Slashdot Mirror
Open Source E-Business Solutions?
Thor Sigvaldason asks: "I work for one of the largest companies in the world (PwC). Some of the powers that be have recently decided that we need to do the E-Business thing in a big way. My mandate is to determine who can provide this. Yeah, yeah, I know; php4 compiled as an Apache module will do everything you ever need. I've been running Linux since the pre-1.0 days, and still can't figure out why people would boot to anything else. That's not my point. Most big clients need a 1-800 number to settle their frazzled nerves. There are millions of dollars being spewed into e-commerce as we speak. But where is the OpenSource equivalent of Broadvision, NetPerceptions or someone like them? The market is really, really ready. Do you need help with an IPO? Have I missed the relevant URL's?" Sounds like a void some brave entrepreneurs might want to fill.
E-Business is nothing but a marketing term. It means absolutely nothing on its own. Before looking for tools, you've got to define what you mean by E-Business.
Just guessing, but PwC probably isn't looking for shopping cart-type apps. You're probably looking more for customer relationship and customer account management-type apps. So, you've got to figure out how to interact with your existing back-end systems.
Yes, Apache+PHP (or, Apache+mod_perl, Apache+JServ, Zope, ...) can probably handle this job, but you're legacy system vendor might also offer tools that work better.
Bottom line: pick a product that meets your requirements, don't pick your requirements based on your product selection (IS Project Mgmt 101).
Thus sprach higg.
I'm currently working on a project called SmartWorker. It uses Apache, mod_perl and MySQL (we're working on full compatibility for other databases) to make online applications and sites easy to write. The backend has become really stable lately, and we're improving it a lot.
:)
Check out www.smartworker.org for more info!
And it's completely open source
"Code free or die!"
I also work for PricewaterhouseCoopers (the accounting firm with the longest name...) doing R&D and have many times tried to push through Linux and/or Open Source solutions only to be told, "Forget it, those products aren't on our list of approved platforms."
It doesn't matter than I can show the solution will be cheaper, better, more reliable and more configurable, and even give them examples and show them places where its being used for much larger projects that what we're doing. I can't use it simply because it's not Windows NT, or just barely maybe they'll let me use Solaris if I can come up with a good enough argument why NT simply won't work at all.
In a lot of Big Corporations, it's not whether or not the solutions exist, or whether they work, it has more to do with whether they fit the approved mentality of the company. In the case of PwC, because of the way management works, I suspect it also has to do with whether or not the vendor is in good with one of the partners who makes decisions on what technology to use.
Linux is making some inroads, and so are other Open Source products, but never, ever in my experience, in any "production-quality" service. I suspect this is similar in most other Big Business companies.
This comment is partially a venting of frustration at seeing the company spending literally millions of dollars on proprietary solutions to do what a $5000 Linux PC with a few hours of PHP programming can accomplish, (hence the Anonymous Coward posting - you might think you recognize me, but you probably are wrong) but it's also an attempt at commentary or questioning on how some companies can get so big that they can stagnate and ossify on the inside to the point that no truly new directions ever get taken, yet somehow still maintain enough moemntum or simply have so much money that they can't die, or at least give the appearance of undead.
So why is it that smaller companies who are willing to take risks and invest in new technologies don't run circles around these older corporations who aren't and put them out of business? Is it just the name recognition? Is it just the tremendously deep pockets and the fact that money begets money? How is it that PwC in particular, and very likely many other companies in this industry as well, can position itself as a technology consulting company when it isn't willing to invest in new technology for itself? It would be interesting to see how many companies who position themselves as "technology consulting firms" have an list of internally-mandated software titles from which there is allowed no deviation, yet claim to understand all the latest technolgies and fads.
I work for IBM. I work for IBM e-business. I, in fact, am a large part of the 'steering' of those people who answer that elusive 1-888 number.
I don't even know where to begin, other than to say this - e-business does not exist.
e-business is a phrase coined by IBM's marketeers to describe the combination of content hosting services with live customer service. The actual software involved varies across the board. There is an open-source e-business solution, it's called perl, and we use the hell out of it.
I deal with really, really large and expensive web sites. We use really, really expensive computers. The software is simply not the issue - it's all vanilla crap, db2 and netscape web servers, IIS, domino, whatever, there's nothing special about any of it.
Yes, it can all be done with apache on linux boxes.
You don't pay a million bucks for apache on a linux box, tho - you pay a million dollars because, and this is something everyone needs to understand about corporate computer provisioning, you are in bed with your customer. Our largest customers? Sears, Macy's, etc - we have existing contracts with all of them for all sorts of stuff. They're used to giving us money, and they are pals with the people with whom they sign the contracts.
And that, folks, is how business in the real, 2.5 billion dollar a year, world works.
--
Suddenly Anonymous E-Coward
There is a package that seems to be under development called "OpenSales", an open-source e-commerce solution. It is being developed by IdeaLab.
/09/29/2048229.shtml.
:)
Magic-SW also looks interesting.
Here's a link to a Slashdot post about the above, you might find some of the responses helpful: http://slashdot.org/articles/99
Personally, I'll keep using XEmacs, apache, perl, php, and MySQL as my "e-commerce solution".
As a disclaimer, I have worked with PWC as a partner on some large projects (and CL before the longestnameinaccountingmerger). Your comments are spot on, and offer an insight into what is wrong with many large companies trying to do it all.
PWCs chief negotiators walked out of a 600 million euro project because the client had a safety critical system and NT was on the blacklist. PWC was asked to send their best and brightest, but they just didn't understand why NT wasn't god's gift to safety. They toed the PWC company line, said that only NT could deliver 100% uptime with some type of mirroring, and tried to downplay HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and MVS, since they could only claim 99.995% availability. That kind of shit doesn't play to a savvy customer, and they lost the whole deal (staffing, engineering, documentation, training, project management, procurement, auditing, ad infinitum). My client got the network and telecomms bit, so I'm happy.
PWC is a traditional accounting and auditing firm, but growth in that area is limited. They are trying to expand into managing huge telecoms and IT projects as well, assuming it is all the same game. But PWC doesn't have the expertise to slap some sense into the boardroom members. So they think they are cutting edge because they have a nice deal with MICROS~1, BillG told them all other technologies are obsolete and not to ever put them into a bid. Corporate herd mentality, kills every time.
Back to the original "ask slashdot" question.
What a client is looking for, when they purchase some commercial software, is that the supplier will have a small number of people available to respond to their questions in a timely manner. This is between 5 and 20 people at the absolute maximum. There will be a frontline customer service person always answering the phones, 24/24x365. Backing them up is an account rep whose bonus comes from keeping the client happy and renewing the maintenance agreement. Internally there is 1 or 2 technical support with intense knowledge of the product and the systems it runs on, and systems it connects to or deals with. Optionally, there is one person who knows what the product does from a business perspective. Finally, if there is a big enough problem, there is one engineer who wrote part of the code and can be interrogated for tiny details or forced to fix a bug or add a feature.
That is it. Get a handful of technically competent people together on staff, and you can support any free/OSS project. You need to have the helpline person available (4 or 5 fulltime staff or 2 and pagers). There has to be an account rep to keep the PHBs happy.
Then you need 3 to 5 programmers or systems people. With OSS, everyone will have access to the source code, so fixes can be implemented to the client's whim. If a problem crops up, have one of your programmers get on usenet or IRC or buy a linuxcare contract. Chances are they can research the problem and have an answer within 24 hours.
Compare that model to where you do not have a commercial software provider under a contract to provide you with near instant fixes. At best you can hope for is to get through the often clogged helplines, and then get told your fix will be in the next service pack in a few months.
Have you ever tried to negotiate with MICROS~1 for a 24 hour guaranteed response for a critical installation of NT boxen? I have, and when we mentioned that price was no object and we wanted access to the source code or the original programmers, the droids stared at us blankly. They didn't get it. The big client wanted some custom changes guaranteed, and an iron clad contract with penalty clauses for the supplier if they couldn't provide certain functionality. MICROS~1 only dictates, and they NEVER sign a contract with a guarantee for fixes. Sun got the contract.
What PWC can do...
If PWC were to create a linux or OSS or nearly-free OS (*BSD) support group internally, they could save a fortune on support costs. PWC bids on big projects, and passes on the support costs from the suppliers (M$, Sun, IBM, CA, SAP) to the client, without being able to take a cut for themselves. If PWC is the prime contractor, they face the liability for support, and for business losses of their clients if they can't provide a functioning project. If one of their suppliers, MICROS~1 for example, decides not to fix some problem for another 1.5 years, PWC is liable for all the clients losses, and for all their size there is nothing they can do to force M$ to fix something. M$ is never under a contract to fix or guarantee their soft. With an internal OSS support group, PWC themselves can generate a response to a client almost immediately, and keep the support costs for themselves.
You just have to pass it off as a business case, and hope they take notice. Up till recently, they haven't. So do yourself a favor and find an employer who has an OSS support group and bids linux into big projects. KPMG and Anderson both support OSS at this point, and the profit is all theirs. Do the math, a 10 box server installation typically gets a US$30,000/year support contract, and a 15 person team of linux hacks can support 2000-2500 boxes.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on