean it is ALWAYS the right answer, just that it isn't NEVER the right answer. It has always been malpractice to ignore a solid Open Source package on the grounds that it's not expensive enough and didn't take you golfing in Tahiti, it's just that it is now recognized as malpractice.