Berin talks about holy wars in comparing open source products to Microsoft products. Whilst I completely agree with him that you use the right tool for the job, I fundamentally disagree that you "get what you pay for".
These days with software you rarely get what you pay for. You are maybe granted permission to use what you pay for on a limited basis, but it is only with truly open software that you actually get something tangible - the code. Documentation is an advantage, support is useful - but unless you have restriction-free access to the source, you have no guarantee that what you've paid for is your own.
I'm occasionally accused of becoming hard-line and almost religious about my views on software, particularly by colleagues working for large companies that have a significant investment in proprietary products. I'm often told that open source simply wouldn't work. These companies often refuse free (as in beer) software but also live and die by the old adage "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM". It's ironic, then, that IBM are becoming one of the most prominent open source businesses.
But here's the thing: I do not adamantly support open source software because I am not secure in what I am using. I'm adamant because for the last ten or more years I've tried the proprietary, mixed and open routes, and I am confident in saying that there is only one way to be safe with software: insist it is open. If I come across as adamant, it's because it can be tough at times to maintain my patient understanding when faced with ingrained "we do it this way because that's the way it's always been done" cultures.
The resistance to change is what drove me to leave my previous job and start an open source software company - change from the inside is tough, but external agents are often able to bring about change more rapidly because consultants are perceived as experts and troubleshooters, people more likely to suggest a course of action without being influenced by internal politics, more able to approach a problem with a balanced viewpoint.
I would say anyone working with open source software has a duty to inform their customers, users, managers and staff about the importance of the four freedoms and to offer reasonable and balanced evaluations of proprietary and open source packages for a given context. Not in any quasi-religious evangelical way, that swears by only open source, but in the same way that doctors are expected to uphold the hippocratic oath. If a customer is using MS SQL Server, they should be told that open source options such as Postgres, Ingres, or MySQL exist, how they may be better, how they may be worse.
I honestly think that in a fair and truthful evaluation, taking into account all factors, many companies would be shocked to learn the real cost of not following an open source route.
Posted by savs at March 31, 2005 12:13 AM