7 Reasons Not to Use Open Source Software

2 risposte [Ultimo contenuto]
Jodiendo
Offline
Iscritto: 01/09/2013

7 Reasons Not to Use Open Source Software

Businesses of all sizes embrace open source software and the benefits it can bring. Sometimes, though, choosing proprietary software makes better business sense. Here are seven scenarios when it pays to pay for your software.
By Paul Rubens
Tue, February 11, 2014
Page 2

It also makes sense to use proprietary software in specialist fields where vendors are likely to have gone into universities and trained students on their software. "The software may not necessarily be better, but it may be selected by a university before an open source solution gets a big enough community around it," says Chris Mattman, an Apache Software Foundation member and a senior computer scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"When that happens, the students will then know the software better and be more productive with it," Mattman says. When the students then move into a business environment, it makes sense for them to continue with the software they are used to.

3. When Proprietary Software Offers Better Support

Business-class support is sometimes available for open source software, either from the company leading the project or a separate third-party. This isn't the case often, though — and that can be a problem, according to Tony Wasserman, professor of software management practice at Carnegie Mellon University.

[ Related: 6 Reasons to Pay for Open Source Software ]

"Some customers prefer to have someone outside the company to call for product support on a 24/7 basis and are willing to pay for a service level agreement that will provide a timely response," he says. "People often respond very quickly to queries posted on the forum pages of widely-used open source projects, but that's not the same thing as a guaranteed vendor response in response to a toll-free telephone call."

4. When You Want Software as a Service

Cloud software is slightly different than conventional software. As a general rule, you don't get access to the source code, even if the hosted software is built entirely on open source software. That may not make the software proprietary, strictly speaking, but it doesn't give you all the benefits of open source. In that sense, the benefits of using the "pay for what you use" software as a service model may outweigh the disadvantage of not having access to the source code.

5. When Proprietary Software Works Better With Your Hardware

Many types of proprietary hardware require specialized drivers; these are often closed source and available only from the equipment manufacturer. Even when an open source driver exists, it may not be the best choice. "Open source developers may not be able to 'see' the hardware, so the proprietary driver may well work better," Mattman says.

6. When Warranties and Liability Indemnity Matter

Some open source software companies, such as Red Hat, are structured to look like proprietary software vendors. They accordingly offer warranties and liability indemnity for their products, just like proprietary vendors do. "These companies are exactly the same as proprietary software companies, except that they won't take you out to play golf," Wasserman says.

For every Red Hat, though, there are many open source projects that aren't backed by a commercial organization. While you may get warranties and liability from a third-party, in many cases you won't. If that doesn't suit you or your company's software procurement policies, then you're advised to find a proprietary vendor.

7. When You Need a Vendor That Will Stick Around

Yes, there's no guarantee that a commercial software vendor will stick with a product if demand drops to such an extent that it's no longer profitable to develop it. The company itself may even go out of business. But if an open source project is small, there's also a danger that the person behind it may lose interest. If that happens, it may not be easy to find another open source developer to step in.

(This may be more of an argument against small open source projects than an argument for proprietary software — but at least you can look into the books of large software companies and make an informed decision as to whether they're likely to be around in a few years to honor any commitments they give you.)

Don't Be Too Dogmatic About Open Source Software

The lesson here: While open source software may often — and even usually — be a better choice than functionally similar proprietary offerings, it doesn't make sense to be too dogmatic about it.

"As a practical matter, I think that many people would prefer to have everything open, especially in light of the recent revelation about the NSA spying on machines through USB chips," Wasserman says. At the same time, though, many of those who prefer open source will make exceptions when there are no practical alternatives — not to mention their use of Mac and iOS devices … "

http://www.cio.com/article/748013/7_Reasons_Not_to_Use_Open_Source_Software?page=3&taxonomyId=3042

onpon4
Offline
Iscritto: 05/30/2012

There's truth in this (free/libre software isn't always practically better), but the way this article is written comes across as FUD, and the conclusion the author reaches is based on the premise that practical convenience matters above all. This talk is much better:

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/when-free-software-isnt-better-talk

lembas
Offline
Iscritto: 05/13/2010

>7. When You Need a Vendor That Will Stick Around

>Yes, there's no guarantee that a commercial software vendor will stick with a product if demand drops to such an extent that it's no longer profitable to develop it. The company itself may even go out of business. But if an open source project is small, there's also a danger that the person behind it may lose interest. If that happens, it may not be easy to find another open source developer to step in.

>(This may be more of an argument against small open source projects than an argument for proprietary software — but at least you can look into the books of large software companies and make an informed decision as to whether they're likely to be around in a few years to honor any commitments they give you.)

This is completely backwards. With free software, you're independent of any vendor. If they go bankrupt or disappear off the face of the earth, you just get another guy to continue where they stopped the work. This is an argument indeed but certainly a major argument for free software.