August 12, 2013 at 7:11 am
1. community editions may be free and will get you started but once you get beyond a certain point you will want the commercial editions which are definitely NOT free.
This is not true of most OSS software. However if you get over your head you can hire professionals to help. (Just like the commercial software world!)
2. If you need support then this is NOT free. In fact "professional services" can be very expensive.
This is true of all software commercial or OSS. Or medical or legal services.
3. If your open source choice is not something you would or could contribute something to then what is the benefit. I couldn't contribute to MySQL or PostGres code. I might add something to Hibernate or Solr at a push.
You don't have to contribute code, you just use the software. Buck Woody uses many OSS packages as well as MS software, I doubt that he contributes code to all of them.
I use Linux, Python, pandas, postgresql, SQLite as well as Windows, VS. PS, C# and SQL Server. I haven't had to contribute any $$$ or code to OSS, but I have helped clear up documentation and offered feedback on features. And unlike Microsoft, many of the authors have responded to me and made positive changes.
4. Open source projects seem to attract the masses. It used to be that only the big players could afford an MPP appliance and only they had "big data". Now that many people say they have "big data" projects such as Hadoop start to come to the fore.
Oh! Those dirty "masses".
The masses don't give a !&@! about open or commercial software. Or "big data". But if I need to spin up a bunch of servers twice a year to crunch some demographics data, do you think I'm going to use Windows or OSS software on the cloud?
5. Open source projects with some overriding governance seem to be the ones that survive. The rest fragments and die.
This is true of commercial software too. I have lists of commercial software that I loved that is dead due to mergers, changes in leadership, corporate whims, etc...
At least with OSS, I can take the source and fork it, keeping the product alive.
6. Very few people can afford to work for free. Businesses chasing free software from companies without a viable business plan are going to be left holding an ugly baby.
Most OSS is written by developers for and by corporations. Even Microsoft does OSS development. I can get a job right now writing OSS and make the same or better money.
Please try better arguments next time...
August 12, 2013 at 7:59 am
A number of folks mentioned that additional tool requirements (e.g., SSIS, SSRS) would be a major factor in their decision.
I understand the rationale and I have applied it myself. However, the new licensing makes these "Free" tools pretty expensive. In both cases the server hosting the tool requires SQL licensing and many folks highly recommend hosting these tools on dedicated servers. Also these tools can be more processor intensive since they are often used to do a lot more data manipulation.
Additionally, if you adopt a strict reading of the CAL then you will probably be driven to Enterprise Edition for at least the SSRS and SQL servers.
So if you find yourself having to license an 8 core SSIS Server, an 8 core SSRS server and a couple of 8 core SQL servers you are looking at a pretty substantial investment.
August 12, 2013 at 9:16 am
So if you find yourself having to license an 8 core SSIS Server, an 8 core SSRS server and a couple of 8 core SQL servers you are looking at a pretty substantial investment.
Also if you need encryption or auditing you will need Enterprise. So it's a big $$$$$$ commitment if you want the whole stack. And you are stuck and subject to the whims of your vendor...
August 12, 2013 at 10:29 am
chrisn-585491 (8/12/2013)
1. community editions may be free and will get you started but once you get beyond a certain point you will want the commercial editions which are definitely NOT free.
This is not true of most OSS software. However if you get over your head you can hire professionals to help. (Just like the commercial software world!)
2. If you need support then this is NOT free. In fact "professional services" can be very expensive.
This is true of all software commercial or OSS. Or medical or legal services.
...
chrisn-585491, very true, and good arguments.
David, I think you have some good reasons to be concerned, but a lot of them aren't necessarily different with commercial software. SQL Server has tended to not require as much in terms of professional services, but I'd bet that PostgreSQL doesn't either, if you are using it as a database as most people do. If you push the limits of the platform, sure, but in either case (MSSQL or PostgreSQL), you'll be paying for help.
Note that I didn't discount staffing costs. Moving to PostgreSQL (or any other platform), doesn't mean things are cheap and free. But it means that your cost for a developer year of time on an 8 core machine is $103,000. $100,000 for the developer (round numbers) and $3k for hardware. With licensing, that could be $120k for standard or $160k.
The difference goes down with more developers, but it's not always insignificant. The tradeoff is if your developers don't spend more time with an OSS platform than they do with MSSQL. On a single app/instance, it might not be simple. If you have 10-20 instances for various apps, the difference could be dramatic, if you have good developers/administrators.
There's no clear answer. However I'd consider other platforms, especially as tools mature that make it easy to write for multiple platform from more languages and IDEs.
August 12, 2013 at 11:44 am
You have to be very carefull to read the EULAs of the OSS options as many will be free and are great for limited experience systems due to limitations although a lot have come a very long way. But just becuase there is a free version doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Recall a number of years ago MySQL went after a lot of companies using their software in a commerical capacity which the free version specifically outlines as against the use of the product and that you must in fact purchase a license.
The other issue is at some point OSS will hit a threshold for support and performance simply because a company cannot direct their needs against the project and thus getting a developer who has a high enough degree of experience and can make the software work and scale as needed does in fact add significantly to your budget. As well, keeping an experienced developer on staff can become problamatic and add to the cost even more so, especially once they have personally tweaked the code. To many people look at near term cost on projects to decide a path as opposed to TOC (total cost of ownership) which has in a large (not all) number of cases came back to bite folks in the end.
August 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm
"The other issue is at some point OSS will hit a threshold for support and performance simply because a company cannot direct their needs against the project and thus getting a developer who has a high enough degree of experience and can make the software work and scale as needed does in fact add significantly to your budget."
Right now I know a company that can't find enough MS SQL or OSS developers in the States or overseas. The market for skilled people is that great. It's to the point that they are having to "grow" their own developers for either technology stack.
August 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm
chrisn-585491 (8/12/2013)
"The other issue is at some point OSS will hit a threshold for support and performance simply because a company cannot direct their needs against the project and thus getting a developer who has a high enough degree of experience and can make the software work and scale as needed does in fact add significantly to your budget."Right now I know a company that can't find enough MS SQL or OSS developers in the States or overseas. The market for skilled people is that great. It's to the point that they are having to "grow" their own developers for either technology stack.
We see this with SQL Server, and other technologies.
August 12, 2013 at 10:49 pm
chrisn-585491 (8/12/2013)
The market for skilled people is that great. It's to the point that they are having to "grow" their own developers for either technology stack.
According to the interviews that I've had to conduct over the years, especially recently, I have to say that's spot on and a great idea. The problem that I'd see would be that of retention. There would have to be some sort of written agreement where the developer agrees to "stay on" for a certain amount of time in return for such training.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2013 at 11:04 pm
Jeff Moden (8/12/2013)
There would have to be some sort of written agreement where the developer agrees to "stay on" for a certain amount of time in return for such training.
I've signed more than one agreement with a past company that if I left the company within X months I had to pay back a portion of the training classes they sent me to.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
August 13, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Jim P. (8/12/2013)
Jeff Moden (8/12/2013)
There would have to be some sort of written agreement where the developer agrees to "stay on" for a certain amount of time in return for such training.I've signed more than one agreement with a past company that if I left the company within X months I had to pay back a portion of the training classes they sent me to.
That view used to be pretty rare this side of the pond. When I started in the computer industry most people recruited to do software development or computer or data management had to be trained because although there were a small number of people with computer experience (mostly academic research and development experience, or experience gained by taking every opportunity to play with computers in whatever environment) that small number was far too small to satisfy demand, and most companies were willing to train people. During my time in the business my various employers put me on 10 or 12 intensive sort courses on various aspects of CS at various Universities and a French language brush up course at Manchester U, sent me to approx. 70 seminars on computing at Cambridge University (150 mile each way trip from the office), approx. 16 weeks of internal training (split about half and half between computer related topics and management topics), and paid for me to attend several conferences on various parts of CS, and no-one ever suggested I should pay for any of it or commit to staying with the company because of the training. Things began to change at the turn of the century, at one company I could send my people on external courses but only if it was to provide skills that were required immediately , at another I only ever knew one UK employee go on a course (that was an ITIL course); but in neither company was there any suggestion that employees might have to repay any training costs. But it appears to be fairly common now for people to be offered training under a you pay back a proportion of the cost if you leave of your own accord within 18 months deal (the proportion depending on how soon you leave), and this has been happening for some time - possibly for longer than I realise, because it presumably started in a small number of companies and took time for enough people to be affected that I know some of them and they would tell me about it.
Personally I think companies are stupid to adopt this policy, because it will be resented which makes the people more likely to leave (and whether they leave within the period at which they pay some training costs back or as soon after that period as they can find a job, that will increase recruitment cost and lose productivity through undesirable staff churn. Of course an employee who is a professional engineer expects his employer to provide him with training for him to cover the continued professional development expected of him as a professional member of his institution(s) is one of those idiots who thinks he has rights but no responsibilities, but on the other hand an employer who will not supply training to trainees (eg people with shiny new sheepskins but no real-world experience) to assist them to gain professional status find that few serious professional engineer will want to come work for him because professional engineers usually want the opportunity to mentor trainees.
Tom
August 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (8/13/2013)
Personally I think companies are stupid to adopt this policy, because it will be resented which makes the people more likely to leave (and whether they leave within the period at which they pay some training costs back or as soon after that period as they can find a job, that will increase recruitment cost and lose productivity through undesirable staff churn.
Most of it was in the nature of learning the guts of Peoplesoft Accounting and how to modify it. Tips and tuning SQL stuff. Others were sent to the ins and outs of 2003 when we were replacing 2000. And we had a small loyal IT team to start with. They never really pushed us on it. We knew it could improve our futures but none of were looking to leave.
It depends on the environment.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
August 14, 2013 at 6:35 am
Personally I think companies are stupid to adopt this policy, because it will be resented which makes the people more likely to leave (and whether they leave within the period at which they pay some training costs back or as soon after that period as they can find a job, that will increase recruitment cost and lose productivity through undesirable staff churn.
Actually If I spend my own time and money on training and career advancement and my employer doesn't recognize it, they are likewise stupid. There's little to no loyalty in this industry, which makes a large number of professionals, mercenaries. A small percentage of companies offer real opportunities and education, it's up to us to reward them.
As for SQL Server, keeping up with the constant churn of products features and licenses requires constant education, which isn't respected by companies except in salary, which is usually increased by jumping ship.
August 14, 2013 at 7:24 am
chrisn-585491 (8/14/2013)
As for SQL Server, keeping up with the constant churn of products features and licenses requires constant education, which isn't respected by companies except in salary, which is usually increased by jumping ship.
Yeah, that irritates me that to get a decent salary jump you have to be willing to negotiate our contract evey so often. I enjoy very much where I work and the people I work with but the three best salary increases I ever got were when I looked outside the company and had an offer on the table. I understand they want to keep their budget nice and tight but honor those who have been with you a long time and demonstrated the knowledge and not those looking to hire in. I have seen lots of situations where someone who has better skills is already inside the company but one of those jumper employees comes in and get's a higher pay becuase the existing employee is actually selling themselves short these days.
August 19, 2013 at 10:25 am
Hi Steve,
I was out last week and came late to the game but needed to add something. Not all apps are .net and not all databases are SQL Server. There is a class of web server that is low-end, highly visible, and moderately used. In this area we are finding that the growth of CMS systems like WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal is expanding quickly. These sites include a standard WAMP or LAMP stack running mssql as the database of choice and they are cheap and easy to use. Using the CMS the database is almost encapsulated from the developer as well as large component solutions are available.
The reason for this growth, is simply that a MS solution costs far too much for the companies and individuals who either need or want a custom general purpose website or blog. Using a hosting service and WAMP/LAMP a novice developer can stand up a blog site in WordPress in a few minutes at a cost of around $100 a year. Comparatively this type or solution class is exceedingly cheap.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
August 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Miles Neale (8/19/2013)
Hi Steve,I was out last week and came late to the game but needed to add something. Not all apps are .net and not all databases are SQL Server. There is a class of web server that is low-end, highly visible, and moderately used. In this area we are finding that the growth of CMS systems like WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal is expanding quickly. These sites include a standard WAMP or LAMP stack running mssql as the database of choice and they are cheap and easy to use. Using the CMS the database is almost encapsulated from the developer as well as large component solutions are available.
You mean MySQL, not mssql, right? I know many systems like this use MySQL or PostgreSQL. I with they had an option to use SQL Server or a plug in data access layer. Conversely, it would be nice if some other software written on SQL Server worked with other platforms.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply