Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project0

[Guest.Visitor]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
the "real" cost of modifying a purchased package? You seem to have left this out.

[R.Daugherty]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
I'd say buying a closed source module that's 1/3 the price of a low end complete closed source package will get you what was described in the article, lockin that is more than questionable. The training thrown in stuff without a cost apportioned to it is also a major problem in analysis. Generally it's a trip to the vendor on your dime, plus they spend the whole time hitting you up for more needs, customization, more products, additional services, and on and on. You can pay a consultant to travel to your site and train. I don't see a clear comparison there at all. The company should be looking to be a participant in the community. If training materials are insufficient, sponsor some work on it and donate back to the community. Same for non-competitive advantage enhancements such as some of that interface work between the 30 some addons. Open source addons. The company should be looking to add back simple work like that to the open source community where they got it. Lastly, open source can not be crippled. It usually is a lighter on function version than a commercial product, but it's a buy/build choice, not a limitation from a closed source vendor on what your software can do. That's the huge distinction in open source. rd

[nandelin]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
Last night I listened to a couple podcasts, which were interviews with one of the founders of SugarCRM, which is becoming a prominent open-source offering, which was referred to by Duncan Kenzie in his recent article. The founder's message was very impressive and convincing. It laid out a plan for dominance in the CRM software market by a product, a company, and a community that leveraged open-source software (namely PHP, mySQL, Linux, Apache) and developed under that same model in a way that would attract widespread acceptance of their products. But I did notice a couple chinks in their armor. First, they talk about how the open-source approach breeds innovation. But when you demo their product you begin to see many similarities between it and a comparable offering from SalesForce. I got the impression that SalesForce was there first. Who are the real innovators? The founder also alluded to the difficulty of coming to agreement on features and functions, when you open the design to a community of developers. Out of 500,000 downloads, which is very impressive, 500 signed up for paid commercial offerings. It's just an interesting topic, and I appreciate you (Mr. Stockwell) writing about it. Nathan M. Andelin

[T.Stockwell]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
Nathan, First, thanks for the comment. Second, the question "Who are the real innovators?" is a very important one. When you look at how commercial software has developed in the past, it usually is a story of one company or developer who takes a business problem, devises a solution, and then takes it to market. The success of the solution as a product then starts its own evolution, spawning imitators. Usually, the first one to the marketplace with the solution is not the ultimate winner, commercially. (e.g. Microsoft did not initially gain dominance in the Office environment by innovation, but by imitation of products like 123, Word Perfect, and some Lotus products. And let's not even talk about the Windows interface.) Where I see open source innovation right now -- particularly in the areas of PHP -- is under the covers. The PHP community, the MySQL community, and the open source developer community are combining talents to bring a whole new hardware store of tools to the business environment. This is an evolutionary process, and the first phase was to build the tools and the frameworks. We're now in the second phase in which open source developers are applying those tools to standard business problems. The methodology of assembling and using these tools is significantly different than the commercial packaged software methodology that we've seen in the past. Anyone can assemble the tools! Anyone can access the open source frameworks! Anyone can extend the functionality! But the current phase of evolution is to provide the basic functionality of commercial packages at a fraction of the cost. What is not clear yet is how this translates into a business model for the developers. Some use the frameworks as leveraging their expertise for consulting. Others will use the basic frameworks as starting points for packaging add-ons or plug-ins -- the true value-add proposition. At this phase, it will be continually difficult for IT managers to evaluate the advantages of one solution over another. The differentiators may be things like quality, support, and overall service and reputation. It will be interesting to see how these values are sorted out. What will probably NOT happen will be market dominance in individual application suites. What will probably NOT happen will be proprietary packages that eliminate the competition. What will probably NOT happen will be a single Microsoft-like corporation controlling the conversation. And for this reason, open source is a great hedge against entrapment by large commercial software organizations. IBM has a great point when they say that the future of computing is in collaboration, and the requirements of collaboration is open source. Web2 is that first next step. How this materializes will be an interesting game to watch. Thomas M. Stockwell Editor in Chief MC Press Online, LP

[T.Stockwell]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
Actually, I did mention the "real" cost of modifying a purchased package. At the company I described, the comparisons were kept very high-level, with bids put out to the business partners of the commercial packages that were investigated. The company had formal requirements, written in advance, and RFPs were sent out to numerous business partners for the commercial package that had been identified as the target. The original package software was identified at a cost of $10K, with many of the out-of-the-box features that matched or approximated the RFP. The customization bids that were returned ranged from $20K to $60K. The management then began the process of selecting, based upon the traditional values of "lowest bid/best quality". They selected the $20K business partner. The business partner spent $20K analyzing the project and came back and said that the actual cost would be $100K. That ended the conversation, and the budget was blown. Management complained, got its $20K back from the business partner, and then started looking at open source. The unfortunate, but not unusual, part of the story was that even with a well-defined RFP the business partner could not make an accurate estimate of the costs when it bid on the project. The pressures on an consulting analyst to identify actual costs are exceedingly high, and the accuracy of the estimate is usually based upon experience with the packaged software -- not with the experience with client. Time is always scarce when such estimates are required. As a result, it's not unusual for estimates on any package software to be 20 to 30 percent lower than what it actually costs to deliver. Such is the "pain" suffered by consultants who make a living modifying packaged software. What was really unfortunate in this company's experience however was that its management was not prepared for the scope of variance. It had made plans based upon budget, and was looking for the most cost-effective solution. When it received first a low bid, and then a revised estimate, its initial thought was that it was being wheedled. The only moral that it learned is that "Packaged software is packaged." You don't gain any economic advantage by choosing a package if your intention is to start "modifying" what comes out of the box. Configurability is another thing.

[SoftwareTrend]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
Paying no dollars is the major attraction of Open Source products. The biggest advocates (other than individuals of course) are Academics and Non programming IS management and support staff who's budgets can be kept down with the use of Open Source. In reality, there are few instances where it provides better software than a commercial product functionally - other than where their requirements are minimal and more commonly when price is raised. You can re-enforce this thinking by comparing the size of the piracy market (think games, MS, or Adobe products) versus the size of the open source market. The end-users want it free. The "correct" approach would be to use an equivalent Open Source product but they don't - they'd rather pirate the commercial stuff. Ultimately though, it's a matter of IP. Solo App Developers and programming teams (the very innovators who are the seedpod for new products) will usually chase the IP. Why wouldn't they? Chances are they won't want to contribute their new MS killing program, the subject of thousands of hours development, to "the collective"? In Australia recently a local Open Source leading light was bemoaning the lack of contribution from Australian Industry. It was amusingly obvious what was occurring. What value does the enterprise get by giving away it's internally developed code? Take it further, how would this relate to a recent thread on customised development and the competitive advantage a company gains from it's use? Surely the logic follows that they should be encouraged to just give this code away to the collective. But then the management team might have a different take on that option. And finally, we have the somewhat hypocritical positions of enterprises like IBM and Universities. They all want Open Source to go ahead. It saves them money in developing O/S and code themself and in the install costs. But look deeper and it is IBM that consistently wins the battle on IP applications per year. Wouldn't that be locking away innovation from others? And the half dozen universities I have dealt with in the last 5 years have ALL had several clauses in there agreements where they attempt to take ownership of any new work created for them or any idea they may derive from the application, or indeed any new change added to the program to address a particular issue on their campus. Why do these people all crave IP rights and not expect the rest of the community, certainly the programming community, to want the same benefits?

[R.Daugherty]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
You are right. I'm cynical, jaded, and a pain in the butt to say this, but the only innovation in open source is from those trying to establish market share that they wouldn't be able to do otherwise selling it. Almost always it's architectures. A corollary to that is the software that couldn't sell, so the next best thing to do was to open source it. Sometimes a company with deep pockets that wasn't competitive in an area buys the company and open sources it. The vast remainder are people working to develop alternatives to established monopolies. They are not innovations, they are free alternatives. Bottom line, innovative software that can sell is sold unless deep pockets have ulterior motives. The most innovative software I know of that was developed open source was funded by a deep pocket who made his fortune on software with copy protection at one point. Some of the most innovative software is funded by deep pockets and free, but little of it is open source. There is always a self interested reason when it is, except for those pure of heart trying to uninnovatively provide an alternative to a monopoly. rd

[T.Stockwell]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
First of all, the perspective that open source products are somehow "second class citizens" is specious. If you take a look at some of the most popular open source products, such as Open Office or Joomla!, and really examine the level of functionality, you will discover that the level of sophistication and innovation in solving problems is quite impressive. Sure there are thousands of open source "freeware" programs that do not reach that level of sophistication. Sure there are thousands of projects that are the result of one or two developers that will probably never gain great acceptance. But to believe that an open source project like Linux is somehow inferior to Windows is ludicrous today. Secondly, innovation is not only in how a product reproduces current functions in a set, but how that set is developed and delivered. Professionals laughed at the idea that the open source movement would gain momentum. Now quality products are being developed by diverse teams -- and enhanced at an astounding rate -- much faster than commercial organizations can deliver. That, in and of itself, is an innovation. Finally, as I said in an earlier post, we are at the second phase of the open source evolution: The phase that imitates functionality of a feature set from commercial products. Just as Firefox took away Microsoft's lead in innovation for browsers, so too will highly functional features in standard business sets soon be out-evolving commercial suites. Why? Because commercial development of software is much more expensive than the open source model. Why is it more expensive? Because ten minutes of a commercial programmer's time costs hundreds of dollars more than ten minutes of ten open source programmers who are in the game as a problem-solving, career-building exercise, volunteering their energies. It's a community dynamic that will be very difficult for commercial entities to compete against. So, innovation is not only about the current release of any particular product set. It's also about how the feature set is engineered, developed, and delivered. When those elements are dynamic -- as they are in the best open source communities -- then feature innovation and ultimately product innovation will soon outstrip the ability of any single company to deliver. That's why IBM is embracing open source. They will develop middleware products that will enable open source because it's the fastest way to expand the market for software. And their strategy is to be the provider of middleware products to that market.

[R.Daugherty]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
I see your point and I need to quickly clarify. When I say that software can't sell, I did not mean to imply it was a second class citizen! I meant it can't sell, and I mentioned monopoly in an earlier post. I also advocated giving back to the open source community in my earlier post. At no point have I ever suggested that open source was not the route to go. My own plans are to see how open source can be applied to the iseries, and give back in the process. Let's take Open Office specifically. It was a commercial product that couldn't get any traction against the Office juggernaut. The Office juggernaut kept getting its formats slightly changed like a virus to keep anything from being able to lock in and participate in that ecosystem. So Open Office, no matter what quality the software, withered. Sun bought it and open sourced it. They are deep pockets with an ulterior motive. They were in serious competition with Microsoft. There was simply no choice but to open source to compete with Microsoft. Any other take more noble and pure is simply wishful thinking. Most open source work is done by deep pockets with ulterior motives. This especially includes IBM. They and other deep pockets only open source that which they need to establish a market. This is only a natural extension of market driven economics. There are some sucessful pure plays. Linux is the premier example. But all the work it takes to make it a successful competitor to Windows wasn't getting done. Enter a deep pocket from South Africa who is funding that work. I wrote in my earlier post that there are pure of heart just working to have an alternative to a monopoly, but it's easier to be pure of heart when you're not a commercial competitor. So can't sell and ulterior motives may sound antagonistic, but they are the truth, and nothing is more noble than the truth. rd

[Guest.Visitor]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
Ralph, I agree with your view as reality. Open Office couldn't compete as a cheaper commercial alternative to MS Office. It still can't as a freebie. I use Open Office and love it but trying to get businesses to replace MS Office is a very tough sell. I've been marketing myself locally as an open source consultant and have been getting very few hits. There used to be an old saying that nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM. Replace IBM with Microsoft for today's environment. Very few people want to replace Office with Open Office. Very few people want their websites developed in PHP and MySQL. They want ASP.NET and SQL Server. I have to pay the mortgage, so I stick with what pays. Some things I've learned along the way working with open source products: 1. Open source does not mean free. 2. Open source does not mean it can work with everything. 3. Open source does not mean you'll be able to or want to actually modify the source, recompile, and make your own changes. 4. Open source does not mean a lack of functionality. 5. Open source does not mean amateur, although a large number of amateurs contribute. 6. Open source does not mean Microsoft is going away any time soon. This link provides what I think is a concise description open source. It describes four types of "open source". http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?...57205&from=rss It describes the motives for licensing under an open source banner. It also rails against using open source as a verb. ;}. I need to find some deep pockets... you know any Ralph? Tom.

[R.Daugherty]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
They're out there selling something that isn't open source. I think the Microsoft solution is expensive, both up front and licensing wise, but the businesses must feel like they're getting their money's worth. A similar situation exists with IBM and those of us on iseries feel there is justifiable cost effectiveness. But will anyone else ever feel that way about it, and will people resist Vista? Whatever the answer is, it may be Sun Solaris and Java made easier, or Linux and C++ made easier, it will be an open source answer. rd

[SoftwareTrend]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
"There used to be an old saying that nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM. Replace IBM with Microsoft for today's environment." That is why I think MS is also living on borrowed time. Their key "marketting" players are aging and I see their dominance possibly diminishing within the next 10 years. Certainly the desktop environment is the current major seller yet also represents the major flaw in their empire. Even now businesses are looking for less complexity not more on the client environment. Hence the push for Web Serving and Citrix/Terminal Server. As a extension to the desktop argument above - if businesses are trying to get away from Windows Clients why would they want the Linux Clones? Any new dominant player will NOT be Open Source. This model does have a commercial imperative and will never dominate. You are looking at a pseudo "socialist" vs "capitalist" fight again. Open Source may have a ride on the current generation of contributors but the next may not wish to invest their time into the Open Source, will see others in the non Open Source industry doing better than themselves, or will perhaps even take a completely different career due to diminished financial return on general programming effort. If there is a new player I see that it will come from the non open source software development industry. It will certainly not be from any hardware industry player where they are happy to service whatever is on offer (eg. MS, Unix, Linux). It will have a heavy focus on Web operating environments and the mobile industry. This would be more like the MS course to dominance rather than the IBM course (which in the 50s was basically hardware oriented).

[R.Daugherty]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
As a extension to the desktop argument above - if businesses are trying to get away from Windows Clients why would they want the Linux Clones? I don't think it's valid at all that business is trying to get away from Windows. I think they would move reluctantly if costs and licensing and security issues are what they are and Microsoft tries to force them to Vista. Run desktop software via browser? There is a recent announcement of something along those lines of a so called web offering from a venture for Open Office, but even that uses a Windows client, not a browser. There is a recent slashdot thread on that, and many comments on desktop apps via browser, none of them positive. I would think this group which generally advocates a web browser interface would ask themselves why IBM created a new open source Eclipse desktop client for Notes if I understand the marketing announcement correctly. That is the kind of interface that will run on any desktop OS or thin client. That's just one example of the kind of open source solutions that I'm thinking of. And one last thought. Why is it that high powered software like games run with sockets instead of browsers? Isn't that the kind of power winning business software will bring to the table? That and a mixture of other collaborative desktop tools like spreadsheets and other productivity software? So if Notes and games need high powered desktop interfaces, why is not a browser wimping out on the solutions we could provide our customers? And an open source infrastructure solution, including IBM's desktop client for example. rd

[SoftwareTrend]

Anatomy of an Open-Source Project

** This thread discusses the article: Anatomy of an Open-Source Project **
From our experience the problem with Windows on the client is not licensing costs it is the support demand for the environment; particularly when new programs are added or upgraded with their associated COM baggage and shortcuts. Due to security restrictions these steps have a need to have a user with local admin rights to perform the tasks. In a lot of sites it is still common to see an individual run around to each workstation to install or upgrade them. If the IS services can deploy apps from Web or Citrix servers then all this management is pushed to a back end server. The Windows environment becomes significantly cleaner and easier to manage as they move more to a dumb terminal environment. This doesn't mean that ALL sessions are easily moved this way. There are advantages for some apps, eg program development environments, to be locally hosted on a workstation. However there is a counter point. Some Db vendors went keen on Java for instance for their DB tools as a "Universal" client solution. Good idea but you can see the distinct speed difference between these apps over native apps from other vendors on Windows clients. Both work though if you think broader. There is an argument that 5250 sessions are somehow more advanced than Web sessions. But in reality they are very similar - a stream being sent to the client to be interpreted and presented by the Terminal or host app (IBM Access or IE). Both environments have just form based processing at heart. Fill the form - push ENTER. HTML does support a lot greater extension of form controls (drop down boxes, selection lists, radio buttons, etc). I think in the past the clunkiness of the Web interface was it's undoing. We also had similar issues with the 5250 form processing orientation vs the more fluid thick client interfaces where messages are presented dynamically or new form fields appear dynamically when a checkbox is clicked etc. But even here the Web interfaces are moving ahead with Ajax processing that enables HTML to look more and more like thick client sessions.