Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alan Cox on The Risks of Closed Source Computing

Posted by Hemos on from the it's-the-british-invasion dept.

cd-w writes "Alan Cox has written a column for osOpinion regarding the risks of using closed source computing. A sample quote: 'No company now would commit to a closed hardware strategy. It would cost them more than using commodity components. Just as importantly, it would commit them to a single source for support and parts. Why then do they commit to a single software supplier? A closed source strategy exposes the company to serious business risk. As many telephony companies have discovered, your OS supplier might suddenly decide to be your competitor.' " As always, Alan writes well and explains why the commodization of information has critical bearing on the success of the open source movement.

2 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. GREAT Advocacy tactic by Enoch+Root · · Score: 5
    Alan Cox's articles are always enjoyable, and he is a very insightful man. What he is basically saying in this article is: there are advantages to Open Source models, because they decentralise support and get rid of a single point of failure.

    However, he's addressing managers and techies at large here, and notice how he doesn't try to sell Open Source, but rather outlines flaws in the Closed Source model. That's the best way to go about it: point out a loss opportunity for profit, then propose an intelligent alternative.

    Is it FUD? Well, no. FUD spreads ideas that are barely grounded in fact. This is advocacy: it is a clear argument with a definitive target audience, and it exposes a flaw of Closed Source quite simply.

    I think all OS advocates should take note. Selling advantages of OS may not be the way to do it, because managers believe they already have a system that fulfills all their needs, and will be wont to change for the simple promise of more features. Managers won't switch from NT to Linux for the same reason they take forever to upgrade, say, from Solaris 2.6 to 7: they want to play it safe, and new features won't come into play unless they know they have a definite disadvantage.

    However, when you present an OS advantage as a shortcoming in CS, you're speaking their language. You're showing them where they're not making money, and to a manager or CEO, not making money is worst than losing money.

    The problem is that we geeks and them managers speak a different language. Contrast the following statements:

    "Linux offers greater stability than NT."

    "NT suffers from outages that cost money to the enterprise. One solution is to use a more stable platform, such as Linux."

    Sure, we'd love to sell OS's merit on its own. Someday, when OS has gained mainstream recognition, we'll be able to. But for now, I think Cox's strategy is very sound.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  2. 50x Server Nuked: Alternate Site by Alan+Cox · · Score: 5

    I've put a copy (not as nicely formatted tho) on
    http://www.linux.org.uk/FEATURE/risk.html to help
    spread the load a bit.

    Alan