Driving Out Costs with Open Source Tools? 202
zO1inks asks: "I work for a custom web solutions company and I'm working on a white paper and presentation that outlines the merits of open source software, particularly the cost savings that can be achieved by using free (or low cost) open source software (OS's, Server, Utilities, etc.) vs typical (and more costly) Microsoft solutions. The material is targeted towards Fortune 500 companies that would have an interest in driving down the costs of custom web development, design, construction, migration, and support. I'm wondering where the largest gains are to be had and what supporting statistics show the validity of such strategies? (e.g. Bank xyz uses Linux to conduct X number of transactions per day with a downtime of only Y hours per month) Bottom Line: Is Fortune 500 ready to embrace Open Source?"
Hmm, MS Software or 5 employees? (Score:1)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:1)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:1)
Price is generaly irrelevant (Score:1)
Remember, the biggest cost in software development is TIME!
Engineers cost a lot... so does not meeting deadlines...
Re:Smallest cost (Score:1)
Proof (Score:1)
Ultimately TCO is relative to the company my TCO for Linux is very low because I use it a lot. If I had never used it before the TCO would start off quite high. However, I wasn't born a Linux user, I never used it before 1999. Now I run it on a web server, a firewall, a mail server, and even an Oracle server. At some point I made the effort to learn. I did the same thing with NT 4 when it came out, so I can do both. If I am paying the bills, I always use Linux. Changing technologies is difficult, it is an investment of time. The best we can do is pick technologies that we think are useful, invest our limited time in them, and hope they live up to our expectations.
Allready deploy Free Software to Fortune 500's (Score:1)
Re:IBM discontinuing NT/W2k Support? (Score:1)
I'm sure your intention with this statement was to prove how cool you are (since it has absolutely zero relevance to your topic), but in actuality, it exposes you for what you are... either unqualified to work at a hardcore Unix shop, or so much of a sellout that you'd choose to work on a dev platform that you "hate", probably for the $$.
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
* To the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick
I guess that means I have one. To me, the ability to modify the Amavis email scanner meant that I could effectively rid my company of the scourge of corporate email: Visual Basic Script. Finding a commercial, closed-source package from a vendor willing to modify it was not a possibility, especially in the price range that my company could afford.
* It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely. If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
This is an illogical arguement. You are comparing hardware support from a vendor against software support.
Let's set aside the illogical arguement for a second, and guess that what you really meant was "You can't get quick support for cheap for OSS software." The problem with that supposition is that you are assuming that support from other closed-source vendors is cheap and quickly available. Let's choose a prominent software vendor as an example, say, Microsoft. The last time I had to call Microsoft technical support (about 2 years ago) it cost around $120/hour to just talk to an engineer, whos final response was "buy new software". In the case of our use of OSS, support comes from a reliable, well-known source 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: me. Not only does the company I work for retain me as an employee, they receive the benefit of instant support when they need it. Compared with the cost of support contracts vs. my salary, the company is saving several multiples my hourly rate by using me alone.
* Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
Ah, this is an old FUD tactic from the bad old days, when Microsoft wasn't as big and Windows 3.1 was still a 16-bit joke. The arguement, which of course is pure FUD, takes the form of "If you use our software, it will be consistent, ergo, once trained, you'll never have to train again!"
By comparison, I'm sure that retraining all of those NT 4 Admins to learn Active Directory cost absolutely nothing, eh? Hopefully that little barb will make it's point. To put it politely: as long as you continue to upgrade software and hardware, training will continue to be a part of the process. To say that retraining is a "cost issue" is to bury your head in the sand when you are already retraining for the next platform/application in a series of upgrades.
I'm not trying to advocate the constant, exclusive use of OSS; I'm trying to point out that I shouldn't have even spent the time writing a rebuttal to this pile of manure that you have submitted.
Now for some objective facts:
Open Source Software can provide benefits provided that you have a definite need for customized software AND staff that understand the underpinnings of that software.
Support is available from several commercial vendors, notably IBM and Red Hat. For critical support needs, it might be in the interest of a company to hire a staffer that is versed in that specific package. In the case of a large corporation with multiple deployments, this may be more cost effective depending on the size and type of deployment for a given OSS package.
Retraining costs are actually equal to retraining costs seen elsewhere with commercial packages.
Frankly, the use of OSS typically depends on the following factors:
Size of budget for deployment of a service or application
Size of staff and experience that they may have in a given environment
Commitment to the use of internal development when needed, to support customization
Use good common sense, and careful analysis, to determine if the company will see a cost savings by the use of OSS.
Re:support (Score:3)
(I know, this model hasn't really worked that well in the real world, but my overhead is lower since I have no buzzwords and am not planning an IPO.)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:3)
Then I went to work for a big-5 consulting firm, and on one of the jobs I was forced to drive an hour and a half each way to a client who was paying $175/hour for me to take that cable out of the plastic bag, attach one end to a UPS, and the other end to a server.
They refused to do that job themselves, because they had contracted with us to do it. No matter that the job was charged to them "Time and Expenses" at rates the top whores in the country would be embarrassed to charge.
It's not about software costs (Score:4)
That said, most Fortune 500 companies won't use open source (note how Apple, IBM etc. already do, however!). This makes them easy pickings for the likes of a Microsoft to seize control of all proprietary software and start draining money out of these Fortune 500 companies- which can happen for a _long_ time before the Fortune 500 companies are severely weakened.
In the bottom line it becomes a question of efficiency above all. Yes, huge corporations like to outsource this sort of thing, but if other huge corporations can get an advantage in margin or efficiency by taking on IT responsibility themselves, over the long run they will beat up on the corporations that are overspending on Microsoft licenses and continually wasting human resources keeping up with Microsoft's ever-increasing accounting demands. Complying with a Microsoft audit costs MONEY. For a huge corporation the human costs of labor and wasted time could be nearly as much money as the actual license fees in question- and the audits won't stop coming.
Basically, any Fortune 500 company sticking determinedly to proprietary software is supporting not only itself but is also supporting its vendor in a sort of charity. If that vendor is Microsoft, the cost is very impressive- even staggering. You have to include the accounting costs of audits, the 'runtime' of the relationship as well as the actual products themselves.
This could prove fatal for such companies in the long run if their direct competition includes more self-contained companies.
Since MySQL is being mentioned.. (Score:2)
Take a look at MySQL Myths Debunked [netgraft.com]
MySQL is free, and contrary to popular belief, is just as powerful as the for a huge price + 1000 times the size alternatives. It's also supported by a modest number of companies if you'd like to pay big bucks.
Re:Smallest cost (Score:1)
I was the only guy I knew driving a truck full of drywall who even knew how to SPELL Unix. (or spell in general for that matter... (g) ) Fortunately, I was able to get a job working for NASA as a Unix admin... Quite a difference. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I've known LOTS of Unix geeks who were working in Microsoft shops because that was all they could find. I knew a Linux guy who worked in steelwork because he could find nothing else. And it's not like the Baltimore/Washington area is lacking in technology firms.
Tell your friend to keep trying. Learn as much as possible, become the best developer or admin he can, keep pursuing his desires, and eventually things will work out. Imagine carrying a sheet of 14' drywall across a muddy construction site in the rain, having it snap over your head, your feet wet... your body aching. Every time a user comes in the door and asks me a stupid question; every time I can't get something to compile; every time I start to get frustrated, I sit back for a minute and reflect on that past. And I'm glad I had the experience. Now I can truly appreciate my job, and recognize that I am fortunate to only have the problems I do.
Food for thought: (Score:1)
open source software does not require you to pay an amount to get the source. In the old days, some (even Richard Stallman) earned some money selling a packaged medium whith the source, since that would be easier than from the dangling primordial web.
Today, you usually pay for opensource software when you want to receive a CD with all the stuff a box usually gives you (books, assistance, etc).
Bottom line: if you want, you can contribute some money by getting software that way: more expensive than for free, but certainly cheaper than closed source.
As to examples of usages, a bank association in Portugal (composed of almost if not all portuguese banks) has a large number of services based on linux, as well as solaris, irix, hp-ux, aix and yes, windows. Not everybody is that enlightened, or it is something that's needed and just isn't there for linux.
I don't know the exact percentage, but linux is not the smallest one
And, specially because of getting something for a far smaller price (zero) we are using tomcat each time more than jrun, which has an exorbitantly expensive licensing fees.
Hugs
legal problem with LGPL? (Score:2)
I'd like to know what legal problem the LGPL poses. I'm not aware of any, and as my project Mojo Nation [mojonation.net] is released under the LGPL, I would be concerned if there were any.
Oh -- well I suppose the LGPL does prohibit you from altering the code and releasing your variation without contributing the changes back to the open source project. I could see a lawyer considering that to be a big problem.
Regards,
Zooko
Re:Smallest cost (Score:2)
As far as the number of admins. That has little to do with the OS, but much more to do with the solution being supported.
It's the number of day to day requests for work that say how many admins you need. Supporting a File/Print server requires signifigantly more work than supporting a database server, at least as far as the server admin is concerned because file/print shares are not static, new users come in the door daily, printers are added, replaced, etc.
But that's only because on a database server, most of the work is done by the DBA. Then again this depends on your environment. 2-tier apps require more DBA work than n-tier. Ongoing development requires more work than static third party applications, etc.
Re:Corporate politics (Score:2)
if a manager spends less than his/her budget for a given year, that manager gets less money the next year, even though the manager has done what seems to be the right thing for the company.
That depends on the company and the situation. If the order comes down from on high to reduce overhead because sales are flat, they will certainly try to find ways to cut costs. I don't understand why they don't just concentrate on getting the job done and doing it as efficiently as possible instead of trying to increase the amount of money their little fiefdom receives. I mean if running a tight ship means that you will have a better P/E ratio and make the investors happy, why not do it?
Corporate politics (Score:2)
I hope your white paper is successful, but after 2 years in a Fortune 10 company, I'm not too optimistic.
Re:License fees - MS's death song (Score:1)
Right.
And, add vendor independence. If F500 companies are concerned with the best, then having the flexibility to choose the best support, and switch support service without switching software. That should hold some value to a F500 company.
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:1)
Exactly! My company is making a painful transition from an publishing package that has proprietary file formats to XML because the company that makes oru original publishing software is dropping support. If we had been using a package without a proprietary file format, transition to different software would be a lot less painful, and we would not have had to worry about how to support old doucmentation. Since the new tool could read it.
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
That's like saying, to the average corp., the ability to renovate your own building means nothing. Corporations which are not builders still need builders to renovate their buildings. Similarly, corporations which are not software developers need software developers to make customizations to their software. That is, if the software is actually useful to the organization.
In fact, most large commercial software packages come with source by default - like Oracle Applications, SAP, etc.
If your business relies on software, you _need_ the ability to modify your software. If your business doesn't rely on software at all, you're right, you probably don't need to modify it. And trust me, if your organization is of any considerable size, you do rely on software.
You said - It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely.
Have you read the support contracts for VA Linux servers? You can cheaply get 2 hours service time almost anywhere.
You said - If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure?
You are risking with going with proprietary software. If your company relies on its data, you have to ask yourself the question - who owns my data? If you are like most companies, the answer isn't you. Your data is worthless without the programs to operate it on. And you certainly have no control over those, if you use proprietary software.
The main question you asked was, "is it cheaper?" I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I use free software is the freedom, not the price. Do corporations care about freedom? Of course they do! Ask any CEO if they would want their future to be tied to the future of their suppliers. My guess is that all of them would say no, and that it would be worth more money to untie them from suppliers.
Re:Smallest cost (Score:2)
I have never seen that. Of course, I haven't look around a whole lot. Most of the high-priced people are for proprietary UNIXs, not Linux.
Anyway, one reason UNIX admins are pricey is because a) they know what they are doing, and b) it takes fewer of them.
If you run your company using thin client X terminals, you could probably get away with only one SysAdmin. If a terminal breaks, you throw it away, and the SysAdmin only needs to admin a) The application server (probably need 1 for every 50-100 people), b) The database server c) The mail server, and d) the web server.
License fees - MS's death song (Score:1)
I've believe that MS going to pay-as-you-go will only make our argument stronger, and may very well be the unexpected nail in the MS coffin put their by themselves. I think that corporate america is going to scream loud and long when this idea finally does go mainstream.
Re:support (Score:1)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:1)
It means that you can take that source code and go to the vendor of your choice to get support. Don't like your current support vendor? Go elsewhere, with NO changes in your systems / software. Otherwise known as giving the user POWER (choice).
> If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
And how much do you pay for that HP support contract (I used to work with HP systems, trust me, you pay for that support)? So, you can pay for HP support or you can pay for OSS support. Of course, if you don't like the OSS support, you go to another vendor. You don't like the HP support, you go to...
Oh yea, it's proprietary, you have no option.
> Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
True, but when the next, incompatible version of Software XYZ comes out, and you have to retrain on it, because they're phasing out support for your verson, what options do you have? When OSS Software ABC comes out with a new version, and you like the old version, you find someone to support it, and you don't retrain.
> If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure? This ain't somebodys home Linux firewall box we're talking about here.
If you're happy with what you've got, and it works for you, keep it. If you're not happy with what you've got (for whatever reason), you ought to look at all the alternatives.
Re:support (Score:1)
(or as a link [missioncriticallinux.com])
sorry.
Note to self: check links before posting!
Why this post is a troll (Score:1)
the sack of shit it is
This is inflammitory speech. This kind of language is designed to invoke an emotional response. People who know they do not have a logical argument use this kind of language. People with logical arguments do not need to result to this kind of name calling.
For the mission critical stuff [open source is] far too insecure and lacking in enterprise-level features.
Buzzword mania. Note how this poster tells us that all open-source software is insecure without backing up this claim with facts [securityfocus.com].
The facts are this:
- Sun, as an example of one of the expensive closed-sourced vendors this poster considers better than Linux, has 23 vulnerabilities reported in the year 2001.
- OpenBSD, in the same time period, has only had eight vulnerabilities reported.
Yet, we are supposed to believe that closed-source is always better than open-sourced systems.This person talks about vague "enterprise features" that open-source is supposibly missing without telling us exactly which enterprise features open-source is supposed to be missing.
In other words, this person is making a number of inflammitory emotional statements, and stating a number of opinions without backuping up those opinions with facts.
Moderators should not be moderating a post like this up.
Why this post is a troll (Score:1)
the sack of shit it is
This is inflammitory speech. This kind of language is designed to invoke an emotional response. People who know they do not have a logical argument use this kind of language. People with logical arguments do not need to result to this kind of name calling.
For the mission critical stuff [open source is] far too insecure and lacking in enterprise-level features.
Buzzword mania. Note how this poster tells us that all open-source software is insecure without backing up this claim with facts [securityfocus.com].
The facts are this:
- Sun, as an example of one of the expensive closed-sourced vendors this poster considers better than Linux, has 23 vulnerabilities reported in the year 2001.
- OpenBSD, in the same time period, has only had eight vulnerabilities reported.
Yet, we are supposed to believe that closed-source is always better than open-sourced systems.This person talks about vague "enterprise features" that open-source is supposibly missing without telling us exactly which enterprise features open-source is supposed to be missing.
In other words, this person is making a number of inflammitory emotional statements, and stating a number of opinions without backuping up those opinions with facts.
Moderators should not be moderating a post like this up.
Re:Why this post is a troll (Score:2)
Note to self: When mozilla says it is "resolving host", Mozilla is lying.
Sigh.
- Sam
Re:Why this post is a troll (Score:2)
Why this post is a troll (Score:4)
the sack of shit it is
This is inflammitory speech. This kind of language is designed to invoke an emotional response. People who know they do not have a logical argument use this kind of language. People with logical arguments do not need to result to this kind of name calling.
For the mission critical stuff [open source is] far too insecure and lacking in enterprise-level features.
Buzzword mania. Note how this poster tells us that all open-source software is insecure without backing up this claim with facts [securityfocus.com].
The facts are this:
- Sun, as an example of one of the expensive closed-sourced vendors this poster considers better than Linux, has 23 vulnerabilities reported in the year 2001.
- OpenBSD, in the same time period, has only had eight vulnerabilities reported.
Yet, we are supposed to believe that closed-source is always better than open-sourced systems.This person talks about vague "enterprise features" that open-source is supposibly missing without telling us exactly which enterprise features open-source is supposed to be missing.
In other words, this person is making a number of inflammitory emotional statements, and stating a number of opinions without backuping up those opinions with facts.
Moderators should not be moderating a post like this up.
Re:License overhead isn't just price (Score:2)
In many cases, this isn't an issue, but where you're doing batch jobs on data, you want the fastest code you can get.
--
Re:Smallest cost (Score:4)
The problem is, the guy stocking the store has no "real world" experience in Unix admin or production programming. Any idiot who can read can setup and install Apache/PostgreSQL/etc on a Linux box. While setting up Oracle and installing the ACS is more complex, it's still not that hard. Hell, I did it, and I'm a complete idiot.
Setting up a single machine, while somewhat impressive is not the same as building a functioning network out of a building full of oddball platforms and legacy applications -- which is very important in Fortune 500-type companies.
I'm not trying to put a damper on the guy's enthusiasm -- rather, I want to encourage him to expand his knowledge beyond simple administration of a single box. Make a trip to your local thrift store an pick up a few 486s on the cheap and integrate them into a home network. Mix and match -- don't focus on Linux only, stir in some Net/Free/OpenBSD, Windows and Mac (Mac SE/30s with a network card can be had for $30 or less, and can speak TCP/IP).
Then set up a remote access service to your home network via modem, then a VPN with a friend. Congratulations, you've just worked through the major things that Big Companies are looking for in IT workers.
Here's your answer (Score:2)
Vendor tools have a fixed cost of ownership based on what the vendor charges you. Add to that the cost of deployment. There are several components to that. One the physical cost of rolling it out. Two the cost of missing functions and having to replace them with more tools, a different process or paying the vendor to change the product. The time spent rolling it out. This is not trivial. Say for ssh tools you pay a vendor x thousands of dollars and most not all your macines are covered because they don't have an ssh for 'xyz123' OS. Now that's probably because there aren't that many of those around so the vendor will say no. Or lets say you need a different object model because your management console wasn't built to display 25000 objects that you have to track. So there's another fix and/or a completely different and more expensive way to deploy the tool to circumvent that problem. Then there are the plain broken things that don't work right or are completely dependant on something that doesn't work like no ssh support at all which ends up being a real PITA since now you have to do local management through the local console port.
Now in the open source world you have the costs incurred by being able to fix all of that. You can make whatever change you want and implement whatever functions you want. This assumes that the underlying functions actually can be built and aren't otherwise retricted by other licence problems like trying to write opensource ssh version 2 and not running afoul of the encryption libraries you would need to no that. OTOH you make all sorts of unusual changes like writing a high performance db for ddns/dhcp high speed zone transfers instead of the old crappy bind based flat sile gorp. Having said that don't underestimate the costs of having to build and maintain your own tools. Now that you have the ability to make all sorts of changes you will be expected to do so. You have to have some development discipline and good solid change management. And then you have to make sure that you can meet the performance requirements. A vendor tool might have been written for performance and for you reverse engineer the functions and run them in perl might not run fast enough. Or postgresql might not scale up large enough or what have you. And you're still not out of the licencing woods if the open source code has a licence that says basicall "I don't know it's not my problem - somebody might come after you" lawyers hate that shit.
Of course you don't have to worry about the vendor killing your tool. You do have to worry about being able to finish the job and hoping the developers don't quit.
MS easier to administer? Hah! (Score:3)
When the point-N-click works, it's great. It all begins to turn to pooh when one of these things happens:
Never confuse a plethora of choices with real freedom. Never confuse pretty with useful. Never confuse slick packaging with thorough testing.
Where OSS such as Linux wins is:
Let's not even bother exploring the ugliness represented by layer upon layer of legacies and idealogically incompatible subsystems in the various Microsoft products.
Re:I can see it now - expect to see more of this (Score:1)
Staffing: open source needs programming skills (Score:2)
I work with both OSS and Windows applications, and it seems that the Windows applications are unreliable but have better feature sets. The OSS applications are more reliable, but often seem missing the features I need or require some kind of a middleware application I don't have the skills or time to tie together into a coherent whole.
Re:Smallest cost (Score:5)
Not if you are comparing people of similar skill levels, and you should. If you hire a "dummy" to run your systems... then the problem is you have a "dummy" running your system, and you get what you pay for. If you hire a highly skilled UNIX or OSS engineer and a highly skilled MCSE, chances are the cost is not going to be that much different. If the rewards for building skills aren't there, why would anyone want to pay all that money to become an MCSE? Microsoft must be lying to someone -- they tell workers "become and MCSE and make buttloads of money" and they tell bosses "hire MCSE's, they don't make jack squat compared to real engineers".
While there may be a lot more MSCE's than UNIX or OSS engineers out there that are "dummies" because of the effort that has been made by Microsoft and their partners to push a lot of people through training classes and whatnot, I have to say "Who cares?". I don't know why you'd want that sort of person in your employ. And if you have to pay about the same amount per person, then UNIX or OSS typically wins because most people find that they need fewer people to support UNIX and OSS systems than they do Microsoft based systems because they break less often.
One of the big myths about Microsoft's stuff is that it is "easier" to administer or somehow less complex than *nix. I don't think that is true at all. It merely hides its complexity under a GUI that lulls people into a false sense of understanding. But when things break, the complexity underneath can rear its ugly head, and since so many things inside the black box are secrets people often find themselves unable to solve problems without help. *nix on the other hand puts everything right out there in the open, which can be daunting for a newbie, but by forcing people to do their homework up front, they build real understanding more quickly, and get to use and build on that knowledge faster.
Re:License overhead isn't just price (Score:2)
What about libraries with a BSD license? I'm trying to decide between LGPL and BSD for my new library (a big one) and have been leaning towards BSD, but haven't ruled out LGPL. If my library were of use to you, would LGPL vs BSD make a difference to you>
License overhead isn't just price (Score:5)
If I want to get g++, I download it.
I can assure you that at least two Fortune 500 companies use gcc/g++ as their production compiler for commercial software. (Only LGPL libraries are used; great care is taken to avoid GPL libraries.) Sorry, no names.
bad idea (Score:2)
gcc and Sun's compiler will have different bugs. You wouldn't release a product without testing it, so you should always use the "final" tools. Look at how many gcc bugs Linux hits each week. Compiler bugs are usually subtle, so you'll need lots of test-hours to adequately QA your product.
I know some developers who always compile with full optimizations and don't even use their compiler's debug symbols and features when compiling. They test what they ship. There are some compiler bugs that only show up in optimized builds.
Re:Smallest cost (Score:2)
For most applications that's undeniably true. This guys best bet is to focus on the flexibility and customizability of most Open Source programs.
On the other hand, I do know a lot of Unix shops who use quite a bit of Linux and BSD precisely because of it's low (free) cost. They still use commercial Unix's like Solaris, but they use Linux and BSD for think like print servers, internal DNS servers, etc. Linux and BSD are also handy for inexpensively giving each of thier developers thier own individual Unix box!
Re:You are joking, right? (Score:5)
We *also* use a lot of proprietary software, including Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Novell.
We use whatever we think works best for each particular situation. Some Open Source programs have compelling advantages, including price, customizability, and (for some programs, like OpenBSD) security.
Will this guys paper convince CEOs and CIOs to drop all of thier proprietary software? Hell no. But it might make help them to understand what their tech staff already knows. Open Source programs *can* sometimes be a valuable addition to any IT departments "bag of tricks".
Interesting mainframe Linuxlink off of your link. (Score:2)
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/news
Here's a sample:
In the first phase of the project, Banco Mercantil has consolidated the workload running on 30 existing NT servers into one Linux for S/390 image on a single IBM mainframe. Later, applications currently running on Sun and HP servers will be moved to the new Linux for S/390 image.
Not too shabby for a first step. And, IIRC, they ran it on an existing box. Consolidating boxes makes IT guys drool.
Re:support - So hire Cygnus! (Score:2)
Cygnus is responsible for the software. The contract that you sign with them says so. You pay money, you report bugs, they're required to fix them, and give you binary and source code updates.
They are very much responsible for the software. Their software developers are some of the most knowledgable on the gnu compiler collection.
Re:support (Score:2)
Next time they say that they need someone to blame, make them read the EULAs they agreed to. There is not a chance in hell they are going to be able to blame Microsoft. It's the same thing with free/open source software, but at least they can take any problems into their own hands as the source is available.
Besides, you have much more choice in the support you get for Linux. If MS doesn't want to help you (likely), tough shit. If your Linux support provider doesn't want to help you, go to another one.
Re:Smallest cost (Score:2)
what i am talking about here is the average level.
on average, on a scale of 1-10, it is my opinion that your "average" NT admin is about 2-3, and your average *NIX person is 4-5.
i have also found that the number of admins is usually with *NIX much less than you need with NT.
tagline
Re:You just don't get it. (Score:3)
most companies DON'T make money off of software.
you, like "real" companies that make "real" products. These kind of companies have accountants that get all hot and bothered because they can reduce the number of screws in a widget by 2, so they can save 3 cents per widget.
"closed source" is an expense. pure and simple.
one day, the bean counters are going to wake up, and say "geezus, we are now paying MS about $500/employee/year just so we our employees can send email, use MS Office and play MineSweeper(tm). On top of that, we have constant hardware upgrades, and our IT staff takes up 20% of our budget, and they are a bunch of high school educated people with a "certification" from microsoft, and no formal college training... and we're paying them on average $60,000 a year on average so they can point and click to keep our network running correctly"
For the VAST majority of businesses, IT is a cost center. It produces no revenue. In times of economic hardship, cost centers get reduced or eliminated.
The economic argument is a good one, dont underestimate it. Companies are not going to roll over and play nice forever. they bought MS's line of shit that using MS products will "make" them money. Watch. Its coming. I know of one Utility that is looking at their IT budget, thats at 20% of total expenditures and saying "wtf, we arent in the computer business, why are we spending so much money on it".
tagline
Re:Smallest cost (Score:4)
however, you need 3-4 times the number of MSCE's, coupled with the fact that teh skill level and knowlege of MSCEs is so much lower than a *NIX guy.
but hey - thats what you get when you dumb down server admin to be point and clickable.
tagline
Change your topic!!! (Score:2)
Seriously, don't aim for the conclusion that open source is better. Try instead for something a little less sweeping and make a case that at least one open source product should be included as an option when each purchase decision is made. It wouldn't be hard to make an excellent case to purchasing departments for OSS projects to be the standard that must be exceeded before a new software purchase order is filled.
You don't have to make the manager's decisions for them - that's what their job is, not yours. What you need is to make sure OSS is ALWAYS one of the options that is put before them.
Re:Let's play Decode-the-SIG! (Score:2)
I got as far as the Meaning when I originally saw it in a list of cool
I love your translation though. Makes my geek sig a lot more philisophical.
FUD: If you want Sun's compiler, you download it (Score:3)
Um, no.
If I want to get Sun's C++ compiler, I go to their try and buy [sun.com] page, and download it.
It stops working after about a month. That's more than enough time to decide whether you like it, and if you do, to go through the purchase order and whatnot.
24 hours for licensing information? It took me twelve minutes. Most of that was waiting for Timothy to get off the damn phone and let me call up.
(Note, I happen to be a regular contributor to GCC. So please don't think I'm slamming GCC. I just don't like the smell of fresh bullshit wafting from my monitor.)
Re: Cygnus / Red Hat. (Score:2)
While Cygnus has been absorbed by Red Had, my understanding is that they still provide open-source support contracts for a fee. It's just that they're now part of Red Hat (and doubling as Red Hat's support department), rather than an independent entity.
If that has changed I (and a lot of other people) would like to know about it. B-)
But as far as actually HIRING them I have indeed been out of the loop for a while - since I don't have to buy open-source support in my current situation. So if Red Hat DID break them I would only know about it if somebody complained - like here on Slashdot.
I've been reading
And that includes spiking the perenial "Who will support me?" objection to open source applications and system components.
Re:support - So hire Cygnus! (Score:5)
Then contract with Cygnus Support!
That's what they DO!
(Besides upgrade many of the Gnu tools, cut distributions, and maintain archives for them - with money from the support contracts.)
Think of Cygnus as a software company that happens to put its products under the GPL. Or think of it as a service organization specializing in GPLed software tools.
And they're no pikers, either.
School (Score:4)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
Yup, and for me personally, the chance I'll modify the linux kernel, or mozilla, or gimp, is (almost) nearly zip because I don't have the time or expertise to screw with the code. But I know I can recompile it if necessary, and because it's in the open, I also know it's (hopefully) relatively free of potential back doors. The merits of having something in the open can be worth more than the chance of modifying it directly.
In other words, don't lose sight of the other benefits of free software by concluding that it's a rare chance you'll actually modify the source directly.
It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely. If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
Why should this be any different with an OSS support service provider? Someone above mentioned Cygnus. Can someone that uses them as support provide how long it takes to get ahold of them?
And in my own experience with HP (for their lab equipment, not computers) it usually takes damn long to get a competent engineer on the phone. Sometimes they call back an hour or more later. Of course, this is an entirely different line of product, where 24-hour uptime isn't mandatory.
Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
Once again, how is this different from commercial software? No firm will stick with the same software for the next 20 years. And new employees will need to be trained as well.
Maybe the original author writing the whitepaper is talking about a new firm opening shop, or a new department forming. With two paths before them, with training costs at either end, OSS could prove quite cost beneficial.
And on my own little rant, many people love pointing out that OSS has a higher TCO due to retraining. For instance, it might be cheaper to upgrade an office to winxp instead of migrating to linux. But these people forget that it's a One-Time jump. Once the office is running linux, there's no more jumps to linux to be made, and upgrading to newer kernels is now essentially free (sysadmin paid time only).
If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure? This ain't somebodys home Linux firewall box we're talking about here.
If that's true, we'd all be still running DOS, or earlier. There's always software that does what you need to do, but to keep up with current technological capabilities is usually important too. (Ie, would you want to keep using a non-WYSIWYG word processor if you didn't have to?) (And no dis to the LaTeX crowd, I love LaTeX, but whipping up a quick report for me is usually quicker with staroffice or equivalent).
You're right in that just jumping the linux bandwagon without looking isn't necessarily a wise move. But to carefully plan out a strategy to get the most out of available software with the potential to also minimize the cost, can prove to be an attractive option to some companies. Especially the ones either early in development or without much funding. .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
I can see it now (Score:4)
I can see it now, the upper management will hold an emergency meeting to run the IT dept (or outsourced guys) through the wringer...
Stuffy Corp Exec: "How could this have happened? How long will it take to have the systems back on-line and functioning properly?"
Witty Network Admin: "That's just it, the systems are functioning properly. They're simply denying logons and not allowing anybody to access shares or printers. The Event Logs indicate that our licenses have expired!"
Stuffy Corp Exec #2: "Isn't it the responsibility of your department to maintain our equipment and keep us current on our licensing?"
Witty Network Admin: "It is indeed. We have kept this network running flawlessly. We made our request for licensing funds more than 2 months ago. I do have a question to pose: where in the grand scheme did my PO request for updated licensing fall?"
Idiot Numbers Guy: "It never made it past my desk. I didn't see any ROI (Return on Investment), when it came down to brass tacks. I don't see why it should have failed, we bought the software and licenses, we should be able to use it."
yea, I think we already know the way things go with open source and free software...the only money involved is for the hardware, and time to configure properly. Maintenance in a well-designed environment should be drastically less money bound. All it takes is the systems being given to the people with the right skills.
Re:Why this post is a troll (Score:2)
---
if you are talkin webapps... (Score:4)
When you are talking databases, you can frankly ignore Microsoft. MS SQLServer has its features, but ultimately, you are stuck with an MS only product. Simply put, you don't want your database to be MS only. If your needs are simple, many opensrc databases can do the trick. If your needs are complex, you probably need some more support and should go with a proprietary job (Oracle, DB/2, etc). If your queries are simple, MySQL is pretty tough to beat. However, if you are doing more sofisticated transactions, working with over 1TB of data, and thinking about failover and cluster, then you are pretty much talking Oracle-time.
As for the middle-tier, services, etc, you definitly want to go open source. There just is no need to use any web server other than Apache. MS IIS makes me want to puke. Everything from Perl, to Java Servlets, to JSP will fill your middle-tier needs. Services are abundant, from SendMail to OpenLDAP. NovellDirectorService (free but not opensrc) is also not a bad F500 app. For NAS needs, definitly go with Samba. It performs just as well as win2k as a CIFS server. Where you will find trouble is with things like Exchange. If they want Exchange, you will have to go with a mixed system.
However, the real question shouldn't be opensrc code or proprietary code. Because, frankly F500 company's dont give a shit about paying for something. The real question is MS or *nix. MS has some great products, but they don't play nice with others. So for me, the answer is simple. Once you reach a certain size, you are going to have a few Linux boxes, some BSD boxes and maybe even a Solaris box. And you will run a healthy mix of opensrc and proprietary code on those systems.
Example backends (Score:3)
The example you mentioned in parathesis sounds more like a backend thing. Backends, especially in the banking industry, tend to be so old that they predate both open source and Microsoft in the server domain. Those systems tend to be running AIX or SCO.
You're welcome to use my company, TrustCommerce [trustcommerce.com], as an example. We use open source software [trustcommerce.com] for pretty much everything, both web stuff and backend. Our processor runs millions of transactions a month and hasn't had a single moment of downtime in over a year. All of our web and frontend stuff is using open source software as well, but there are plenty of good examples of that from companies that will be far better known than us.
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
99% is actually a poor number for uptime for many organizations. That translates to 3.5 DAYs down per year. Even for MickySoft that's kinda high.
--
Re:support (Score:5)
Is open source added value? (Score:2)
Is open source actually improving their business somehow? I am not so sure about it. Take for example Oracle 9i AS. This web solution is based on Apache Web server and adds a value to this, great Java support and enterprise level of caching technology with a patented solution for cashing dynamic content. With what open source solution you want to replace it? Its already using all from open source that is avaiable and just adding more value to the whole package. You don't have anything in open source that could really replace this. (And no, don't even think about OSS application servers like Zope. They are just a joke. Sorry.)
Its all working cool for small business and it would work maybe even for larger companies, but you are not looking in Fortune 500, maybe in Fortune 50000 :))
Is Fortune 500 ready to embrace Open Source? (Score:2)
Yes. They already are. The suits just don't know about it yet.
Example: I work for an IT consultancy shop in $SOUTHERN_US_STATE. A large part of our business comes from @BIG_OIL_COMPANYS. Something like 90% of the code we write for them is in perl (even if half the time it's ActivePerl on NeanderthalTechnology(<-- 'Oog write operating system. Oog like color blue')).
Most of the time, clients couldn't POSSIBLY care less about whether tech FOO or tech BAR is used, open or closed, as long as it lets them do what they need to do. Becuase, let's face it, if they cared about this crap they'd do it for a living instead of whatever it is they do now.
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org [geekaustin.org]
Re:support (Score:2)
i can't remember the last time i had a useful conversation or email with a support tech
of corse, you could just be spending that money on the Psychic Friends Network:
Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network [bmug.org]
_f
Not a completely free ride (Score:2)
If you are willing to wait, many open-source projects catch up and sometimes pass their closed-source counterparts.
This sounds alarming. (Score:2)
This sounds alarming. Shouldn't you be asking whether there really are gains to be had before you start looking for statistics to show their validity? And if you really do know that there are gains, how do you know this without already having the supporting statistics?
Don't be so sure Fortune 500 isn't there already (Score:2)
Given that Fortune 500 companies are successful because they make the best use of their resources, it's not unreasonable that they might be big into Open Source behind the scenes. I've worked at one very big company for a bit and everything was Unix, open source, and a lot of home grown stuff. Also, last I checked, Apache accounted for something like 60% of all web servers out there. I'm willing to bet a lot of Fortune 500 sites out there use it. And, the last stat there is something that ought to comfort the suits. The point is that it's hard to say just what these companies use because they have no requirement to disclose that, and a good incentive not to disclose.
Re:Sharp Presentation? (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief... (Score:2)
I've worked as a sysadmin in several UNIX/Windoze mixed environments for quite some time. It always struck me to see that the Windoze guys outnumbered their UNIX colleagues by far. And more interesting: those Windoze people had work all day long, while the UNIX people had time to do things for themselves (did I hear someone mention the word training here?). Why else would you think I can post this many articles on /. every day *grin*?
Re:Support? (Score:2)
After reading at least a half-dozen posts about how companies want support that OSS doesn't offer, I thought I'd ask whether the support offered by the likes of MS is really worth the money. On my current job, for example, where I'm using MS Access (yeah, yeah..), every time I've called MS' support, I've ended up solving my own problem. EVERY time. Maybe I've solved it a little faster than I would have, but in almost every instance the people who are helping me have as little clue as I do what could be causing the problem. For my money, the people who offer the best support are going to be those who know not only the application, but also the use to which the app is put. The help desk at the other end of the phone have no way of knowing that. (I guess this might apply mainly to databases, which is what I do, but still.)
You should "Open Source" the presentation... (Score:2)
support (Score:3)
Fortune 500? No. Small-to-Medium Businesses? Yes. (Score:2)
For them, it's a cost of doing business - and having someone ready on the other end of the phone at a moment's notice is well worth it. I'd imagine that a General Electric would have a much better service experience on the phone with Microsoft than would Turkey Joe's Software.
That being said, small to medium-sized enterprises can really benefit from OSS. Here's how:
1. The obvious. None of all those expensive licenses. Server licenses, client access licenses, end-user licenses . . . they really add up when you're in the 10-250 user space.
2. The not-so-obvious. These days, businesses are under the scrutiny of the software license police. Every unlicensed piece of software can cost the company $150,000 - that adds up in a hurry. Naturally, the auditors and SPA are more than happy to negotiate a multimillion dollar fine down to whatever they think the small business can pay - $80-100,000.
This results in a high business risk for using unlicensed software (one ad actually stated "You're one disgruntled employee away from an audit"); and a large cost for maintaining records in order to ensure compliance and defend against such an audit.
At my company, we have an employee that spends more than half his time just on software licensing compliance. Costly indeed.
Fact is, smaller enterprises don't often have the extremely complex data processing and networking needs that Fortune 500 companies have. And many (if not all) their needs can be met by using open source software.
If you're looking for corporate adoption of OSS, don't look in the Fortune 500 space. Look at the thousands of smaller enterprises out there.
That's where the revolution will be happening.
Corporate politics (Score:3)
Believe it or not, not including the support issues mentioned earlier, the "open source/free is better" stance also will likely run into serious opposition from the IT/IS/product development managers within those Fortune 500 companies, because any savings generated by using open source tools would translate into their budgets being cut by the resulting savings (unless they spent it on something else). That's how the really strange world of the big company budgeting process works: if a manager spends less than his/her budget for a given year, that manager gets less money the next year, even though the manager has done what seems to be the right thing for the company. Then, by extension, that manager would lose that much political prestige/status/karma/whatever you want to call it within the company, since they then have a budget potentially smaller than their peers.
Even stranger, I've seen cases where managers new to a company demanded what was the most expensive tool for a given task, even though the free tool fit the developers' needs better. It's all about "how important is this project?"
I know it sounds bass-ackwards (at least it did to me when one of my old bosses explained it to me), but that's the way it works in a lot of places.
Re:Not a completely free ride (Score:2)
----
I use free & open source stuff in the corporate wo (Score:2)
I work for an unnamed company that is making the transition from a bricks/mortar biz to a clicks/mortar biz. I hate those buzzwordy terms, but that's the reality of it.
My job is to basically write the stuff that will power the web site, like a custom search engine and that sort of thing. I also build and maintain the databases behind the scenes. Nearly every aspect of the project I'm working on is rooted in open source/free software.
The three components of the package we're building are comprised of the following:
- Web server -- apache with PHP.
- Database servers -- PostgreSQL.
- Media server -- the only closed, proprietary product we use -- Microsoft Windows Media Services.
- Other behind the scenes stuff -- perl for some information indexing before it's stuck into the Postgres databases, gcc/g++ for adding some extensions to PHP, etc. My desktop, the one I'm posting from now, is a GNU/Linux box.
We've been developing using this stuff for months now and we haven't had any problems. We haven't needed tech support yet, but if we do, we've partnered with the right people who we can share info with -- they give us some help, we do the same for them.We are a business and intend to make a profit, and open/free software has given us such an edge over our few competitors (we're in a niche right now).
We're very proud to say that we use and support open and free software, and display all of the logos of the software we use quite prominently on our site. (Which I'm afraid I can't show right now because I'd like to remain semi-anonymous, or at least keep the company somewhat anonymous.) Every time we give presentations on our project, we make sure to tell the suits and anyone in attendance that we use apache and not IIS, GNU/Linux and not Windows 2000, PHP and not ASP and PostgreSQL instead of Oracle or SQL Server.
We're planning on giving back to the community, too. For instance, the extensions I've written for PHP are going to be released in full source, either through the PHP group or something to that effect. (They're mostly general use things useful for building search engines and such, like a Porter stemmer I just wrote and those kinds of things.)
Free and open source software has given us an edge. We may be a small company, but we're going well with it.
At least, that's been my experience.
J
Re:one of the ways open source saves costs... (Score:2)
Fast-forward a few years. The application platform went through a couple revisions, and the latest versions are no longer available for IRIX. Oops, they're now stuck with something that's at least 1 major revision old. And oh, the transaction load went up. A lot. And gee, the SGI product line is... how do I put this... sparse at the mid-to-upper range? (Speaking as a former IRIX admin :)
So they've now got this app running on a whole farm of Origin 2000's, which are distinctly not cheap, using an outdated version of an application platform. They pretty much locked themselves into a hardware solution *and* a software solution.
They could, of course, if they really wanted, ditch the software and replace it with, say, AOLserver (the solution they currently use is also Tcl-based, so that would probably be the easiest port). And if that step was successful, they could then port it over to commodity hardware.
Amusingly, I'm currently involved in building the system that's going to REPLACE the system I just described. It's using a newer version of the same software solution, and Sun hardware. Still kinda "locked in," but at least we're not paying extra premium prices for the privilege of having the letters "SGI" on the front of the boxes. :)
Oh, and the most experienced technical people on the project would all absolutely love to be doing it with BSD or GNU/Linux, AOLserver, PHP4, Zope, or stuff like that. But this is the corporate world, so that will have to wait. At least we get to code in Tcl instead of ASP or whatever. :)
--
Yeah, right..... (Score:2)
Well that's understandable. Now would one of those PHBs please cite one, JUST ONE, example of someone successfully suing Microsoft over the quality or reliability of their products or support?
Re:Smallest cost (Score:5)
That's odd...
My students are quite capable with Apache, CGI, and databases, but they have incredible difficulty getting someone to pay them anything. They've trained themselves on Free/OpenSource software because it's available, and because they can work with it and learn from it.
These folk will work for dirt cheap.
I ask my friend Ross, marketing analyst and owner of a company, "Why are you installing IIS? It costs much more than Linux, and a well maintained Linux system is far more secure, and comes with good free database software, should you ever decide to grow that way." He says, "Because UNIX admins cost $100,000/yr, whereas an MCSE lackey costs half that."
I've got one student who has set up ArsDigita Community systems, Oracle databases, Linux, FreeBSD, reads kernel source, and has written some programs in C, tcl, Perl, and Python. He's working as a stocker for some odd store. He's configured systems left and right. He's dying to get a $38,000/year job somewhere doing anything. In his free time, he works on studying embedded systems and attending GSLUG meetings.
He's not an isolated case, I have many other well talented students who are working hard and doing well, developing their talents.
They want jobs. Any jobs, just to show off their talent and get experience.
So when I read: "Unfortunately OSS engineers typically cost much more than MCSEs," I wonder: What crack is everybody smoking? There's plenty of great UNIX people out there. who will work for cheap..!
This doesn't work that easy in large corporations (Score:2)
That probably is a _very_ stupid idea. If you work in large corporations (and we are talking Fortune 500 here) you get fun with configuration management. At a large bank I worked for before you just had to order an upgrade to your development system and you got it. No worry about licenses, they have a corporate license anyway. But it takes time. It takes time for a good reason, they manage thousands of machines all over the world. You do not want to have some weirdo downloading stuff and destabilizing the environment (g++ does not qualify for that but there are other things that might).
Just my $.02
Re:Ask Slashdot: Have this research done by Friday (Score:2)
Also, I was a little surprised my comment got modded up, since it is partly an emulation of similar posts from previous Ask
Still I wonder about the line between good questions, and trying to get others to do part of your work (uncompensated).
-----
D. Fischer
Ask Slashdot: Have this research done by Friday (Score:4)
I work for a custom web solutions company and I'm working on a white paper and presentation that outlines the merits of open source software. This looks to be a difficult project, and I really don't want to to work late this week. Please use your unpaid minions to help me get my research done so I can I can enjoy the weekend.
OSW: Open Source Work -- Same great salary, but with reduced workload.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:License fees - MS's death song (Score:2)
What must be stressed is reliability, stability, security and above all, PORTABILITY. Most OSS solutions, especially those for web-based projects are not as platform dependent as are those of our closed-source colleagues.
If we're talking Fortune 500 companies, saving a few hundred thousand is not a big deal. What they want to know is that they're getting *the best*. Sit down with some of their managers and play the "what's that site running" game on netcraft [netcraft.com] and watch them raise their eyebrows as they see some of the most popular and most visited sites on the net turn up running various versions of *nix-based servers. That's what's going to convince them, not the cost equation.
If you're talking to someone on a very restricted budget (an NP or an arts organisation or some such) then yes, the "cost" factor is a good lead-in. But never with F500 breed. Never.
Open Source is cheap only if your time is free (Score:2)
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
"Free" software is usually more expensive than commercial software. The reason is easy to understand. The commercial software development model applies financial resources to address problems on the developer side, offloading problems from the user onto the developer. By spending money and time on the development side, both are reduced on the user side. The user is assumed to be primarily interested in the results of using software, rather than in the software itself.
Both the free software and open source models invert this, offloading costs from the developer to the user. The user is assumed to be a software hacker with plenty of free time to spend tinkering, and a desire to spend time that way. In other words, the user is assumed to be a software hobbyist. In the under 1% of cases in which this assumption about the hobbyist user is true, then free or open source software conveys value, but in the other 99%+, commercial software is superior.
Tim
Re:You are joking, right? (Score:4)
I've worked for some large companies (Borland, Actuate, SST), and my perception does not match yours. I got 4 Linux machines into Borland back in 1997, before they "got the gospel." My current company is a chip company -- fairly cyclical industry -- and in downturns, they are always interested in saving a quarter-million. If I can show them a small, 3 machine Linux cluster put together for $15,000, and have it work as well as the $90,000 E450 box, well they're interested in that.
I'm not saying it is easy. I have to sell the ideas and talk to the right people. But I am suggesting that if this guy gets his report in front of the right people, buying patterns can be altered. I've done it.
Re:Not a completely free ride (Score:2)
Re:I can see it now (Score:2)
Sorry I really couldn't control my anger when seeing this.
I'm working for a pretty large organization of more than 180000 full-time/contract employees. Internet access only granted to those projects in need. My project is still pending for a Internet account for half a year because they are running out of license to add user in their proxy and must wait for next budget come!
Come on man! My freaking project is called "xxx Homepage project"! Get a OSS proxy damn it!
Re:Ask Slashdot: Have this research done by Friday (Score:3)
I work for a custom web solutions company and I'm working on a white paper and presentation that outlines the merits of open source software. This looks to be a difficult project, and I really don't want to to work late this week. Please use your unpaid minions to help me get my research done so I can I can enjoy the weekend.
Dear soda,
Yours faithfully,
minion #254124 [slashdot.org]
Re:Does OSS really save money? (Score:2)
Huh? How do you figure? I've used and been abused by Commercial software for most of my professional life. I still have the emotional scars from just the incidental use of Microsoft SQL server. My experience is we buy some expensive package with a slick box, and find out the code isn't even ready for alpha testing. The more money I've seen spent on software, the less ready for primetime use I've found it.
Example: In 1993/94, I had a co-op term at a company that had recently gotten Internet access. I was hired because I actually knew something about the Internet and how to administer it. The high-priced Lotus cc:Mail to SMTP gateway package was the bane of my existence. The commercial TCP/IP stacks were a pain to figure out and install. Then I discovered the crynwr (sp?) TCP/IP drivers. In less than 5 minutes, I was on the 'Net.
Example: I'd used Microsoft SQL server at my previous company to maintain a bug tracking application. The SQL Server ran on a dedicated machine that was about as powerful as the machine I'm currently using. It was slow and prone to crashing. At my new work, we wanted to use a new bug tracking program, so we converted it from MS-Access to MySQL running on my NT machine (the very one I'm typing on and use to develop). I set up MySQL is no-time flat. It's been up 100% and I don't even notice the load on my machine. It is arguably the 2nd best software I've ever used. Apache is the best, most solid, most reliable package I've ever installed and used.
Invoking Sturgeon's law, 90% of everything is crap, but I'd put the 10% of good OSS up against the 90% of commercial anyday in a caged deathmatch anyday.
Smallest cost (Score:3)
Unfortunately OSS engineers typically cost much more than MCSEs.
The costs don't balance out in favor of OSS.
Dancin Santa
You can't fight PHBs (Score:2)
In the year that they've spent sabotaging the Linux evaluation, the number of NT servers at outlying offices has quadrupled. Fifty percent of the business applications that ran on the IBM last year now run on Microsoft systems that are outside the MIS department's control. These old dogs have done such a good job at marking their territory, they probably won't have a treetrunk left to piss on by next year.
You'd think they would have learned something by watching how easily Microsoft conquered the desktop. This time, they won't be able to just slap a token ring card in it and claim victory.
Re:Why this post is a troll (Score:3)
Does OSS really save money? (Score:3)
Lets consider some facts now:
- Do the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick!
- It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely. If one of our HP servers goes down, we can be on the phone with a HP tech in less than 5 minutes. Trying getting a tech that quick with OSS, without paying through the nose in advance. Lost time == Lost Revenue
- Retraining isn't free. If you're using Software XYZ, it's going to cost quite a bit to train your staff to use Software ABC
- If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure? This ain't somebodys home Linux firewall box we're talking about here.
To sum up, IS IT REALLY CHEAPER? In a large number of cases (not saying all) this is NOT true. OSS software can be GREAT, but it isn't always the best tool for the job, and that, at the end of the day, is what REALLY matters.Re:License fees - MS's death song (Score:2)
From a Fortune 500 employee... (Score:3)
For example, I recently proposed that, instead of sending me to a class to become intimately familiar with Solaris and Sun's hardware (my work involves Solaris on a daily basis), the company buy me a SunBlade 100 and a few hundred dollars worth of books. This would, of course, save considerable money for the company. My manager liked the idea, but that's pretty unimportant, because most Fortune 500 companies have a strict set of rules when it comes to computer usage/acquisition. I couldn't get a home-built computer for my desktop here if I wanted to, because corporate policy, for uniformity, dictates that we buy the Dell OptiPlex.
Unfortunately, it's much the same way with software. I do happen to run Linux here as much as possible, but I'm forced to dual-boot it with Windows 2000, because it's the company standard. Not because we were forced into it by Microsoft, but because we need to have that assurance that it's going to work and not need to worry about permissions.
I'm as big a fan of Linux as anyone, and I've been using it since 1996 now (good ol' Slackware 2.x days)... but the Fortune 500 just isn't ready for it.
Need official support system.... (Score:2)
Now, on the other hand, I should think Fortune 500 companies that don't get their revenue from software would be willing to participate in development of Open Source software to fill unmet needs. Perhaps this is where it should start. That would enable IS infrastructures to build up a relationship with Open Source developers by working with them to develop a solution. Then, perhaps in the future, they'd be a little less squeamish about using existing OSS for other projects.
Maybe if we had a list of reliable "big name" companies (like IBM) for OSS support that we could publish in some prominent newspaper, it would aid in this quest.
GreyPoopon
--
Re:The problem with Open Source (Score:3)
But there is nothing at all forcing you to keep upgrading to these newer versions. There's nothing to force you not to.
If your system works don't change it. What do you think this is, Windows? Are all old kernels going to disppear or suddenly stop working because new ones have been released? There's plenty of linux boxes around here, doing their job, day in, day out, with extremely minimal administration, on 2.0 kernels. The same is definitely not so for old Windows machines. You seemingly have little choice in upgrading Windows, simply to get ever closer to that much promised stability and power.
People who upgrade on every single kernel release are suckers for punishment and you don't do it on production servers unless there's a specific problem that's been fixed. In which case the constant release of bugfixes and patches is highly beneficial.
Open Source is proven. It's been around for far longer than proprietary solutions. As always it's pig ignorant management and kiddies who think VB is god's gift to programming who think otherwise.
If you run server systems and want good uptime and efficient support you pay for professional admins and quality hardware. People who reckon that just cos you're using a PC cluster+MSCE combination it's somehow some vast saving on the outlay for a qualified Unix admin? Utter tripe. Using cheapo hardware and clueless point-and-click trained admins loses you just as much if not more through downtime and inefficiency.
There's solid working practices that should be adhered to whether you use OSS or not. A cheaparse MS solution is just as bad as a cheaparse Unix one.
Frink (the little pig in the more costly to build proverbial house made of bricks who can sit back and relax and laugh at all the straw houses blowing down all over the place, silly, cheap piggies running around like crazy trying to keep them up)