Can an enterprise be completely supported by open source?
A funny thought occurred to me yesterday: Do "enterprise open source" companies, such as RedHat etc., run their internals completely on open source software? Or do they, like the rest of us, have a fair amount of commercial software in their systems?
So, can an enterprise survive on open source software alone? Are there any key software applications that do not have an enterprise ready open source package available? Also, just how "enterprise ready" are these packages? Do they need guru's to install, or can the average non-command-line savvy-IT person install and configure (they are becoming more common nowadays with GUI's everywhere)?
Answers (6)
Absolutely, an enterprise can run entirely on open source software, from the desktop to the server. Enterprises can purchase support from companies like RedHat, and since support is their primary source of income, presumably it will be excellent. However, having used open source software for years, I have not found the need to use the support because of the amount of information on the Internet spread by communities of interest. So, I can only presume the support would be better.
It is absolutely true, however, that the documentation and administration of open source systems tends to be more difficult than commercial systems. They require a higher level engineer than commercial systems, which costs more money. The software takes longer to set up, although once it is set up, it tends to stay up without the need for further intervention.
The money that an enterprise would have spent on the software often goes into the salaries to the engineer. However, there are other less tangible, but important advantages to having higher-level engineers on your staff. They have critical thinking skills and are less likely to spend their time on politics. You can hire less of them because many of them effortlessly do twenty times the work of the average engineer. In fact, you can use open source software as a way to weed out the lesser engineers.
Definitely! wb~IT Consulting is run completely using Open Source products. Everything from accounting to CRM. We are the Open Source Open Minded people, therefore we use what we support.
You asked if there are any software applications that do not have an enterprise ready open source package available? Well, as you know with Open Source you are able to change the code to suit the client. Which means if they are looking for a POS with an accounting back-end with inventory control - we find the solution that most closely fits their requirements. After initially confirming this meets the clients needs - we can configure the software for additional functionality. Which is the long way of saying in most cases a software can be found or modified for most every application.
Within our company we have not run into a situation where the application was difficult to implement. Although MS certified, our techs are trained for the Open Source world. This keeps our expenses down and our profit up.
Links:
Mike S.
Director of Development at DirectEmployers Foundation
Best Answers in: Internet Marketing (6), Advertising (2), Blogging (2), Web Development (2), Accounting (1), Government Services (1), Guerrilla Marketing (1), Customer Relationship Management (1), Search Marketing (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Career Management (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Andrew -
Open Source is not the opposite of Commercial Software. It is possible to be Commercial and Open Source. Open source only means that full source code is included with a package with appropriate rights to modify that code. Open Source does not mean free as in beer, or free as in speech. It means you get source code.
Your question is a good one that a day or two with Suse or Ubuntu Linux will answer. The biggest area of pain in open source is groupware servers like Exchange. Zimbra is a promising candidate. Outside of that, name a business need and there is a strong package:
CRM: SugarCRM, vTiger
ERP/Accounting: SQLedger, Compiere
Workflow/Document Management: Alfresco
Office Suite: OpenOffice.org, Koffice
Software Development: Eclipse, Kdevelop, GNU Tool Chain
DBMS: Postgres, MySQL, Firebird (Interbase)
Content Management: Zope, Plone, Joomla, Drupal, Bricolage
Sidenote: I'd question if a non command line compatible IT person is even an IT person at all. Even with Windows, you still have to deal with command lines if you are able to do much IT work beyond end user stuff.
It really depends on what business you are in, some areas of business are not suited for open source as it is too thightly linked to the performance of the business - Front office software for investment firms for example, the likes of Sungard, Simcorp, Triple A and even Excel are far more than a cut above the open source offerings if there are any. Not too mention systems used in the medical, airtraffic control, defence, etc. arena. And no, running these systems virtualized is not considered an option yet in terms of operational risk management (General IT Controls audit firm practice).
There is a market and place and for OSS, just not everywhere, anytime and anyplace ... at least not yet.
Clarification added February 19, 2008:
To Dear Mr. Steven R.
"I regard it as highly unwise (moderately speaking) to run MS in Hospitals and other medical facitlities, airtraffic control, defence. It should never have come to that in the first place."
I am sorry to say but reality differs, I have seen implementations of many kind (incl. OSS) in the domains earlier mentioned, I do believe in a certain co-habitation but just don't support the Martini slogan for OSS just yet.
responding to Mr. Remi Gulzar:
a Closed Source solution running on an Open Source OS like Linux is perfectly sane and real. For security reasons alone, I regard it as highly unwise (moderately speaking) to run MS in Hospitals and other medical facitlities, airtraffic control, defence. It should never have come to that in the first place. It would be wise to choose an Open Source solution or write one from scratch, for the sole purpose of diversification to obtain better security. Especially in these areas.
I believe that it is a principle mistake to assume that the choice of OS and commercial or Open Source solutions are based on the fact that most other people/companies use it. Filetypes are standards, codecs are standards, communication protocols are standards. OS-es and programs should not be regarded as standards, they should merely respect standards.
If the world does not diversify enough, it Linux, Unix, OS-X or any other systems will become sitting ducks too and history may repeat itself sooner than expected.
Clarification added February 19, 2008:
I wanted to add the hardware implications of switching from MS to Ubuntu Linux and Software feel as an example:
Ubuntu Linux for the novice is a self installing OS and comes with all basic features like Windows + Open Office as standard. It can (like other Linux distributions) be visually similar to either MS or Apple machines.
Help is very extensive and fellow users most often provide solutions for problems you encounter.
If you migrate a whole company, it may be wise to appoint some users as first-aid-like helpers to assist their colleagues. Although the learning-curve of Ubuntu is extremely steep and most issues people may have will sort themselves out in a matter of days, there are always people having difficulty to adapt just because it is not 100% the same as it used to be. That may however have got nothing to do with the migration to Ubuntu specifically, but more with peoples varied response to changes in general.
More in the line of the initial question from Andrew Dempsey; hardware and migration:
If a company has to decide on migration to a Open Source operating system versus a commercial alternative like Unix or OS-X (sue me for the assumption that one only migrates away from MS and never in the opposite direction) they will have to take into account that a part of their hardware may not be (easily) accepted by the new OS. In the case of Ubuntu I have found that many HP-external apparatus are not supported and some may never be. This will most likely be the case with products from other manufacturers that are not open to new OS-es.
Samsung and Canon are being progressive in this area right now.
However a great deal of equipment works with Ubuntu Linux without the need for even inserting a driver-cd into your drive.
A wise move for manufacturers would be to ditch drivers alltogether. Build machines that listen to a general protocol or a standard command-set.
For a printer one could use e.g.:
[PRINT filename.extension TO printername/ip-address PAPERSIZE letter/a4/b5/... RESIZE=yes/no RESIZEMETHOD=xxx%]
and that would be it!!! Just something like the SCSI-standard basically.
- The hardware would then handle the whole process.
- The hardware could then handle the filetypes
- Extra filetype-support could be added through firmware updates
- ... (add extra benefits here yourself)
If only manufacturers would think like the ENDUSERS/CLIENTS and not like the CEO's wallet. Manufacturers of electronic musical interface already saw this light in the 80's (see the MIDI-standard) Why can't manufacturers of printers, scanners, camera's, keyboards, mice, tablets, storage-devices and the rest do the same?
It would also be much more environmentally responsible.
Joseph M.
Software Design and Architecture
Best Answers in: Web Development (3), Enterprise Software (2), Computers and Software (2), Software Development (2), Education and Schools (1), E-Commerce (1), Databases (1)
I would say most certainly. If one is looking at 2 possible solutions with equal features, value, etc with the exception to one is open source. I would choose the open source version hands down for control, maintainability and supportability. This may mean a commercial open source solution or a truly free open source solution. Having the source ensures you can support your application in the future even if the company who provided it to you stops supporting you. This is key particularly for mission critical applications.
That being said; I believe in an analytical approach to selecting software solutions. I consider it foolish to overlook solutions simply on merits of open source vs closed source. When evaluating a solution I find it is important to evaluate all factors including open source (feature scoring matrix, testing, R&D, ROI, supportability, etc). In many cases you can find both commercial (paid) and free OSS solutions that will serve your needs however do not discount closed solutions either. Simply include the fact that they are closed systems and the included risks as part of the analysis. It may turn out that at the end of the day the value provided by the closed system is high enough that it is worth it to the business to buy the risks involved with a closed solution.
