Gartner Says Open Source "Impossible To Avoid"

alphadogg writes in with a Network World article that covers a Gartner open source conference, in which VP Mark Driver seems to be going out of his way to be provocative. "You can try to avoid open source, but it's probably easier to get out of the IT business altogether. By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code..." After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease, the rest of the article outlines a perfectly rational plan for developing an open source strategy.

sounds good to me

You won't hear me complaining, 80% sounds great.

Oh but you can...

Actually, I have found that the amount of open source you use and your chances of getting herpes are, strangely, inversely proportional. ;)

"Strategy" is Not Rational

Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.

It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.

Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational

I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.

Browser history [wikipedia.org], if not the web itself, and symbolic manipulation [wikipedia.org] are good places to start. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing you can do with a computer that someone has not used for their PhD and created a free, working copy. Often, there will be a great big pool of public domain code from government sponsored research, but some of that has been stolen and given to private interests. The great wave of source code theft that happened in the 1980s was the exception, not the rule.

I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person. It is mostly is if value performance. It's always superior if you value freedom and flexibility. I value freedom and have not given up much to have it. There are a few cases where you might have to keep a Windows machine around, but most people can do without it and be better off.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I can't help you anymore than that.

Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational

Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take.

Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.

If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?

I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.

And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.

Sounds right

It's infectious, it's growing and all attempts to stop it have failed.... sounds like a virus to me.

A conversation

--Dude, where've you been? I haven't been able to reach you for days!

--I was in the hospital with (whispers) *Linux*. They wouldn't let me get online. They were afraid I'd install it on the computer. They even found it on my cellphone.

--Man, that's harsh!

--You're telling me! At least they put me in a room with Windows.

Standard

1. Say something provocative and be sure to mention open source.
2. Post on slashdot.
3. Sneak in something insightful.
4. ???????
5. Profit!!!1

Consider the Source

This is the Gartner Group we're talking about. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone still pays them any attention at all. I still have some presentation materials around here somewhere where they warn that 30% of US businesses will fail due to Y2K problems.

Re:Consider the Source

Heheh. I just did a search for 'site:slashdot.org gartner' and here are some weird analyses they've come up with in the past:
Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows [slashdot.org] (2004)
Gartner Recommends Holding Onto The SCO Money [slashdot.org] (2003)
(Sure they got some better ones too, I just picked the funnies)

Well that's an understatment...

Hard to avoid? I'm in the process of securing a restraining order as we speak.

Already here.

The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)

Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.

And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.

Re:Already here.

The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.

I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.

I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.

Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.

Re:Already here.

In addition to the domains where open-source is already firmly established (the Internet, as you mention, and many embedded device spaces, too), there are indeed many new domains where open-source is becoming more and more "necessary." Consider this (admittedly brief) writeup [phoronix.com] on a talk given by "Intel's Chief Linux and Open-Source Technologist." The writeup says:

He also mentioned that a major OEM is requiring that by next year their hardware suppliers must either have an open-source driver available or be able to provide an open-source driver within the next twelve months. The likely company that comes to mind is Dell but Dirk refused to comment any further.

If the speculation is correct (that Dell wants all hardware to have open-source drivers available within 12 months), that's a big deal. Such a push is an example of the benefits of open-source being pushed into a new market (in this case, the desktop commodity hardware space).

Re:Already here.

I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings.

The problem isn't the lack of drivers, it is what the Chinese will do with an open-source driver.

I really don't understand why Dell would care. They arn't hardware designers, just system integrators using (mostly) comodity parts.

Hardware manufacturer spends lots of time (read: money) developing software-instead-of-hardware approach to make a given computer peripherial lower cost to the consumer.

While I'm sure there are exceptions for the most part I'd say I'm happy to see those pursuing that approach go. Forget Linux etc. even on Windows these types of hardware tend to be the buggiest pieces of garbage available and are the first to become obsolete when a new version of Windows, or even sometimes a service pack, comes out. What's wrong with hardware makers competing based on making better hardware?

You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.

Well, they still have to duplicate the hardware which is IMHO a lot harder than copying the software, be it open or closed.

Disease?

After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease

Sir, you appear to be confusing "open source" with "open sores." I realize they sound similar, and English spelling isn't entirely logical, but this one ends with an "S" sound, not a "Z."

It is a disease, and that's why it works!

Of course Open Source is a communicable disease. All freedom is. That's why they call it freedom, and that's also why those in control fear it so much.

DUH!

I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.

What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!

Re:It is a disease, and that's why it works!

There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral.

Your comment made me think of what first attracted me to the Free Software world. To any one who's discovered the elegant beauty of Darwin's evolutionary theory, there is an equal attractiveness in the way the GPL license is framed.
The very fact that the GPL attaches itself to the code its released under, and survives into the downstream modifications that are made to the code.. there are beautiful resemblances to the way successful life itself evolves.
I'm inclined to believe that licenses that are not viral (e.g. BSD) and depend on altruistic reasons to survive, are somehow doomed to extinction (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause). In the long run, the GPL will emerge as the fitter license that made its way into the larger user base while retaining pefect copies of itself.
(Of course I'm neither a biologist nor a programmer, so apologies if I sound like I'm talking outta my ass.)

In other news

security of your product and business is not possible via obscurity. This just in...

Tivolization

I guess that depends on that GPLv3 thingy...

If Gartner ways it, bet the opposite.

My opinion of Gartner is so low that I can only assume that through some miracle Open Source will be discarded as a bad idea by 2011.

Open source in commercial software?

By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code

If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.

Re:Open source in commercial software?

If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"?

For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.

For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.

Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.

So when were you able to avoid it?

Can you name an OS that doesn't have Open Source code in it? (over the last 30 or so years) ... anyone? ... Okay, one that people actually use? Now, there may be a few users that have never used an operating system, and I can't speak for every application out there, so I'm pretty sure that you never could avoid it.

Gartner is a joke ...

Anything coming from any of the Gartner clowns' mouth should be considered suspect. They are a joke.

What does DiDio say?

Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?" I guess things have changed a lot. But what does she say now? An slashdotter wants to know.

I think Hell is freezing. Wrap the pipes.

Dear Slashdotters,

Considering this recent revelation of the future from this prophet, we here at Microsoft want a piece of the action too. We have been dodging this bullet for too long. It's time to sink our teeth in and bite it.

We have been holding secret negotiations with Torvalds and starting next year, the NT kernel will be scrapped in favor of the Linux kernel. Windows will cease to be an operating system. Instead, Microsoft will develop something to be known as "the Windows Desktop Environment", or WDE for short. WDE will have all the user-friendly features you have come to love in Microsoft Windows operating systems with the exception that everything about it will be open source.

Help us make WDE and our new distribution become a success and continue your support for Microsoft.

Your Friend in Redmond,
William Gates III

Straw-man: Their rhetorical hyperbole

The 80% comment is a form of reverse rhetoric. They are trying by themselves to build unrealistic expectations which they can then knock down to prove the failure of OSS and Linux. That's called a straw-man argument.

This is all they have to wield as a weapon against quality software that challenges the proprietary vendors and shops that pay their bills. It's official. Their efforts are now pathetic.

Bespoke Software Won't disappear

Shrink-wrapped commercial stuff like Word and Excel might be under threat, but there will always be jobs for people working on bespoke business projects. For example, I can't imagine an altruistic bunch of people getting together to write a special flight booking system for British Airways.

Gartner, eh?

So the gartner [reference.com] said that? Interesting. What did the poolman and the postman have to say about it? :p

Why get out?

Why should I get out of the IT business? I don't make my money out of selling software but by charging hourly rates to write software for clients. Open Source will only lead to more possibilities and more work.

Because software will more reliable and easier to get means that it will be used more and thus more clients will need my services.

This is actually a Good Thing (TM).

Y

By 2011, at least 80% of readers will be out of IT

(Sorry, this turns into a rant:) I wonder what percentage of readers -- 80% ? -- will not be in IT any longer by 2011, and what percentage will remember this prediction? If I'm not mistaken, Gartner is primarily a business to business research firm. If I was paying them dump trucks of money to say obvious things like this, I would question myself. I mean, by 2011 you know 80% of applications will use SAX or some open-source XML parser. Wondering if the report was bogus or not, I decided to break with tradition & read the article. These people have a grasp of the obvious: "You've got to know what's in your organization." They suggest four steps that are somewhat blindingly obvious. The first is to use software the fits the purpose. Then use mature software. (I don't have any statistics in front of me, but wouldn't Gartner also do a report saying some new technology is the best thing that ever happened?) The third factor is a buzzword, your "technology adoption profile" -- I don't know what that means, but it sounds important. Is there a UML diagram for that? The fourth factor is whether the software is 24/7 mission critical. Since earlier in the article the advice is not to throw out Windows for Linux, I can't quite harmonize them. So I'm just kind of in a daze at the vacuity of this stuff. The Gartner guy actually describes the motives of IBM for supporting Linux. (Can he back this up with research? Does he have quotes from IBM management proving that his ascribed motive is correct? Gartner is a research firm, right?) So that this stuff is being reported as "news" is mind-boggling. That this stuff is being done at all is mind-boggling. What happened to real reporting, anyway? Printing some quotes from a talk is not reporting. Why don't they ask what percentage of application development plans to use open-source components in the immediate future, or an open-source middleware and presentation layer stack? Why don't they ask why 20% would not be using open source by 2011, when the number of all-Microsoft shops that use the .NET stack (C#, SQL Server, ASP.NET) is most likely going to remain significantly higher than that. What is the definition of using open source, anyway, here? A Perl script in a unit test? Firefox and Apache? An XML parser? The quality of news reporting is getting pretty grim.

Obligatory

Personnaly, I welcome our waddling, flightless overlords.

You have used it for years anyway

Windows contains BSD-licenced software. It has been in there for more than 10 years now. Mac OS X has a BSD based kernel. The rest of today's OS is mostly open source or at least uses some BSD or GNU software.

Simple example

Jut try to avoid TCP/IP in any IT camp. The BSD license is very hard to avoid. 80% is way too low a number. I know of a few cars, microwave ovens and other appliances without it.

80% based on open source is still proprietary

I agree with the statement, and have said similar things to justify the whole niether open source or closed is better, but to say it is opensource is ludacris. Think you'll get support when you apply an opensource patch that has been released, will be sucked up by the money grubbing company and eventually issued, but they haven't "fully" tested yet? Granted, companies are getting quicker to release, but it doesn't change the fact.

Once it goes closed source, you have no quality control open to the public to see what changes they've made. It may be a Picasso when they get it, but it could end up mangled into a genital wart by the time it is released to the public.

Re:80%

Does 80% of companies using open source necessarily mean less profits. In my experience it means more time/cost efficient projects.

Not in the least. Microsoft has done very well..

MS and open source you ask?

Check the license for TCP/IP. For a long time they used just netbui for workgroups, but it didn't scale to the internet.

They like the BSD license. It's the GNU license they have an issue with.