Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Government Politics

Is Fear Reducing the Publicity for Open Source? 210

Posted by Zonk from the heading-for-the-shadows dept.
sebFlyte writes "Are companies deliberately keeping quiet about moves to open source because they are afraid of the reactions of proprietary vendors they still have relationships with? ZDNet raises and tries to answer this question in a two-part special report, 'Open source behind closed doors'. It comes to the conclusion that, in all probability, companies are keeping quiet to avoid reprisals of one sort or another. One part of the fear of publicizing migrations is nicely summed up in the second part by Tristan Nitot of Mozilla Europe: 'Guys are really shy -- it's the Munich Linux thing. They start talking about it and suddenly Ballmer comes in and twists your arm until you cry.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Fear Reducing the Publicity for Open Source? More

Is Fear Reducing the Publicity for Open Source?

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:49PM (#14114722)
    "...they start talking about it and suddenly Ballmer comes in and twists your arm until you cry.'
    Because offering an 80% discount is the cruelest thing a vendor can do to a customer, and we all live in fear of it happening to us.

    • Not quite (Score:5, Informative)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:55PM (#14114758) Journal
      You live in fear of the 100% markup that you will pay if you go against MS (for all Windows based software, not just MS's). MS has a long history of penalizing those that do not do exactly what MS wants. Yes, MS will offer 80 % off of this years prices to keep you. But they expect high prices next year, and they expect that you will not even toy with OSS anymore. Simply read what Dell had to say at the MS monopoly trial.

      • Re:Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:58PM (#14114784)
        Here's a little secret kiddo: lots and lots of suppliers are like that. All of the suppliers that we use give us large volume discounts. If they start losing some of our business, they'll try to keep us, but they'll also jack up their prices. Loyalty is rewarded in every aspect of business. Just because this is new to you doesn't mean it's new or at all unusual.
        • Sure, but how many of them are monopolies, convicted of abusing their monopoly position?
          • Microsoft invented the EULA that we all see. Until recently they were not even a binding agreement because a laywer and a notary needs to be present.

            However MS set teh standard and changed the industry to ignore laws with some strange eula that the user does not even see to make them imune to any laws. Did you know sony has eulas for their cd's?

            Anyway after what happened with ms taking over I can imagine many IT suppliers thought it would be a good idea to plant landmines to block any competition and keep t

            • Re:Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Kjella ( 173770 )
              Microsoft invented the EULA that we all see. Until recently they were not even a binding agreement because a laywer and a notary needs to be present.

              However MS set teh standard and changed the industry to ignore laws with some strange eula that the user does not even see to make them imune to any laws. Did you know sony has eulas for their cd's?

              Why the heck are you comparing apples and smoked salmon? We're talking about large volume licensing, the kind that happens via a plain old-fashioned no-legal-doubt-a
        • The difference is that if a "normal" supplier treats you in a way you think unfair, you can always switch to another one. Does not happen with Microsoft, because it's a monopoly. You have no choice. You can not switch all your desktops to Linux and OpenOffice.
        • Most vendors try to suck up to you because they know you can dump them and move to their competition. MS has no such worry so they fuck you instead.
        • All of the suppliers that we use give us large volume discounts. If they start losing some of our business, they'll try to keep us, but they'll also jack up their prices. Loyalty is rewarded in every aspect of business.

          Loyalty may be rewarded in business, but loyalty is something measured over time. Purchase rates are a measurement of space. If a company is effectively punished not for decreasing their purchase rate but instead for purchasing also from a competitor, it's generally regarded as anti-competi
        • There is a huge difference between giving a volume discount, and an "exclusive supplier discount". The first is standard practice. The second is not, and is often illegal (as well as always unethical) if you are in a monopoly position. You demonstrate either ignorance or malice by mixing the two up.

          Also, "the other kids are doing it" wasn't a good excuse in kindergarden, and still isnt a good excuse in the world of grown up ethics.

    • Re:Yeah! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Reason with him in terms he can understand: throw a chair.

  • Why go public? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:50PM (#14114729) Homepage
    Lets see you have a new idea.
    There is some risk in using it, it might not work, might upset your current suppliers or customers.

    You decide to try it. If you don't tell anyone you have no risk of upsetting your customers or suppliers.

    If it works you get the benefis before your customers know what's happening. If it doesn't work maybe your customers will make the same mistake.

    I can't think of a compelling reason to publicise deployment of opensource technology, except to the shareholders if they want details of strategy.

  • More likely... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by intmainvoid ( 109559 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:50PM (#14114731)
    More likely what's happening is the IT department sees a need for X, draws up a budget for X with the company's current platform, and gets the budget rejected. So they just do it anyway with the open source solution, present it as a working solution and off you go.

    And of course, when it comes to doing a big deal, companies can always try and get a discount by offering to be a case study for the vendor. So their adoption of the vendor's technology gets some press. When a company adopts an open source solution, there's never going to be the same PR push behind it. You are always going to hear more about things that someone can sell than you are about things you can just download for free.

    • More likely what's happening is the IT department sees a need for X, draws up a budget for X with the company's current platform, and gets the budget rejected. So they just do it anyway with the open source solution, present it as a working solution and off you go.

      Hey! This is /.! Where's the anti-Microsoft rhetoric? The bashing of proprietary software for being low quality? Sheesh, you give logical and reasonable arguments. What are you doing? On a Friday afternoon no less? Now my head hurts...

      I think most
    • More likely the IT department sees a need for X, draws up a budget for X with the company's current platform, and gets the budget rejected. So they just do it anyway with the open source solution, present it as a working solution and off you go

      I distrust "stealth" installs. The Cowboy in IT is God's gift to Microsoft.

      • Re:More likely... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )
        Lets not forget that Microsoft got into corporate america via. stealth installs. Dos/Windows applications could be installed by end users and thus business departments could add their own IT functions themselves without needing to go through IT. As a result they switched from their mainframe/mini setups to windows for business applications....

        Its ironic that Linux is getting into IS shops the same way (though its IS avoiding having to go through budget this time around). Anyway I'm all in favor of stealt
    • Big bussinesses have legal constraints to control change in Production systems.

      Especially onerous is the situation in the Financial Industry. I kid you not, but I have seen foreign machines detected and isolated in a matter of minutes in properly administered networks.

      That does not mean these bussinesses do not use OSS solutions. Heck, they take full advantage of it, but they do so under a controlled process that minimizes risks.

    • Don't forget that a lot of unauthorized software copying happens in businesses. I wonder if it's just that so many questionable sites are now riddled with spyware, that nobody wants to take the risk to crack a copy of some commercial software. They're willing to spend a little extra time learning or deploying an OSS package. Even if you crack it today, trying to crack the upgraded version next month could put your whole network (and therefore operation) at risk.

      Jasin Natael

  • Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:51PM (#14114736)
    FUD is the _main source_ of publicity for open source.

    Would you have even known Linux existed if you hadn't heard all this screaming from MS saying "WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN ALL THOSE FREE OPEN SOURCE OSES THAT RUN 80% OF THE INTERNET, NYAH NYAH!"?

    • Re:Nope. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kesuki ( 321456 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:01PM (#14115083) Journal
      I would. Because a 'security' patch from my then dialup ISP broke my windows networking based filesharing between my desktop and laptop PC (connected via 10 base T) I spent months in frustration trying to get files to copy between my computers, but then i read about this thing called 'linux' and bought this book on it with slackware.. well slackware and me didn't get along, so searched on the internet, and viola, i heard of this thing called 'FreeBSD' well, the installer was so slick and nifty (to me, at that time) compared to linux, and it had all these handbooks i could use to set up and configure ppp to auto dial, use compression, etc etc.. i got consistantly better dialup results than i ever had with windows, usenet binaries were downloading almost 3 times faster (because of the compression that i had set up in the configuration) and it was all golden, I never dialed out from a windows or bothered to try from linux again, ever. that freebsd box (a lowly 486, with external 56k modem) gave me almost 7 years of use as a dialout box... and when i went to cable modem, I used freebsd (albeit on a k6-2 based system) as my firewall, and even though windows had a zillion problems and issues through those years, my windows experience was delightful and problem free the whole time. All because i had heard of this thing called 'open source' because windows had so many problems for me.

      all because of a security patch from my isp, that turned off a feature of windows that i was using on a daily basis even though it had gaping vulnerabilities.

      yup, i didn't learn about open source because of FUD, it was because windows was broken. all this spyware crap that are causing people to abandom computer in the trash should be causing a dramatic rise in open source adoption too, because the 'easiest' way to secure a windows pc is to take it off the internet, and use an open source pc as your 'internet pc' or even to go so far as to use a CD rom bootable linux distro 'internet' and to use 'windows' for everything else.

      • I hate the software that comes with dialup isps, cable modems, DSL service, etc.

        They're usually fairly poor quality.

        I can understand installing software for dial-up (i had to do it) but unless the update was the kind where you had to install it or your service stopped working, I don't see why you'd do it.

        I'd like to give a personal shout-out to Comcast for their crapola software package. When my dad installed it on his laptop (we have a wifi/router) all I could say is "Why?"

        Needless to say, he doesn't have
    • You make a good point:

      ALL THOSE FREE OPEN SOURCE OSES THAT RUN 80% OF THE INTERNET


      Give me a call when Linux is worth a damn on the desktop. Many people I know who use Windows don't need to run 80% of the internet with their PC. They just want their stuff to work, the first time.
      • I still look forward to the day when Apple has a good desktop OS.

        I run Linux at home and Windows at work (except our servers, which mostly run Linux). There's nothing especially wrong with Linux on the desktop. People expect it to feel like Windows, do everything the Windows way, perfectly run apps written for Windows, contain copyrighted Windows media codecs, break DMCA protected DRM schemes, and violate several well-enforced software patents, all out of the box, for free, or else to them it's crap. A Linu
    • Actually, FUD works well for free software, but in another way than you imply. FUD used to mean something, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. In particular, it refered to the practice of IBM to discourage competition, back in their monopoly days. "Sure, you could by it from our competitors for half the price. But will they be around tomorrow? And where will you get maintainance then? With IBM, you *known* we will be there for the long run."

      The problem with FUD is that it is the true. The average life expec

  • For Microsoft it is pretty much no loose. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:55PM (#14114763) Homepage Journal
    If you have problems with a new version of Windows it really isn't your fault I mean what choice do you have but to stick with Windows since it is that standard. Microsoft will fix it. It is a great system you get to lump all the blame on Microsoft because everyone knows how bad they are.
    If you try and migrate to Linux, BSD, or Open Office and you have issues then your to blame for leaving Microsoft.
    Migrating from one system to another is never trouble free. There will be probably be some fun driver issues with Vista and goodness knows what else. Going to Linux is also not going to be simple for a company. Learning Linux is not trivial and it is not perfect. I happen to think that Linux is great. We have almost no problems with our Linux boxes. We also have very few problems with the only Windows Server we have left. We would like to migrate entirely to Linux for our servers and probably will at some point but I am sure it will not be "simple".

  • They start talking about it and suddenly Ballmer comes in and twists your arm until you cry.

    Better that than a monkey dance!

  • We don't tell the managers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johnjaydk ( 584895 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @03:59PM (#14114790)
    To a very large extend we, as IT proffesionals, don't tell the managers that we use OSS.

    They don't understand it and are afraid of things they don't understand.So there is little incentive to inform them. We only really need the managers when we need their approval to buy something. So they only ever hear about things that costs money and gets a distorted view of things.

    • Re:We don't tell the managers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's my real world experience also. If you say you think it would be wise to install anti-virus software on the mail gateway, the PHB's will agree. They will also make a pig's breakfast out of the proposition, and could very well end up spending tens of thousands of dollars on something just to feel like they can hold someone else accountable. If there's anything an undereducated manager wants to avoid, it's responsibility for an IT application. OTOH, you can just install clamav and be done with it.

  • Really ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind@NoSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:03PM (#14114816) Journal
    I just searched for earlier slashdot stories:

    Oracle Continues Warming Up to Open Source [slashdot.org]

    Intel Begins Support for Debian [slashdot.org]

    IBM Turns to Open Source Development [slashdot.org]

    IBM And Sony Form Linux Alliance [slashdot.org]

    Linux Tablet to be Released in Two Days [slashdot.org]

    There are only few of the many stories. Does it sound if companies are keeping mum about open source adoption ?

    • An IT company can take the risk, they understand what is going on, and often so do their customers.

      Now take a non IT company, and its a big risk and they often do stay quiet.

    • Re:Really ? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      Each of those companies are primarily technology providers in some form.

      I think the article pertains mostly to companies whose primary market isn't technology, where they use tech, but don't sell that tech as a product to itself.

  • **YES** (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
    Look at the manual for the game "Champions of Norrath". See the BSAFE logo in it?

    Now run strings on the binary [on the DVD] and compare it to LibTomCrypt v0.62 [if you can find a copy, heck I don't even have a copy, I do have a copy of v0.14 which has the strings].

    Point is, they used LibTomCrypt to write their SSL library but they put a RSA BSAFE logo in the manual. :-)

    Tom

  • But it's not always FUD or hidden M$ conspiracies. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:07PM (#14114835) Homepage Journal
    It may also be ignorance. Let's say a company whose workforce is accostumed to windows does tech support for some hardware products. One of their clients phone, they have a problem. During the phonecall the client mentions he has linux installed on a partition. Bingo, the tech support guy genuinely think that the problem is an interference or a misconfiguration because of the presence of "that other os".

    Once I offered to backup an old win98 machine with a linux livecd and an usb stick because the system was clogged, and I didn't trust myself to install more drivers on it. People instead were thinking the opposite, with running linux as the risky choice. D'oh!

    Sometimes it works the other way. I phoned my ISP cause "my internet was broken" :)
    Tech support starts talking about configuration, on windows. I cut short: "I am using linux and tested both my installations and one of OSX. My ethernet hub blinking lights says that my network card works, too".
    "So it's the modem or the line" (both their business, and of course it was a line problem).
    • Reminds me of when I moved into a new apartment a while back. I had my DSL line moved over from my previous place, but I was getting tons of sync problems. I called to have them turn on interleaving, but of course first line tech support had to go through their standard scripts before they'd pass me onto someone who knew what they were talking about.

      Tech Support: "Are you using a router?"
      Me: "I have a gateway server..."
      Tech Support: "What brand is it?"
      Me: "Umm, it's a computer."
      Tech Support: "Does it
    • Oh, I accepted that lying about my OS to my ISP was a necessity a LONG time ago. My DSL *insists* on not supporting Linux (even if I try to explain to them that I got online *just* *fine* with Linux and offer to explain how so they can stop turning away customers - their response is something along the lines of "La La La I'm not LISTENINGGGGGG").

      So these days, I just greet their service tech at the door, accept the package, say I'll install it just fine, thanks, and shut the door before he gets too nosey.

  • Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:07PM (#14114836) Homepage
    Perhaps they don't want their competitors to know that they too can have the exact same solutions for free....
  • But it's not the main issue.

    `It's free, it can't be as good as the product that costs ${large_amount_of_cash}`

    Ubuntu has gone some way to changing that because people have ordered CDs and tried it (just because they're free (beer)) and realised that really, freebies aren't all that bad. But what about the vast majority of people who haven't even heard of linux, or openoffice, or any of the other free(speech) applications?

    And then there is the problem of education. Throughout the whole of my educatio

    • Re:Yeah, FUD works (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NineNine ( 235196 )
      Ubuntu is the pet project of a very rich guy who does Ubuntu for fun. There are not too many other products on the planet that are produced and given away for free "just because". People would be idiots NOT to question why a product is given away for free.

      Would you take a free ham sandwich from a guy standing on the street? How about some free car tires from some random guy who says that they're jsut as good as the tires you buy from a store? "Free" generally means "something wrong with it". Only recen
      • Well, would you watch TV for free? Granted, the TV show is interrupted by commercials. That's how it pays for the cost of producing the show. Software is much cheaper to produce than a TV show - frequently just a few people can do it. The banner ads on the download site can pay for it. And just like TV shows, once a piece of software is produced and edited to it's final version, it can be released/rebroadcast again and again and again...at no additional cost! Unlike a ham sandwich, which can only be eaten o

        • Scarcity (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dodongo ( 412749 )

          Unlike a ham sandwich, which can only be eaten once.

          Economically speaking (I'm a linguist, not an economist, damnit!), this relates to things like scarcity and COGS (cost of goods sold). The direct expenses in selling software come from the expectations of the consumer: flashy box, manuals, media. The bulk of the expenses in producing software come from time: paying people to make things (code, packaging, marketing). In the case of downloadable software, the only realy direct expense in distribution is b

    • I've only played with Knoppix and it isn't terribly NTFS friendly.

      Are there other distros (like Ubuntu) that just work with NTFS? And won't garble data?
  • Not sure if this is about FUD or not, but let's look at what's obvious on Slashdot-world:

    Company or other entity announces or otherwise speaks of moving to an OSS solution. Several things typically happen at once:

    1. Microsoft reads it and rushes over to respond in some way by
    a. offering lower prices
    b. making some sort of threat (BSA audit or something)
    2. People criticise the company
    a. by saying they are just doing this for attention and/or g

  • Maybe companies are keeping quiet about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by I'm Don Giovanni ( 598558 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:18PM (#14114887)
    their internal tech moves because nobody really gives a damn. It would be the height of arrogance for a company to assume that the world cares whether it moves to open source or any other tech for that matter. Most companies aren't in the business of announcing to the world what their internal tech moves are.

    I don't know what internal tech McDonalds uses, and don't care. McDonalds knows that I don't care, and therefore doesn't waste time bothering to make irrelevant declarations to the world regarding their internal tech.

  • True story. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:25PM (#14114909)
    In 1996, I was working at a Fortune 500 company, and we were planning to migrate many of our systems from Big Blue to Microsoft. I was in charge of choosing the best C++ tool, and after some meetings with programmers I chose Microsoft Visual C++. We had a conference call with some Microsoft sales people one day, and while there were only 2-3 of us speaking with them, the move to Microsoft was a really big deal in the company, and a lot of people were opposed to it, so there were several big wigs in the room just listening in. Microsoft got on the line, and they immediately started shouting. They asked me questions and then cut me off before I could answer them, they swore at us, and they said that if we didn't choose their product that they were going to go to our managers and show them how daft we were, etc. We were buying the product! After a couple minutes of this, we just sat in stunned silence. It was my meeting, so I said "Alright, I think we're done here." and hung up. I was completely flustered and terrified, and my hands were shaking. We all filed out of the room, and I tried not to look at anyone in the eye. A year later, I was writing Java code.

  • It's because open source is communism:) (Score:3, Funny)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:33PM (#14114941)
    And communists always do things in secret.

    There was a CNET interview with Bill Gates [com.com] earlier this year in which he suggests:

    There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
    • There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises
      There is a certain mindset that identifies anyone that does anything for anyone outside of their immediate family without receiving financial gain for it as a communist.
      • There is a certain mindset that identifies anyone that does anything for anyone outside of their immediate family without receiving financial gain for it as a communist.

        And then there are people who want to get rid of all forms of intellectual property, and ensure that everything is Free as in liberty and Free as in cash - and force everyone else to do the same.

  • Competitive advantage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Epeeist ( 2682 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @04:38PM (#14114966) Homepage
    There is another explanation. I worked for an expert systems company when it was "the next big thing". There were very few reports in the press about companies developing expert systems, though people in the field knew a lot was being done.

    The major reason was that the possibility of getting a competitive advantage by producing something that nobody else had.

    The same may be true here but in a different way - you just removed a large amount of your cost base, but you don't want your competitors to know about it because they might start doing the same thing.
  • There is just this unwritten, unspoken objective that we all know...

    When the time is right, we are all going to drop MS at the same time....

    The quite about it is all about prepration for that time.

    But it won't be called the boston tea party, nor "the great software flap"

    It's be something like "the great quiet private digital dump-n-flush"
    • I think it's more like a snowball effect. There's 3 parts - software developers, hardware and users. The more users use Linux, the more people will develop software for it, and the more hardware will be supported. The effect of this is that more users will see it as an acceptable solution and the more users, etc etc.

      We are seeing some strong shoots now. The first commercial laptops appearing from major manufacturers bundled with Linux, Nero for Linux and cities looking at switching (and a switch to OpenOf

  • Some of that fear is well-founded (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:10PM (#14115122)
    Please don't label me as a troll. I understand the benefits of OSS as much as anyone.

    Honestly, I think much of the problem comes from over-hyping OSS. It should be obvious that the usefulness of OSS is directly related to the quality of the software, but unfortunately there's a tendency to lump all open software together. Witness how many people respond to "There's no good OSS equivalent of Photoshop" with "Use the GIMP!" when in reality there's no comparison, even with the Photoshop GUI hacks for The GIMP.

    Numerous times I've looked at open source clones of software, only to dismiss them because they're written by bored students with little software engineering experience. I'd hate to become attached to something that the author could drop when he gets a job or girlfriend or new game system. You run much less risk when there's a company behind it. Sure, I *could* learn the code and take over it myself, but that's unrealistic. You can't just pick up a 50,000+ line program and understand it. (In many cases looking at the code would be enough to make me avoid that program.)

    Bottom line: Some OSS is good, some is crap. J"OSS" isn't any kind of magic term.
    • Bottom line: Some OSS is good, some is crap.

      And this is different from propietary exactly how?

      And, BTW, good troll!

      Cheers,
    • Bottom line: Some OSS is good, some is crap. J"OSS" isn't any kind of magic term.

      Very, very true. Anyone can write a piece of crap and release it as OSS. A quick browse through freshmeat or soureforge will turn up any number of OSS projects that are, quite simply, complete garbage. But then that shouldn't really be the point. OSS isn't a magic term that makes software good, sure, but the real point is that "Proprietary Shrink Wrapped Software" isn't a magic term that makes software good either. Which is to
      • the concept of freely available, community developed software being anything but cheap crap is not really that widespread in the mainstream

        Maybe that is because the OS apps with "mainstream" recognition have been community projects in name only. It is the Sun logo the user sees when he launches OpenOffice.

    • I'd hate to become attached to something that the author could drop when he gets a job or girlfriend or new game system.

      Actually, one of the most important things about open source projects is that the important ones DON'T disappear when they get dropped. Either a new developer picks it up, or the code is forked into a differently named project or absorbed into a larger project. Open source software can survive a primary developer disappearing much better than proprietary software can survive a company dr
  • Media coverage of computers - particularly magazines that focus on tech - has always been biased to the point of printing outright lies to suck up to big advertisers. Remember the old "Upgrading costs more than new computers" myth Ziff-Davis publications perpetuated for years? Or all those post-bubble cover stories about how CA's new CEO had turned the company around with great new products and huge new customer accounts, when that was clearly not the case, and the company was just cooking the books?

    Comput

  • Let's make the MS fanboys happy: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hosiah ( 849792 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:14PM (#14115141)
    They've been complaining about the Billy-as-Borg icon for years. Let's get rid of it...and replace it with Billy-as-the-Godfather. Really, they aren't Borg anymore, they've been busted down to "common thugs"...still fearsome, but no longer insurmountable. The fact that they have to resort to such tactics proves this.

  • We do this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Writing as an AC for obvious reasons.

    We're moving a lot of things to Linux and open source, not because of any political agenda but because we're trying to get the best tool for the job, and when it comes to science, a lot of the best tools are Unix/Linux-based.

    Being a private company on a fierce market we keep our mouths shut about this for obvious reasons, as I'm sure all of our competitors do too.

    • Being a private company on a fierce market we keep our mouths shut about this for obvious reasons

      Many of the clients of the company I work for are very conservative oil companies - and they are all happy to hear that we run a lot of geophysical software on linux. The reality is the niche was one MS ignored and the software has been around for decades, so none of the software involved will run on an MS platform but will run on linux (and AIX, Solaris etc).

      Also MS is too much of a moving target, ever tried

  • That might be true in government (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:00PM (#14115355) Homepage
    In government, at almost any level, if you try an open source implementation it's very wise just to keep quiet about it. Then when the reaction comes you can inform them their system has been running on an OSS platform for the last six months without a hitch. If MSFT gets wind of it they'll be calling legislators up and down the chain reminding them how much money proprietary software brings them. And if there's the slightest little problem the NBMers will seize on that to discredit the entire project.

    My business customers don't seem to give a crap. If it works, they'll use it. MSFT can whine all they want and it'll get them nowhere. On the other hand if MSFT offers them a compelling deal they're not going to have any more loyalty to OSS.

    Ballmer is engaged in an endless game of whack-a-mole. And the moles are popping up faster than even the mighty MSFT can keep pace with. The fact that Ballmer has to waste his time to personally strong-arm organizations is the highest compliment he can pay to those of you involved in OSS projects. Not only can you change the world for the better, you can get under Ballmer's skin and make him burn some avgas in that expensive plane he flies around in. Hehe. Bonus.

    • In government, at almost any level, if you try an open source implementation it's very wise just to keep quiet about it. Then when the reaction comes you can inform them their system has been running on an OSS platform for the last six months without a hitch. If MSFT gets wind of it they'll be calling legislators up and down the chain reminding them how much money proprietary software brings them.

      It looks like you don't have a software problem - you have a corruption problem.

      • It looks like you don't have a software problem - you have a corruption problem.
        Well, he was talking about the government. That corruption is {part|all} of the problem is a given.

  • Even CLEAN Audits are Expensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <abacaxi&hotmail,com> on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:35PM (#14115528)
    I've been through one software audit ... we were squeaky clean, but it took about 4 hours of my time. Multiply that by the 25,000+ employees of that company, at their fully loaded pay rate and it was DAMNED EXPENSIVE to come up squeaky-clean.

  • Commercial OSS is a lot about shutting up. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Friday November 25, 2005 @10:45PM (#14116614)
    Running your business on OSS or making money of OSS is about shutting up about it. How would I look if I'd say I've underpriced my competitors by 50% for that corporate website because it runs of an OSS CMS? It's the remaining 50% we make money on. And finance our active support and development of OSS. The competitors make even a larger amount of money (if they'd sell) but they can bullshit about their efforts and technology all the way because it's closed source.
    When you do OSS on the other hand, you market yourself more than the product. That's why OSS isn't talked about that often.

    There are partners we have who couldn't care less if the framework we're using is being built as OSS and available under a different name at sf.net - but they do want us not to advertise that to their competitors. Quite logical.

    Be it that that extremly powerfull framework at that famous software copmany costs 15000$ dollars. It doesn't matter as long as only a few know that the very same thing is available as OSS. And even those who do will shut up about it. :-)

    OSS business isn't about talking about things, it's about knowing things. And talking usually doesn't cut it anyway, because people who need the advantage of OSS technologies explained often are to dumb to understand that explaination. I've learned that more than once. Might aswell just wait until it sinks in and gain business momentum along the way.
  • "If a company uses a lot of IBM products and migrates to another application server, then a political thing comes into play. Whether they are switching to BEA or JBoss doesn't matter -- they are reluctant to publicise as they still have to maintain a relationship with IBM," Connolly says.

    Yes IBM would like to sell you their product but if you are using something else that IS "Open Standard Compliant" then it works with their products, and they are happy to work with you to make it work with the "Other Guys

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close