> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. there are bugs. all software's gonna have them. business sees that
>> developer time gets spent fixing the open source tools instead of
>> working
>> on an application and/or web site. business gets pissed and realize the
>> 'hidden cost' of open sores and/or business just makes everyone work
>> more
>> and the open source fanatics will "donate" their spare time just so the
>> open sores doesn't get the bad rap. niiiiiiiiiiice.
>
> What's funny with the "extra development" problem is practically any
> software package is going to need tweaking to get it to do what you
> want. Sometimes it's a lot more than tweaking -- all you really get
> are the tools and framework to build something around (like with
> PeopleSoft or Ariba). It gets called configuration, but the problems
> are the same as development.
>
> Even anything beyond a bog standard OS load is going to require a
> project. Small shops can use whatever Dell makes in the thousands of
> units, but back when I worked for MonstroDemonic Insurance, just
> switching 15,000 desktops to Windows 98 (except of course those who
> still had to run OS/2 -- OS/2!!! -- due to some legacy application)
> turned into something resembling D-Day, complete with a sacrificial
> first wave, pyrrhic glider landings, and overloaded grunts drowning in
> the surf.
>
> --
> Andy
i'm tempted to thieve your last line of description of D-Day and pass it around at this joint.
yeah. your comment reminds me that what's at issue is this weird psychology associated with the problem of selling it "for free", as well as selling it as "superior."
what happens is that, with open sores, it's often weak on support -- which means you have to have your own people fumbling through an answer. This just happened to us with the use of an open source CMS. What an unplanned clusterfuck that was -- and remains.
but there's no support for it, and while it could be purchased by poking around for a consultant, that's a risky game. we initially hired an outside firm to build us our own CMS. This was a nightmare and a half -- and again, due to poor planning, poor research, etc. But they ended up sinking way too much money into something that was severely broken. The desire to find another consulting firm to help adapt the open source produce was nil.
it's no less risky than when buying proprietary software, but then the expectations are managed. they often buy the support _with_ the software and, thereby, manage their costs. what they see happening with open source is that the money's leaking out hour by hour in uncontrollable ways.
with open source, b/c it's sold to mgmt as "free" they get hung up and think should always be free for everything associated with it. this is often the fault of the people who sold them on open source to begin with, since they didnt' explain the typical business model.
when they learn that the business model is for the open source to make money on support, it burns their uptight little bippies. they feel ripped off. it feels like a bait and switch to them. it feels like a racket -- like they've been bent over a barrel and held hostage with false promises.
they may feel like this re Msloth, but for whatever reason, I've rarely heard anyone complain about coldfusion or asp -- from a business perspective. Like I said, its open source status is a handy crutch to hang problems that are really deeper.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)