The Cost of Closed Source
-
I saw this survey on the advantages of Open Source, referenced from Slashdot where there's a discussion on it as well. It shows that most people see that the lower dependence on vendors (44%) is more important than cost (22%). Of course the lower reliance on a particular vendor, especially in Open Source, where any number of "vendors" may exist for a particular software product, implies a lower cost, but that's something for the advanced survey mathematicians to know whether that has an impact here.
Easier to customize (18%) had a greater response than security (2%), which was interesting with all the press that seems to be placed on security in the media. Still this is only the most important advantage, and security probably isn't the most important.
It does bring to mind the other side of the equation, however, the additional cost (if any) of closed source software. Since I work with SQL Server primarily, I look at comparisons with Oracle/DB2, MySQL, and PostGresSQL when considering options. Of course, since my skill set with SQL Server, I don't really see the others as competition right now, but I have looked at them in the past with other companies.
I understand that the software cost is often noise compared with setup, admin, and the various other labor costs involved. I didn't used to think this was true, but these days I really believe that. At least in smaller, relatively few server, environments.
The discussion on Slashdot talks about Google with hundreds of database servers, and at that point I'd agree that software cost has a huge impact, but how many environments are like that? Most environments, even in large companies, often still have only a few servers for an environment, and often different people working on each one, so I think the software cost is noise for most companies. You can argue against that with large numbers of servers, but I really think it's noise.
The customization part to me doesn't hold water since how many people will customize the software? Maybe if it's a sales application or some other more end user type application, but for core software, I don't think that is an issue. It's not like 99.99% of companies are going to customize the MySQL code!
The reliance on vendors is an interesting topic. I think that while there are lots of vendors for SQL Server support, Microsoft has the best support for me and I don't mind relying on them because they've done a great job in the past. At least as good a job as most other consulting shops I've had to work with. and it's a reasonable cost. Personally I think Microsoft leads the way in providing good, solid, reasonable cost support and consulting. And with their resources, I just don't see MySQL or PostGres really competing that well with them.
But I don't think that's who the article is aimed at. The Oracles and DB2 shops of the world, with much more $$ on the line, are more likely to look at an open source product being much more competitively priced.
Steve Jones
-
I really think that open-source software isn't the right move for many companies.
Take myself as an example: my time needs to be spent building software applications that I can sell to the public - this is how I make a living.
Now, if I can instally and use open-source products to help support my business, that's great. But, when something goes wrong, what do I do? My time is too valuable to waste trying to fix it myself, so I have to wait for someone else to get the same problem, and for it to be eventually fixed. Then I have to work out how to apply the updates (which are probably different for each product).
Instead, if I use closed-source software from a company that most likely will provide support for said software, I don't have to worry about it.
So, while you may be able to cut costs initially, further costs (some indirect) could end up costing more.
-
I think the big guys who support the open source paradigm have seen that there is no way to run away from closed source becoz that is where the big bucks are.
take for example Sun, they have put their source for star office to be the base for open office.but they still have their beloved star office.
i think open source can only go as far as developing individual skills, but businesses should not entirely depend on it.
-
I do think that Open Source has a place. And I certainly would like to see SQL Server as a Shared Source with customers that can afford to and want to dig into the code if they have issues.
You just have to understand that it's not necessarily "cheaper". There is some cost to open source just as their is in closed source.
-
I think that companies will always go for software that gives them a competitive advantage. Many web retailers use open source as its far cheaper & does the job.
Phil Nicholas -
...until something goes wrong. Then, who do you turn to? At least with closed-source, you'd have someone to go to directly.
With open-source, the onus is always on you.
This is the problem that I have with open-source. Sure, there may be 5 billion people with access to the code, and the ability to fix it. But if their time and effort, and the fact that they may not give a damn about fixing something, don't fit in with the running of my business, I am stuck.
I must say, this is the most civilised discussion on the pros and cons of open-source vs. closed-source that I have ever seen!
-
Wanna see un-civilised discussion??
Why the hell do you guys keep use those damn identity fields as clustered primary keys when you have natural keys???
Let's see the kind of answers you get from that one
. -
One DISadvantage of closed-source is that the company that develops the product may change it in such a way that they can extract more money from you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
One example: The newly released MSDE2000 SP4 no longer installs on Windows 98SE and Windows ME. There's no technical reason for that other than that Microsoft wants people to buy Windows XP. Unfair practice?
-
I disagree. If a closed-source product has a bug, you can report it to the company that developed it and *hope* it gets fixed in a future release.
If an open-source product has a bug, you report it in the appropriate newsgroup or forum and you will very likely have a patch within a short time. Or at least that is my experience.
-
"But if their time and effort, and the fact that they may not give a damn about fixing something, don't fit in with the running of my business, I am stuck."
The same can be said about closed source, except there you don't have any options if the vendor is uninterested.
There seems to be a false dichotomy in many of these discussions.
Closed source=full support, long term stability, necessary for business
Open source=do it yourself, unpredictable future, homebrew style.
In actuality neither of these is really true.
Depending on the product, closed source has one main source of support. If the vendor is interested in studying your problem (less likely if it's not a 'bug', per se) it might get addressed in a future release. They also may be downright stingy about providing information necessary to link to another software product, especially if that product competes with something in their product line. If the company goes belly up, or gets purchased, everthing can be in limbo.
An established open source product can have hundreds, or more, sources of information, adaptation and potentially, customization. There is no need to do it yourself if you don't have the resources, the market is full of qualified talent. You are not dependant on whether the originators stay in business or not.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
-
Jay is mostly right. There's one other thing. If you can't fix it, you can blame the vendor in closed source. You can't blame anyone in particular in open source, except you. I know that has sometimes been an issue.
Also, larger companies have the ability to "lean" on a vendor for bug fixes. You can't lean on the community.
That being said, they both can do the job, and more and more, open source products have support contracts that you can buy with them. Red Hat no longer gives away free anything. They just gave away Fedora to someone else to suppport.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply