The advantage is that if the software is open source, many other ventures may spring up (like what has occurred with Linux) to make money from supporting it - in exactly the situations you have described.
If Open-Baan means more support organisations, competing for faster turn around time to customers, even if the cost is high, then perhaps that is important. As you mention, customers are more concerned about risk and timeliness than they are about inherent features and cost.
A downside is that the software may become bastardised and developed contrary to its original ethos.
ERP basically encodes operating procedures for an organisation: what used to be paperwork is now electronic screen work. It is a natural evolution from MIS, MRP, CRM and the spectrum of disparate software distributed around organisations.
For example, with ERP software you should be able to connect your organisation to digital market places quite easily. You should be able to track and automate resource chains.
Another example is that ERP software, like MIS, should allow for comprehensive data and status reporting. It may also help feed sales and marketing information back through to engineering and production.
When it comes to organisational automation, the pack leader at the moment seems to be Cisco - AFAIK from reports, the company rides upon a digital framework, where purchase orders can flow through to component suppliers without needing any human interaction. The boast is that Cisco can 'close its books' daily.
Eventually -- if not already -- you should be able to buy templates for standard organisation types off the shelf. The 'product oriented' organisation is largely a well known concept and largely the same all over the world - differences according to type of product and other factors are minimal: the infrastructure is the same.
This move could give them long term market share, and give them lead over rivals in a market place that is not moving fast, but has sticking power - much like operating systems, because ERP systems are effectively organisational operating systems.
Various software, including MRP, MIS and so on have been predicting the impending unification of ERP software. The codification of business rules and operating procedures, now coupled with the emergence of electronic market places, suggests that _now_ is the time that ERP vendors should make the big push to secure long term positions. Oracle is very succesfull at the moment partially for these reasons - databases are part of the plumbing in the electronic economy.
BAAN has, according to the press, been having problems: staff turnover, depressed demand (post y2k), and so on. Their major competitor is SAP, which recently embarked on a mySAP strategy - almost a portal for executives. You will note that Crossworlds was formed to plug the gaps between ERP software - although it has also had problems due to slow market development. This year is predicted to be the year of B2B, and their will be a shakeout, but B2B is a part of the continuing 'informationalisation' of organisations, and ERP software becomes a necessary ingredient in connecting the enterprise into the wider landscape of globally electronic resource connectivity.
One lesson from Open Source is that when software becomes 'infrastructure', then it is best served by an Open Source model - for various reasons. ERP software is reaching the stage of 'infrastructure'.
Open-BAAN would probably result in various ventures that would take advantage of the Open Source, and it could propell BAAN to market leadership. I think this would be an excellent move. The question that must be considered by BAAN's board is: how can BAAN gain from it, after all, BAAN answers to its owners with a P/L statement. Perhaps BAAN may choose a 'tempered' Open Source strategy ? The question now is: what strategies could/should BAAN adopt, and more fundamentally, can Open Source be seen to have categorisable 'styles', with each their own pros and cons.
Is he going to be carrying an onboard GPS or other sort of positioning unit. Will someone donate it to him - I can see interest in watching the flight real-time.
The internet is a mass medium, and as such, will be the playground of con-artists, in the same way that con-artists have played in all the mediums of the past. That's an undisputed fact. It's especially vulnerable right now because there are many people that do not understand nor see the bigger picture. Society should try to prevent this stuff from happening, but at the same time, it's always 'caveat emptor'.
This is just a more obvious con. You need to look below the surface for the surreptitous con's that happen every day, yet are rarely questioned. Consider a lot of brand marketing and corporate activities that play upon individuals need to believe and belong, or other emotional issues. They play on people's confidence in another way. I could draw examples from corporate product marketing preying on teenagers need for belonging.
Are you seriously suggesting that Oracle, Sybase or MS SQL are so badly written that the only reason public at large is not allowed to look at the source code is because "customers would probably start losing sleep if they saw the quality/state of the software that runs inside of their products."
Did I say anything about Oracle, Sybase or MS SQL ? Or did you just construct a strawman to argue against ? There is a lot of good commercial software out there, but at the same time, there is a lot of bad commercial software. I have seen more of the latter than the former in my experiences. Other experiences may differ. Those large companies have resources to make a good product, not all commercial ventures are as lucky.
Where is open source DB that can rival Oracle or even MS SQL ? Wake up. Open source is about reimplementing (never ending chase syndrome) solutions that were created by commercial developers. Not much more.
Did I say anything about open source rivalling closed source ? The question was about choosing to work in a gated community or a non-gated community. I pointed out reasons why people don't care, and reasons why existing closed source may not be turned into open source -- i.e. slowing the time it takes for there to be a lot of open source projects to work on. I agree that open source will 'reimplement' many closed source solutions, but its not going to happen over night, and in many cases it will not happen at all because there are still other commercial issues.
The killer application is Bluetooth Web Server
on
DIY Tiny Webserver
·
· Score: 2
It's a novel concept, but I'm not sure about the applicability. If you are trying to create a micro web server, then you need to connect it to the rest of the world. Unless you want to lumber around with cables and large footprint isolation devices and so on, what you really want is wireless - wires are passe! The goal should be a supercompact, yet flexible and open, server based on an emerging ubiquitous wireless technology.
Your choice should be a Bluetooth ASIC with onboard CPU (e.g. Cambridge Silicon Radio and BlueCore[tm]). You could put the server onto the ASIC, and have a small footprint wireless device. What you also want is a generic interface out of the chip to external devices - so the chip holds the pages, their definitions, and everything else, but local fetches pull binary data from outside of the chip - or something like that.
I want to walk around a museum, and walk up to a painting by Carravagio, and have by palm device show up small icon - I select the device and can browse the image and text about the image, and listen to audio all while I'm standing in the gallery. But then later that night, while having dinner and talking about the day, I want to be able to surf over my 3G phone pull up the information again, while I'm explaning it to some one else. And if that work of art is taken to another gallery, then they can transport the micro webhost with it. That would be cool.
Disclaimer: I work for the parent company of Cambridge Silicon Radio.
Sure the software companies like it, but what do the developers get out of it?
They get a paid. A large proportion of people are less concerned about causes than they are about funding their lifestyle. Perhaps if they are faced with an equal choice between gated and non-gated development, they may choose the former.
There is a lot of closed source out there, and for many commercial reasons it is probably not practical or worthwhile to go open-source. Also, given the state of some commercial software that I have seen, customers would probably start losing sleep if they saw the quality/state of the software that runs inside of their products.
Open source software is great, but there are many other causes, and many other interesting things and much more to life.
The concept is valid; future computing should and will involve a sort of displaced 'desktop' as you may have it; so your data partially resides on your personal computer, and in space - and presumably you can access space through different devices: pc's, phones, etc. Likely result is that Microsoft will make it too Windows specific, what a blow to a technological future.
The other thing: their logos are just not sexy. '.net' is a pretty sexy name, but they need to redesign their sense of style.
I agree with your prediction, and think that what will occur is a blend and mix between desktop and serviced software.
The core software runs on your desktop, and you access services as you need them, to varying degrees of heavy and lightweight services. The end result is a blur between 'desktop' and 'network' anyway, the problem is that many people don't see that it will be an integrated blur, so have taken the extreme view that 'it will be ASPs!' failing to see the big picture.
There seem to be two distinct issues: (1) the lack of a formal spec against a formal test procedure; (2) the nature of open source software and protection of security by obscurity.
(1) Perhaps a formal test procedure could be created. It could even be a commercial opportunity. Even better, it could be an open source project itself, drawing from the best minds, and open to the scrutiny of all. This could be similar to encryption standards where algorithms are available to all.
(2) Perhaps there is a view that at least with the source code 'closed', then black hats cannot analyse the code. I would argue that black hats do have access to source code for many operating systems, perhaps even the trusted ones. I'm not sure I can weigh up the pros and cons quickly off the top of my head.
If the goal is to create intelligent perceptual machines, why go backwards and design like a human brain? Why not go forwards and design according to the desired function at hand. The human brain is not the most efficient computing substrate for many tasks.
Many future trends indicate that the direction of retail activity is towards creating an 'experience' environment so that shopping and leisure become blurred: which they already are.
In the last 3 months, I have been to Potsdamar Platz in Berlin -- a mini entertainmentsville of the future with surreal Gibsonesque oranges and german structured futurist terracotta architecture --, and Bluewater in England. Both mix shopping, food, leisure activities in a kind of indoor space. In the former, you also have cinemas, casinos and other activities; enough for a weekend worth of amusements (yes, the hotels are part of the environment as well!).
A recent article in the Financial Times indicated that 'airports of the future where going to be shopping malls with runways attached'. Another indication.
eCommerce will take off. At the business level, it is currently transforming value chains and industries, we're only just now part way through the revolution as many more industries are to go through the process: computers and communications lead the way. At the personal level, people will often want to (for the near term) feel and touch things and see them in the raw: especially clothes, but also household items. The goal for the retailers is to increase service, provide the enjoyable experiences, and somehow prevent the consumers from seeing it in the raw, and then going back home to the computer to find a better deal online. The goal for the online merchants -- or even the retailers -- is to harness the globalised nature of eCommerce : when you buy a television, aren't you interested in comparing the specs, seeing what choices other people make, and someone being confident in a good price for a good product ?
Perhaps the mall should realise that eCommerce is inevitable, and somehow find the best way to accommodate it for the benefit of itself, the customers and its stores. For instance, what if you could go the mall, try on those shoes, and decide to purchse them elsewhere, but because you tried them on, you get an online discount ? Just an idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The advantage is that if the software is open source, many other ventures may spring up (like what has occurred with Linux) to make money from supporting it - in exactly the situations you have described.
If Open-Baan means more support organisations, competing for faster turn around time to customers, even if the cost is high, then perhaps that is important. As you mention, customers are more concerned about risk and timeliness than they are about inherent features and cost.
A downside is that the software may become bastardised and developed contrary to its original ethos.
ERP basically encodes operating procedures for an organisation: what used to be paperwork is now electronic screen work. It is a natural evolution from MIS, MRP, CRM and the spectrum of disparate software distributed around organisations.
For example, with ERP software you should be able to connect your organisation to digital market places quite easily. You should be able to track and automate resource chains.
Another example is that ERP software, like MIS, should allow for comprehensive data and status reporting. It may also help feed sales and marketing information back through to engineering and production.
When it comes to organisational automation, the pack leader at the moment seems to be Cisco - AFAIK from reports, the company rides upon a digital framework, where purchase orders can flow through to component suppliers without needing any human interaction. The boast is that Cisco can 'close its books' daily.
Eventually -- if not already -- you should be able to buy templates for standard organisation types off the shelf. The 'product oriented' organisation is largely a well known concept and largely the same all over the world - differences according to type of product and other factors are minimal: the infrastructure is the same.
This move could give them long term market share, and give them lead over rivals in a market place that is not moving fast, but has sticking power - much like operating systems, because ERP systems are effectively organisational operating systems.
Various software, including MRP, MIS and so on have been predicting the impending unification of ERP software. The codification of business rules and operating procedures, now coupled with the emergence of electronic market places, suggests that _now_ is the time that ERP vendors should make the big push to secure long term positions. Oracle is very succesfull at the moment partially for these reasons - databases are part of the plumbing in the electronic economy.
BAAN has, according to the press, been having problems: staff turnover, depressed demand (post y2k), and so on. Their major competitor is SAP, which recently embarked on a mySAP strategy - almost a portal for executives. You will note that Crossworlds was formed to plug the gaps between ERP software - although it has also had problems due to slow market development. This year is predicted to be the year of B2B, and their will be a shakeout, but B2B is a part of the continuing 'informationalisation' of organisations, and ERP software becomes a necessary ingredient in connecting the enterprise into the wider landscape of globally electronic resource connectivity.
One lesson from Open Source is that when software becomes 'infrastructure', then it is best served by an Open Source model - for various reasons. ERP software is reaching the stage of 'infrastructure'.
Open-BAAN would probably result in various ventures that would take advantage of the Open Source, and it could propell BAAN to market leadership. I think this would be an excellent move. The question that must be considered by BAAN's board is: how can BAAN gain from it, after all, BAAN answers to its owners with a P/L statement. Perhaps BAAN may choose a 'tempered' Open Source strategy ? The question now is: what strategies could/should BAAN adopt, and more fundamentally, can Open Source be seen to have categorisable 'styles', with each their own pros and cons.
Is he going to be carrying an onboard GPS or other sort of positioning unit. Will someone donate it to him - I can see interest in watching the flight real-time.
The internet is a mass medium, and as such, will be the playground of con-artists, in the same way that con-artists have played in all the mediums of the past. That's an undisputed fact. It's especially vulnerable right now because there are many people that do not understand nor see the bigger picture. Society should try to prevent this stuff from happening, but at the same time, it's always 'caveat emptor'.
This is just a more obvious con. You need to look below the surface for the surreptitous con's that happen every day, yet are rarely questioned. Consider a lot of brand marketing and corporate activities that play upon individuals need to believe and belong, or other emotional issues. They play on people's confidence in another way. I could draw examples from corporate product marketing preying on teenagers need for belonging.
Are you seriously suggesting that Oracle, Sybase or MS SQL are so badly written that the only reason public at large is not allowed to look at the source code is because "customers would probably start losing sleep if they saw the quality/state of the software that runs inside of their products."
Did I say anything about Oracle, Sybase or MS SQL ? Or did you just construct a strawman to argue against ?
There is a lot of good commercial software out there, but at the same time, there is a lot of bad commercial software. I have seen more of the latter than the former in my experiences. Other experiences may differ. Those large companies have resources to make a good product, not all commercial ventures are as lucky.
Where is open source DB that can rival Oracle or even MS SQL ? Wake up. Open source is about reimplementing (never ending chase syndrome) solutions that were created by commercial developers. Not much more.
Did I say anything about open source rivalling closed source ? The question was about choosing to work in a gated community or a non-gated community. I pointed out reasons why people don't care, and reasons why existing closed source may not be turned into open source -- i.e. slowing the time it takes for there to be a lot of open source projects to work on.
I agree that open source will 'reimplement' many closed source solutions, but its not going to happen over night, and in many cases it will not happen at all because there are still other commercial issues.
It's a novel concept, but I'm not sure about the applicability. If you are trying to create a micro web server, then you need to connect it to the rest of the world. Unless you want to lumber around with cables and large footprint isolation devices and so on, what you really want is wireless - wires are passe! The goal should be a supercompact, yet flexible and open, server based on an emerging ubiquitous wireless technology.
Your choice should be a Bluetooth ASIC with onboard CPU (e.g. Cambridge Silicon Radio and BlueCore[tm]). You could put the server onto the ASIC, and have a small footprint wireless device. What you also want is a generic interface out of the chip to external devices - so the chip holds the pages, their definitions, and everything else, but local fetches pull binary data from outside of the chip - or something like that.
I want to walk around a museum, and walk up to a painting by Carravagio, and have by palm device show up small icon - I select the device and can browse the image and text about the image, and listen to audio all while I'm standing in the gallery. But then later that night, while having dinner and talking about the day, I want to be able to surf over my 3G phone pull up the information again, while I'm explaning it to some one else. And if that work of art is taken to another gallery, then they can transport the micro webhost with it. That would be cool.
Disclaimer: I work for the parent company of Cambridge Silicon Radio.
Sure the software companies like it, but what do the developers get out of it?
They get a paid. A large proportion of people are less concerned about causes than they are about funding their lifestyle. Perhaps if they are faced with an equal choice between gated and non-gated development, they may choose the former.
There is a lot of closed source out there, and for many commercial reasons it is probably not practical or worthwhile to go open-source. Also, given the state of some commercial software that I have seen, customers would probably start losing sleep if they saw the quality/state of the software that runs inside of their products.
Open source software is great, but there are many other causes, and many other interesting things and much more to life.
The concept is valid; future computing should and will involve a sort of displaced 'desktop' as you may have it; so your data partially resides on your personal computer, and in space - and presumably you can access space through different devices: pc's, phones, etc. Likely result is that Microsoft will make it too Windows specific, what a blow to a technological future.
The other thing: their logos are just not sexy. '.net' is a pretty sexy name, but they need to redesign their sense of style.
I agree with your prediction, and think that what will occur is a blend and mix between desktop and serviced software.
The core software runs on your desktop, and you access services as you need them, to varying degrees of heavy and lightweight services. The end result is a blur between 'desktop' and 'network' anyway, the problem is that many people don't see that it will be an integrated blur, so have taken the extreme view that 'it will be ASPs!' failing to see the big picture.
There seem to be two distinct issues: (1) the lack of a formal spec against a formal test procedure; (2) the nature of open source software and protection of security by obscurity.
(1) Perhaps a formal test procedure could be created. It could even be a commercial opportunity. Even better, it could be an open source project itself, drawing from the best minds, and open to the scrutiny of all. This could be similar to encryption standards where algorithms are available to all.
(2) Perhaps there is a view that at least with the source code 'closed', then black hats cannot analyse the code. I would argue that black hats do have access to source code for many operating systems, perhaps even the trusted ones. I'm not sure I can weigh up the pros and cons quickly off the top of my head.
If the goal is to create intelligent perceptual machines, why go backwards and design like a human brain? Why not go forwards and design according to the desired function at hand. The human brain is not the most efficient computing substrate for many tasks.
Many future trends indicate that the direction of retail activity is towards creating an 'experience' environment so that shopping and leisure become blurred: which they already are.
In the last 3 months, I have been to Potsdamar Platz in Berlin -- a mini entertainmentsville of the future with surreal Gibsonesque oranges and german structured futurist terracotta architecture --, and Bluewater in England. Both mix shopping, food, leisure activities in a kind of indoor space. In the former, you also have cinemas, casinos and other activities; enough for a weekend worth of amusements (yes, the hotels are part of the environment as well!).
A recent article in the Financial Times indicated that 'airports of the future where going to be shopping malls with runways attached'. Another indication.
eCommerce will take off. At the business level, it is currently transforming value chains and industries, we're only just now part way through the revolution as many more industries are to go through the process: computers and communications lead the way. At the personal level, people will often want to (for the near term) feel and touch things and see them in the raw: especially clothes, but also household items. The goal for the retailers is to increase service, provide the enjoyable experiences, and somehow prevent the consumers from seeing it in the raw, and then going back home to the computer to find a better deal online. The goal for the online merchants -- or even the retailers -- is to harness the globalised nature of eCommerce : when you buy a television, aren't you interested in comparing the specs, seeing what choices other people make, and someone being confident in a good price for a good product ?
Perhaps the mall should realise that eCommerce is inevitable, and somehow find the best way to accommodate it for the benefit of itself, the customers and its stores. For instance, what if you could go the mall, try on those shoes, and decide to purchse them elsewhere, but because you tried them on, you get an online discount ? Just an idea.