October 24. 2008 11:33

The economic downturn is going to affect everyone – including people who are passionate about writing free software.
On the other hand someone can hardly contribute to commercial software. Even if he contributes, atmost, he gets free access to the commercial software which is a little less to feed his family .

Working/contributing for Open source or commercial software may give the person implementation expertise which can earn him/her some money.

If you were the owner/major stockholder of a company would you depend on a software project that’s been written in the garage of the developers or with a company which has fairly good stocks as well as a few billion dollars in liquid funds?
I guess you are referring to today's economic situation. If not, no one should ever go with Open Source or open source companies (assuming that their stock price may always be lower than the commercial vendor you are mentioning). With all stocks dipping today, isn't the situation a no change? In fact if a customer (who is already in trouble) puts forward a million dollar deal with a commercial software vendor, thats what will get him into further trouble. The time calls to cut your bottom line and play safe at the top line. Perhaps do a low cost open source implementation to keep the business progressing and later invest into something costlier (if the customer really finds the open source implementation limiting).

The argument that since you do have the source you can modify it is fallacious. What if you’re not a technical company?

So a non technical company can do an Exchange implementation without any technical help ? Forget about extending it

Most commercial OSS projects are in the same price range (they call it “charging for services”) as commercial closed source ones.
But in case of MS there is a definite product licensing cost + consulting fee/support fee. Do you have some examples of the cost comparisons between Commercial OSS and MS products ?

What about all those people who are not technical but yet have a whole bunch of stuff to contribute to software – QA, designers, technical writers, software packagers,etc.

Working <> contributing. Someone who joins Alfresco (www.alfresco.com) is a worker or an employee who will get paid for.
Someone who is contributing may get zero money. But his contribution may have gained him some money in an elsewhere implementation and he may be JUST contributing.

but also companies who rely upon them must think about seriously.

I guess all they have to think about, surely, is cutting the cost NOW. All TCOs and ROIs are typically realized in years. The idea is to keep the business going with less investments due to the market uncertainty. Time to opt for Postfix against Exchange if the idea is to just "mail". Leave the calendar, instant messaging, calling to Exchange for a later date, when you need it AND when you have the money. Because when you have the money the "commercial vendor" will help you in the migration anyways, for paying him and for choosing his solution over open source.

Shekhar

December 12. 2008 02:58

This post actually started out as a comment on a Slashdot story about how the economic downturn is going to (negatively) impact free and open source software. As expected, the comments had a ton of ayes and nays – both sides having their merits. My thoughts about this are like this:

1. The economic downturn is going to affect everyone – including people who are passionate about writing free software. Are you single or do you have dependents (wife, kids, parents, etc.) who depend on your livelihood? In this case, would you as a developer rather work for a commercial vendor (who pays you something) or an OSS project where you are a contributor and the possible future fame (no fortune) is the only incentive? (Unless of course, you were born with a silver spoon and write code only as a passion.)

Well, I guess you have still not recieved your pink slip, if you are reading news stories, you must be quite aware that most of the 'properietary' and non-free companies, are sacking employees. And please be clear with what you mean by commercial vendors, are Red Hat and Novell not commercial vendors? You can check this link at wikipedia to know what commercial vendors mean.


2. If you were the owner/major stockholder of a company would you depend on a software project that’s been written in the garage of the developers or with a company which has fairly good stocks as well as a few billion dollars in liquid funds? Think about which one is more likely to close shop and disappear. Would you want to be stuck with a product running your critical LoB application which has no future?

Well, if you are NASDAQ, will you trust the code which is considered to be the most secure and available for scrutiny, being developed by millions of best brains from around the planet, or will you depend on comapnies whoes employees do their work just because they get paid for it. And they take 7 years to launch a massive failure product? Now, that's the difference between a soldier and a mercenery.

3. The argument that since you do have the source you can modify it is fallacious. What if you’re not a technical company? You will need to hire programmers to modify the application which can turn more expensive very quickly.

Who cares if I am not a technical company, I can get it done my way and quite cheap, in closed source environment, I am always a puppet of comapnies, who believe in "if small issue, restart, it bigger one format"

4. What if the main argument was that it would be cheaper to get the free software than a commercial one during an economic downturn? Again, see point 2 as well as that commercial OSS projects have the same or more TCO of offerings from commercial vendors. Most commercial OSS projects are in the same price range (they call it “charging for services”) as commercial closed source ones.

You are suggested to read the meaning of commercial one. Also I suggest you start reading forbes. See, Since most commercial OSS project charge same, that means they are earning good revenue to not only sustain but also support their employees. With the added benefit that a used is not getting locked into a closed incompetent product.

5. Commercial vendors also give a pay as you need and monthly/yearly model of software purchase. All you need to do is talk to the sales/marketing team of the vendor to avail of this – with guarantees on the software (and company – very important during this economic phase). This means that you can spread out the cost of the software over many years and still get the benefits of a solid company backing and software.

Well, I repeat again, get yourself clear on commercial vendor. It seems here you are endorsing Red Hat and Novell, which being a MS guy you should not. May be MS will sue you.

6. People who claim that developers can continue to write code for OSS only see part of the picture. What about all those people who are not technical but yet have a whole bunch of stuff to contribute to software – QA, designers, technical writers, software packagers,etc. Will all of them also be willing to work for free/peanuts?

Hmm....you have a point, what is your background? Arts?

Although I do not foresee the end of OSS or even want it to happen, these are hard questions that not only contributors to OSS but also companies who rely upon them must think about seriously. What do you think?

I think, you read Wiki about the meaning of commercial vendor.

Arnie

December 29. 2008 00:09

I can tell you have no clue what economic depression encompasses.

Maybe you need to learn about "guerrilla low overhead planning" and "stop loss phase reduction" which are terms you won't learn from sheeple blogs. Economic recovery will happen when people stop dreaming about currency falling from heaven and spending funds they do not have. AMD is a classic case of such stupidity and they will be gone in 2009.

It's trench time...

Doc Holiday