Open Source Technologies
Following are the benefits from use of Open Source Technologie that we provide to our clients:
Reliability:
Reliability refers to the absence of defects which cause incorrect
operation, data loss or sudden failures. Defects are usually
addressed with speedy fixes which is possible via the use of Open
Source technologies. Severe defects tend to be fixed within hours of
their being detected, a process which is undoubtedly assisted by
the availability of the source code. Able developers who discover a
bug will commonly also fix it and then report it to the maintainers
as well as issuing . . .
an updated version of the software on their own
authority. Users of the software can choose whether to use the
unofficial fix or wait for an “official” version. This mechanism
clearly works very well in practice.
The pattern with closed-source software is typically
that a defect report needs to be filed and then there will be a
delay before the vendor determines when or whether to issue an
updated release. Users of the software are much more at the mercy of
the vendor's internal processes than with the Open Source
arrangement.
[More]
Stability: From customers’
perspective software is mostly a necessary evil, a tool to do a job.
Unless the job changes or more efficient processes are discovered
then there is rarely pressure or need to alter the software that is
being used to assist the task. This is more or less directly opposite to what motivates
software vendors. The vendors need a stable revenue stream to be
able to keep their business going whilst their customers have not
the slightest desire to change or upgrade any product . . .
that is
working well enough to suit their needs. Open Source software is not
a cure in the world of ever-changing software, but it can mitigate
the worst effects of vendor-push. The way that Open Source products
conform closely to standards efforts has an inertial effect, since
standards change but slowly and interchange formats are often
particularly stable. As a result, incompatible file formats can be
less of an issue. If they are standards-based then they typically
aren't an issue at all, and if they are formats unique to the
software product — proprietary formats in a sense - then they cannot
be undocumented since the source code that uses them is itself
published. In the real world, no business is static and software
changes to meet new requirements. A choice to use Open Source
software can provide a counter to the pressures to upgrade for the
vendor's commercial purposes but cannot shelter every user from any
change. Having access to the source code can allow a business to
choose to support itself on an old version where necessary and we
believe that, in general, it gives more options and choice to the
users. Nonetheless, some upgrading and maintenance effort will
always be needed. Putting the choice in the hands of the users
rather than the vendors is hard to criticise.
[More]
Auditability: A
rarely-understood benefit of Open Source software is its
auditability. Closed-source software forces its users to trust the
vendor when claims are made for qualities such as security, freedom
from backdoors, adherence to standards and flexibility in the face
of future changes. If the
source code is not available those claims remain simply claims. By
publishing the source code, authors make it possible for users of
the software to have confidence that there is a basis for those
claims. . . .
Whether this takes the form of an cursory and informal
inspection or more rigorous auditing, what is clear is that without
access to the source, third party inspection is impossible. At
present the industry does not insist on third party inspection or
certification, but it is possible that as open source models become
more popular then expectations of audits will rise. We can easily
see that open source software has a distinct advantage over
proprietary systems, since it is possible to easily and quickly
identify potential security problems and correct them. Viruses and
cracker attacks can pose a significant privacy and monetary threat.
This threat is one of the causes of the adoption of open source
software by many network-oriented software systems.
[More]
Cost: Most open source
software is free of charge. From a business perspective the purchase
cost of software is only one factor; total cost of ownership (TCO)
is what really matters. Other things being equal, the solution with
lowest TCO is usually the most desirable one Arguments in favour of low TCO
for open source software . . .
include:
- Possibly zero purchase price
- Potentially no need to account for copies in use, reducing administrative overhead
- Claimed reduced need for regular upgrades (giving lower upgrade fees, lower management costs)
- Claimed longer uptimes and reduced need for expensive systems administrators
- Near-zero vulnerability to viruses eliminating need for virus checking, data loss and downtime
- Claimed lower vulnerability to security breaches and hack attacks reducing systems administration load
- Claimed ability to prolong life of older hardware while retaining performance
Some longer-term claims are more difficult to substantiate yet they need to be taken into account:
- Better adherence to standards permits competition in the market, reducing vendor lock-in and consequent monopoly pricing
-
Availability of source code provides greater continuity and security against
- Financial collapse of vendors of key products
- Vendors choosing to withdraw support for unprofitable products
- Protection against being required to fit your IT strategy to the cash needs of your software supplier
Flexibility and Freedom: In a
business context, software flexibility is about being able to choose
solutions suitable for the needs of the users. Many commercial
software products will claim flexibility as a built-in feature and
some will undoubtedly be correct. Our view is that flexibility should
really mean business flexibility, so that as requirements in the
business change, solutions should not be unreasonably constrained by
software. In particular, we view this as being especially important
in the area of infrastructure components . . .
— the architecture of the
IT solution rather than any one package.
To obtain flexibility at
the architectural level, experience shows that it is often best to
pick tried and trusted standards for interworking. If that is done,
then best-of breed solutions can be selected for particular
components within the architecture. Provided that the solutions can
interwork suitably, the business should be able to avoid lock-in to
a particular supplier and over-dependency.
Open Source projects have
very little motivation to attempt this kind of lock-in strategy.
Since there is no commercial benefit to be had, adherence to
de-facto standards (where they exist) is typically high. Where
standards for interworking do not exist, the fact that the source
code is published means that proprietary data formats can not be
used to manipulate lock-in. This at least partly explains the
relative success of Open Source software in infrastructure areas.
Open Source software tends to be free of dependency on related
products. Purchasers often perceive that the product works best with
other products from the same manufacturer. Open Source software
offers its users greater freedom to purchase other products,
avoiding lock-in to particular manufacturers.
Open Source software
provides further flexibility through freedom.
- Freedom from a single vendor - Software vendors can go out of business, and they can arbitrarily decide to cease development of a product. How would your business cope if it relied on such a product? Open-source software allows you to retain not just the right to use the software you already have, but the ability to continue to use it as your needs change.
- Freedom to modify your software - You aren't limited to what one company believes you need. Proprietary software vendors must cater for many different companies, predominantly their own. Open-source software can be tailored for the way you do business. It is usually within the resources of all but the smallest companies to modify Open Source software to suit their own needs (and potentially then to make those enhancements available as a public good).
[More]
Support and Accountability: It
may appear counter-intuitive at first, but while the models for
obtaining support and accountability for Open Source software are
clearly different, the Open Source outcome is generally better than
for most cases of user-vendor relationships.
One of the most common counter-arguments to the use of Open
Source software is characterised as the “who is liable if the
software doesn't work?” question. This argument seems plausible in
theory. Unfortunately, though, that is not what aplies in most
cases. . . .
All usual software licences explicitly disclaim
responsibility or liability for anything more serious than defects
on the distribution medium, with the responsibilities being a
one-way street and resting on the user, not the supplier.
Proprietary software licences are intended to absolve the vendor of
liability for almost any problem you may incur. Major vendors have
large legal teams whose job it is to prevent the vendor from being
liable for anything.
Detractors of open-source software
quite rightly point out that the free licence to use the software
includes no support contract. But they neglect to mention the other
side of that issue: many proprietary software licences have no
support included either. Indeed, the majority of mass-market
proprietary software support is aimed at hand-holding for
inexperienced users. Just as proprietary vendors will sell support
contracts with agreed service levels, suppliers and third parties
will provide support for open-source software.
Speaking
from our own experience we must point out that when software works
reliably, support for it ceases to be a frontline concern.
[More]
|
