Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business GNU is Not Unix

Open Source Part of Mainstream IT in Canada 178

Posted by michael from the value-proposition dept.
Sxip writes "A recent survey of advanced technology companies indicates that Open Source software is becoming an explicit component in enterprise Information Technology (IT) strategy and architecture. Some nine out of ten respondents include Open Source in their planning."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Part of Mainstream IT in Canada More

Open Source Part of Mainstream IT in Canada

Comments Filter:
  • Great news - at least some of the larger corporations *coughtakenotebillgatescough* are using open source to its full advantage, even if it's in Canada.

  • Not only include it... (Score:5, Informative)

    by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:03PM (#9029409)
    ....Rely on it. The online edition I work for has just as many Linux boxen as Windows boxen. And only 1/2 of them are serving pages. The only ones using Windows is us journalists and the suits. And we journalists could have done it with Linux as well. Although I prefer to do it (the writing, pervert! ;) with MacOS X
    • Does the survey include a statistic on who "relies on open source"?

      I'd like to see that number, and I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near "9 out of 10"
    • Admittedly way off-topic; But could you tell me why journalists disorganize their thoughts into harder-to-recognize structures? I understand the poetic aspects of writing, but I see absolutely no eloquence in (for instance): "The only ones using Windows is us journalists and the suits."

      I'm not claiming to know the English language better than you, but to me it doesn't make sense why you wouldn't say: "The Windows Machines are used by the journalists and suits." rather than saying that: "the only ones is"
      • Why not complain about the grammar while you are at it?

        "The only ones using Windows is us journalists and the suits."

        "Ones" is plural, so shouldn't it be "are" then instead of "is"? But "are" and "is" are transitive, (or at least used to be,) so that "us" should be "we". So: "The only ones using Windows are we journalists and the suits." Of course, I'm an electrical engineer with terrible spelling, so I shouldn't complain. But I think a journalist should really care about language.

        • Sorry if i wasn't too clear, that's what I was refering to as 'sentence structure' out of a lack of better words. I thought that maybe it was one of those "correct, but sounds like shit" sentences. I honestly couldn't tell the difference, but dislike them both equally. If it's not even correct grammar than I guess he didn't proofread it (or is just overly dependant on an Edior) ;)

          Asked an english-buff friend of mine, she agreed with you. I, on the other hand, will be honest and say I don't know anything ab
          • If it's not even correct grammar than I guess he didn't proofread it (or is just overly dependant on an Edior) ;) As are you :P it's editor.
          • I understood what you meant about the 'sentence structure'. I was simply trying to add that in addition to sounding awkward, it wasn't correct.
            How about: "The suits and we journalists are the only ones using Windows." It's hard to get the part about being a journalist worked into the meaning without making it sound bad. If you leave that out, "The suits and the journalists are the only ones using Windows." it seems ok to me.
        • "The only ones using Windows are we journalists and the suits."

          Technically correct but it comes off as so stilted that nobody uses the form, at least not for a long time. And I'm an old fart.
          Language doesn't really follow grammar. Grammar attempts to explain the regularity that is found in language.
          What I find more interesting is the "is us" where "is" is singular and "us" is plural. The journalist is definitely using the language to slant an objective statement of "We journalists and the suits are using W
          • To be honest, I think you're reading too much into it... notice he also said "boxen."
            -en is generally plural in German, and s is nowhere near n on the keyboard. I think perhaps there was a translation error...

      • The term you're looking for is "the passive voice," which the writer of that atrocious sentence is guilty of.

        It's not grammatically illegal, per se, but it is not totally correct either.

        -Jem
    • Although I prefer to do it (the writing, pervert! ;) with MacOS X

      Why is that? To me it seems it wouldn't matter at all if you use Windows, Linux or Mac for this. Could you please elaborate?
      • Well, since I don't get paid to set up a Linux box at work, and because I have a desk that can be used by others. That's why I prefer to use my 15" Powerbook instead. It har backlit leys (useful in dark settings), a no-brainer WiFi network system and, most important: It has outstanding integration with Bluetooth. So I can sit at a press conferance ans send / recieve SMS while surfing with GPRS and transmit the Nikon D70 pics from the PCMCIA card, all at once.

        I also use, the most ingenous piece of software


  • The mirror of http://www.cata.ca/Media_and_Events/Press_Releases /cata_pr04210402.html is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_130/www.cata.ca/Med ia_and_Events/Press_Releases/cata_pr04210402.html [demonmoo.com]
  • In Canada, when they say 9 out of 10, they mean 9 out of THE 10 developers.

  • Open source is an integral part of the enterprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BuddieFox ( 771947 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:08PM (#9029442)
    Well, this all depends on the perspective:
    Open source is an integral part of the enterprise environment these days in larger organizations, but that doesnt mean that its "linux on every desktop".
    Working as a developer for a very large global consulting firm, I can say that the way open source is penetrating enterprises is by being "parts of the machinery", for example, if you are developing custom applications, it is almost unavoidable to use open source components such as Struts, Dom4j and tools like jUnit, Ant etc.

    But we are still some distance from "open source dominating the environments", open source is gaining traction mostly in the areas where the developers have a big say in what is chosen. When it comes to the choice of "backbone platform", this is still very much a management choice of commercial platforms.

    • Re:Open source is an integral part of the enterpri (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:51PM (#9029718) Homepage
      OSS has more traction than you think, friend. It's the best friend I have right now, and I'm a hardware monkey/network admin/IT manager.

      Open source is an integral part of the enterprise environment these days in larger organizations, but that doesnt mean that its "linux on every desktop".

      Agreed, except for the "in larger organisations" part. I do the above job for a not so large outfit, and Open Source is something I try to employ as much as possible.

      But we are still some distance from "open source dominating the environments", open source is gaining traction mostly in the areas where the developers have a big say in what is chosen. When it comes to the choice of "backbone platform", this is still very much a management choice of commercial platforms.

      Open source may not be deployed everywhere in my company (yet), but it does affect any decision I make - in a round about way, it does dominate the environment. "Do I need to pay this company licensing fees, or is there an OSS equivalent package that will do it for less?" is something I muse every day on he job. I manage infrastructure, and right now, I'm deploying Linux as the backbone of my network, replacing a proprietary systems that adds no value when compared to the OSS alternative. I'm not a developer (any code I write shows it, too), but I like having the OSS clue stick to apply to the heads of any arrogant vendors (Quark, you are sooooo next in line for lumber off the forehead). The threat of OSS to thier bottom line is extremely valuable to me in keeping costs down and vendors honest.

      IMHO, one of the main reasons that OSS exists is because some developers got a little too full of themselves and in thier arrogance pissed off the wrong people - end users like me. If most people weren't willing to actually use OSS, it simply would not be as pervasive as it is.

      Soko
      • I am not at all contesting that open source is disrupting proprietary software in a big way, but its not dominant (as of yet). Personally though, I think it eventually _will be_.
        But it is taking the traditional low-end route: getting traction first through developers, and then moving its way up the food-chaing slowly but certainly.

        I am actually in the process of ending my work at said "big global consultancy" to start out on my own with a couple of friends: we will most likely use mostly OSS software, al
        • I am not at all contesting that open source is disrupting proprietary software in a big way, but its not dominant

          That depends on where you are looking. In Thailand for example about 60% of desktops are preinstalled with Linux already.

          Also OpenSource Apache runs an over 65% (and still increasing) share of webservers.

        • [open source] is not dominant (as of yet). Personally though, I think it eventually _will be_. ... moving its way up the food-chaing slowly but certainly.

          "The maturity levels of open source for enterprise use are perceived to be: ... Low for enterprise software (ERP, CRM), collaborative software etc."

          That's where the real payout for open source lies, IMNSHO. The path is long hard and slow. The skills and software that are required are extremely difficult. There are no quick and easy fixes. The software n

      • Quark? The only place I recognize that name from is layout software, but that can't be right. Are you referring to some other product, or is there finally an open source layout system with a decent UI that's actaully USABLE?

  • Survey results (Score:5, Funny)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:11PM (#9029469) Homepage Journal
    43% of respondents weren't home.
    39% of respondents pretended they weren't home.
    20% of respondents were unsure/undecided.

    Margin of error was 2%

  • Spelling Error in Title (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I believe that's "Oupen Source"

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kick_in_the_eye ( 539123 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:14PM (#9029487) Homepage
    It's cuz' we're cheap!

  • Credibility? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shirai ( 42309 ) * on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:14PM (#9029494) Homepage
    Okay, I know this is the typical response but it has to be said: Where the $#@ is the credibility in this piece?

    There is no information on how the people being surveyed were selected and how they were surveyed. I always find it suspicious at the least and downright misleading at the worst when people do their own surveys without revealing the details of data collection. A sample size would be nice.

    It doesn't have to be super-detailed for the press release but it ought to at least say "Through out Internet survey to 100 of our members" would at least give context to their results.

    If it's skewed I want to know. If it's accurate, I want to know that too.
    • so what your saying is, that the Article could be saying:
      9/10 Open Source Developers use Open Source?

    • Re:Credibility? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by T-Ranger ( 10520 ) <jeffwNO@SPAMchebucto.ns.ca> on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:51PM (#9029717) Homepage

      From their website:

      CATAAlliance (Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance) is Canada's leading, most influential and entrepreneurial technology alliance, in regular contact with twenty thousand high tech business executives.

      Assumably they surveyed their members. How many, and exactly how, I don't know. It seems to me that being an tech industry group (but not a Open Source group) it is there job to provide as acurate information as possible to there members. They are not a OSS loby group. There target audience is their members, and it is there members who pay them. They have no reason to lie.

      If you realy care, you could email the person who prepare the release. Its at the bottom of the artic.. Ah, fuck. Nevermind.

      • From my experience CATA would have surveyed it's entire membership but it would have been an opt-in survey ("please take the time to fill in...") either by e-mail or attached to a newsletter. But the best way to find out is to ask the press contact.

  • Open Source in their planning... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:16PM (#9029504) Homepage
    Technically, don't MOST companies include open source in their planning? I mean after the widely publicized MS discounts given after the mention of anything Open Source, you'd at least try to leverage that.

    The cynic in me thinks the term "Open Source" is used more as a bargaining tool than anything that gets implemented. I'm not sure I like that idea.
    • After experiencing the reliability, stability and security they could get from Windows, nobody wants *BSD...

      wait...

    • The cynic in me thinks the term "Open Source" is used more as a bargaining tool than anything that gets implemented. I'm not sure I like that idea.

      Wrong. Unless you show that OSS is credible threat to a vendor, they won't take you seriously and the barganing power is gone.

      This is free market competition - do it cheaper and/or better than the other guy (OSS or otherwise) or goodbye.

      Soko
    • The cynic in me thinks the term "Open Source" is used more as a bargaining tool than anything that gets implemented.

      Yeah, right. That's probably why over 2/3rds of Webservers run on it. Also almost all leading Internet companies use OpenSource: Google, Amazon.com, Geocities, etc. etc.

      I don't know why Winlots keep pretending to forget those huge and easily proofable successes of OpenSource software.

      I'm not sure I like that idea.

      Afraid Microsoft might lose some millions in profits?

      • Re:Open Source in their planning... (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Webservers, print servers, routers, and all the "fringe" stuff is all fun and good -- that's a given. For most companies, the meat of IT is in desktops. Desktop OS and an Office suite.

        Not all companies are Internet companies. Not sure if you've looked at that reality. So how does say a small business that has proprietary windows-based custom software for its accounting, inventory, and billing benefit from someone saying "Hey, Google runs open source!!!" when it doesn't apply to THEIR particular busines

  • Benefits of Open Source (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Personally, I use it extensively in my business. I take all sorts of Open Source software and resell it either as a standalone product or as a service. Open Source software is, for mature projects, well designed, easy to use, and there's a community standing behind it to help out should I ever need customizations. My profits have never been higher. Before, I used to have to develop everything myself or hire other programmers to create software for my company. Now, with the exception of usual overhead a
  • This is the way professional advertizing etc. work.
    Get one cigarette, then buy 600 after you get addicted.

  • At my workplace... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neiras ( 723124 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:38PM (#9029644)
    ...we use open-source software for nearly everything at the datacenter, and on a few desktops in the office (GAIM has made inroads among the marketing staff, and I run a GNOME desktop). Our attempts to use commercial software have usually meant restrictions that we couldn't live with (we tried using Zeus for our hosting customers and ended up trashing it and using Apache 2.0 because we couldn't extend it as we wanted to. Expensive mistake!)

    The only commercial software we are seriously looking at on the server side right now is Caucho Resin Enterprise - it definitely beats out Tomcat for our purposes.

    It just seems to be the default here. If you run a company, open source is the first option. Everybody worth hiring has a background in Unixish operating systems and open tools. Resumes from people with Microsoft credentials tend to end up in the circular file unless they have some serious programming achievements under their belts and at least _some_ familiarity with common open software.

  • Theres affinity towards Opensource in Canada (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @03:47PM (#9029690) Homepage
    Most IT guys Ive worked with knew and respected Linux. On one hand is the credibility thing, you need someone to point fingers to. For that reason I've been using the RedHat company and OpenBSD organization. Spend the money and buy copies (CDs) of the OS from them, and it becomes cheaper than Windows rather that (gasp) free! Companies want someone to point fingers to.

    Theres also a strong affinity towards Linux. There are VPN technologies out there but most prefer to run the VPN box on Linux. However most applications needed by the organization are dependent on win32:

    (1) ERP system. This requires Win32 or iSeries V5R3. Win32 is cheaper.
    (2) Office suite. I could roll out OO but that will take some training and struggle.
    (3) Lotus Notes. This runs only on OSX and win32. I cant switch to OSX because of the other apps.
    (4) All the reporting tools like Crystal etc. They are resisting Linux for now.
    (5) Active Directory Integration. Using OpenLDAP its still a bit of a struggle.

    So gentlemen, it will take time!
  • I wish we could use open source management. The problem with proprietary management is the same as software: overpriced, bloated, slow and full of bugs. As a consultant, I've spent a great deal of time at some corporate dinosaurs and they all seem to be bogged down by the same ineffective, self-important conventional idiots. I won't name companies, but be weary of the cars you drive...

  • Canadian skeptic here (Score:4, Interesting)

    by billcopc ( 196330 ) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Saturday May 01, 2004 @04:02PM (#9029772) Homepage
    Trolling aside, you can interview 9 out of 10 business in Canada and they will chant Linux till the cops beat them up. But the missing #10 is the most important: Government. Canada is really just a big awkward government with a nice back yard, and Gov't is dead scared of free software, for several reasons that were hammered into my skull the hard way:

    1. It's built by "evil hackers"

    2. Since it's free, Mr CIO can't farm it out as a big money contract to one of his mates, or one-up that and hire them all under his wings as 'consultants'.

    3. Since it's free, there is no one being paid to answer the phone when stuff breaks.

    4. Billco likes Linux, and Gov't doesn't like Billco; therefore Gov't doesn't like Linux.

    Ok so I pulled #4 out of my ass. The other 3 are still quite true. I'm not taking stabs at the PM either, even though he's in deep dog-poo for doing #2 (and getting caught), but like anything it's far too easy to spend other people's money irresponsibly.

    • SO true.. The feds here are really behind as far as IT in general goes, I found. I worked for 3 years at HRDC ending about a year ago, and it was only within the last six months I was there that our desktops were upgraded from Windows 95 to Windows 2000 (as in a good while after winXP came out.. Our office LAN was this old VINES network that apparently the vendor didn't even support any more, and it went down constantly.

      The one bright side was that my particular group used Perl quite a bit. I became ver
      • Banyan Vines is a piece of history, one that should have been long migrated to something more recent and currently supported. I saw the same at Elections Canada and it sure made my eye pop "Wow you guys are old-school!", to which the single on-site tech replied "Huh?".

        Novell itself is OKAY I guess. I mean it's a file and print server, and Groupwise email is good in the sense that it's immune to most mail viruses that mostly target Outlook. I still think it would all be better handled by a nice Linux clu
    • Totally of base man.
      I know a good size of goverment contractors use linux and so do goverment installations.
      1. No one really think that
      2. You can still hire all your friends as consultants
      3. LinuXcare , RHE, etc.
      4. not true , goverment does like linux
      • I'm curious, which departments do you know of that are using OSS? In all my time working there, I found that it was very rare for any of the IT -managers- to have even -heard- of open source. It was completely ass-backwards.

        I now work in health care though (technically for the province I guess), and we use OSS quite a bit.

    • Some parts of government use free software. Departments which needsupercomputers often have Crays and high end HPs or Suns, but some bored co-op will have been assigned the task of build a Beowulf cluster, and it'll be used too.

      The government is hardly a monolithic organisation; it's not that small. Some departments will use more free software than others. I suggest you not make such widespread assertions based on limited knowledge.

      • To respond to this, merely point out the publicized security breaches at Microsoft... And then ask, since you can't see the code, how do you know what other breaches have happened or what else has gone wrong? With open-source software, you at least can review the code yourself.
      • Then Mr. CIO isn't being very creative at all. After all, Free Software is customizable software. Not only can he hire his mates as consultants, he can hire MORE of his mates as consultants and use MORE tax money to pay them. Why?

    • Re:Canadian skeptic here (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chirs ( 87576 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @11:38PM (#9031961)
      Actually this is not entirely true. There is an organization in Ottawa called "Gosling" that is working to get open source software more consideration within the government. Some of the members are government employees at fairly high levels.

      Canadian government procurement law is quite fair to open source, its just that day-to-day practice has been more oriented towards closed-source vendors. People have to be educated--its not necessarily easy to compare tenders between open and closed vendors--how much is it worth to not be locked in to particular software?

      One thing that is very interesting is that the government is moving towards open document formats (ie XML). Openoffice can write them natively, and Word can be told to do it. One thing that I thought was cool is that they are setting up Word so that it will not actually be possible to save a document in a proprietary format.

      So yeah, we're not there yet. But progress is being made.
    • While these are probably in people's heads, they shouldn't be.

      1. It's built by "evil hackers"

      I think a number of people might be appalled to learn that a lot of software is contracted and subcontracted for, licensed from other companies, and so forth. Buying from a *closed* source company just makes it easier for malicious software to slip by -- remember that Borland Interbase had a back door that was never publically disclosed and fixed until the database was open sourced. A reputable software projec
      • Okay we're talking about smart, competent I.T. staff. Many smaller gov't branches just don't have those. We have ignorant protectionist old-fart techies who still can't get Novell dir permissions right after 15 years of experience, and we have brilliant young hirelings that have learned to keep their mind and mouth shut for fear of being fired under the "don't talk back" mob rule.

        Gov't I.T. in Canada means either you're doing the cutting-edge development as an outside firm under contract, or you're on th

  • Not just about the base cost (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 16K Ram Pack ( 690082 ) <tim DOT almond AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday May 01, 2004 @04:12PM (#9029828) Homepage
    I choose software, and often have a choice between OSS and not. This isn't a Linux environment. OSS I like. It's free.

    Sometimes I like commercial. Often, the support is better, particularly if you want something mission-critical and the OSS software project is small (some OSS projects, it's one or two guys doing it in their spare time. I'd rather not have a support contract on that basis).

    Sometimes I like OSS. You can see the code, so that's some insurance, you can modify it quickly yourself.

    One library that we've paid for, I'm looking to replace with OSS, but I want to make sure that it's proven as reasonably stable before making the switch, and that we've done some work on the source code ourselves to ensure that we are familiar with it.

  • How many companies use BIND? Sendmail? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @04:18PM (#9029869)
    Almost all major companies use "Open Source" all over the place. They have for years, decades even.

    The only difference might be that the muppets who think they are in charge now have to have an "open source stratagem", mainly because "Open Source" is now a brand all of it's own.

    • Don't forget the open source muppet zealots!

      We've been using open source for decades, like most other shops with Unix systems. If management is making an "open source stratagem," then it's only because aobut five years ago, open source became a religion instead of a descriptor.

  • How Ironic (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm confused, is it bad for a CEO to go for cheaper resources that can harm employees or is it good?

    When it's Open Source it seems to be good, yet this harms other developers (those that actually charge for software), but when it's outsourcing your high cost developers to cheaper developers India it's bad?

    • Re:How Ironic (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually while companies like OSS initially for low cost (not the free in "Free Software"), the high quality is what keeps them (and makes them want to get more). The fact that even if (oh no!) an OSS company fails, the software is still supported. If Microsoft were to die tomorrow, so would all their software. You could still run it, but when a bug comes along, who can you phone up and yell at? What happens when mister nasty virus comes along and eats all of your precious Microsoft data? With OSS, IBM

    • Re:How Ironic (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How the hell did the parent get modded "2, Insightful"? Not only is the parent's foregone conclusion is OSS "can harm employees", it implies that you can't charge money for working on OSS.

      First, nowhere was it mentioned that the cheaper softwares had awful quality or a CEO forced the implementation of OSS that couldn't do the job. Had that been the case, I'd have agreed with you that the CEO had no business being a CEO. Now that it's out of the way, if the employees are competent, they can easily be trai

  • I know I plan to use OSS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeCapone ( 693319 ) <skelterhell@yah o o .com> on Saturday May 01, 2004 @04:55PM (#9030112) Homepage Journal
    Chances are, in a few years I'll be self-employed in the legal world and, although it's it extremely small scale as far as IT deployment is concerned, I plan on using as much OSS as I can.

    I'm sure I won't be able to get away from some proprietary software (office suite?), but at least I'll try to encourage the companies doing good things (ie. Mac workstations but Linux or *BSD servers).

    I've always been curious (maybe this should go in a Ask Slashdot post -- hmmm) to know what others are doing in the legal world.
  • Of course we use it, ya hoser: it's free, eh. More money to spend on Labatts and Leafs tickets.
  • Sorry, but that does play into it. Microsoft is a US corporation, and the US isn't exactly in high regard up here, what with your moron in the white house.

    People view using linux over MS as sticking it to MS with their pocketbooks. And MS is almost synonymous with the United States. I don't need to elaborate.

  • I live in Canada and well, it's not THAT common (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NeedleSurfer ( 768029 ) on Saturday May 01, 2004 @06:35PM (#9030704)
    It's not because 9 out of ten person answered considering/using open source that 9 out of then entreprises use it. open source can also mean some P2P software, server software or digital thieving tools (playfair and the like). It doesn't mean that 9 out of then company uses Linux. I work in AV for coorporate events (amongst other things) I do a lot of conventions with a lot of entreprise in various domain, pharmaceutical, business associations, health, governments, technology...

    The most Linux box I've seen at the same convention was 6-7, I can assure you that more and more scientific coorporations/peoples are now using macs, in the past 3 month we saw more macs than ever before at conventions, if the convention was about pharmaceutical, health, genomics, physics or nanotech, the proportion of macs even surpass the windows one (one of those convention had around 60% macs, out of 5000 attendees from around the world... (APS) ).

    As for the people I speak with in those conventions (rough proportions: 20% salespeople, 30-40% employees/students/consultants, 20% presidents/CEO, 20% marketing/public relation) most of them don't use, aren't interested in open-source or Linux (they know it exist but they haven't used it), the exception being tech and science people.

    Don't get me wrong I am not saying the result of the survey isn't right all I'm saying is that it puts open-source in the wrong light, I believe it is indeed very common in Canada but not as much as those results reflects.
  • ...OpenSource Mainstreams you!

  • It would be more interesting to know (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eraserewind ( 446891 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @07:30AM (#9033104)
    It would be more interesting to know what percentage of companies see OSSing their own stuff as part of their IT strategy.

    I have used OSS tools in all of the 5 companies I have worked for. All but one of them could be considered that a critical part of their business would stop working (in the short term at least) if those tools disappeared in the morning. None of them however has ever had any intention of releasing the source to anything they develop, even if they didn't make money directly from that SW.

    It's a small sample I know, but I would imagine that most companies are the same as those I have worked for.
  • Nine out of ten businesses using free software isn't a big deal. A better milestone would be when only nine out of ten, or fewer, are using proprietary software.
  • If you include python and perl in your definition of open source. Big 5 bank I know has either a python based app or perl on every desktop and server.

    Python is typically used for a desktop and perl on the (unix) server side.

    Intranet site is generated dynamically with python. Mail system is dependant on Sendmail (with license).

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close