You are currently following Seeking Truth not Opinion
Stop Following
You are no longer following Seeking Truth not Opinion
Open Source Could Suffer from Exaggerated Expectations [View article]
Response to above, "If you believe that the cost of switching software is drastically reduced just because the software is open source, you must be smoking dope."
I never said the cost of switching was drastically reduced. This just goes to Byron's ongoing rant that people read what they want to read, versus what is actually written.
I said that the economic benefits of OSS come over the long term, not the short term. When you can get away mandatory, costly OS/productivity suite "upgrades" every few years (that eventually render your old document formats useless - what's the cost of losing your data?), and when you can pay for the support you need versus costly, mandatory database ELA renegotiations every 3 years, you will save money and have much more flexibility for the long term.
And it sounds like we agree on how OSS should be supported (by a vendor with enterprise/mission critical support), and how the open source model fosters competition to keep support prices fair. Anyone who thinks open source support should be free is, as you say, smoking dope - if you are running mission critical apps, open or not, you pay for support (from a vendor or via salaries for in-house employees). You are right about Oracle - compared to their overall business model the Linux support business is beans. But it certainly benefits end users. I am willing to bet that 10 years from now that will be the more viable business model, as more and more enterprises wake up to this opportunity (and vendors come up with ways to move 30 years worth of locked-in data to open standards/formats).
Never did I say that switching costs are reduced, drastically or otherwise. It does cost money upfront to switch, train, and engage in different support models (and like Byron said, open doesn't mean free) - but that upfront cost should be dwarfed by the money you will save within the first 3 years alone (after you skip the next forced upgrade or ELA renegotiation), and get even better over the long term.
Change always costs money but if you are executing the right strategy and thinking beyond the next purchase order it means more savings, profits and competitiveness for the long run. Think like a senior executive, not an first-year accountant.
-
Response to above, "If you believe that the cost of switching software is drastically reduced just because the software is open source, you must be smoking dope."
Dec 19 08:41 am
|Rating:
0
0
All Comments by Seeking Truth not Opinion »Open Source Could Suffer from Exaggerated Expectations [View article]
I never said the cost of switching was drastically reduced. This just goes to Byron's ongoing rant that people read what they want to read, versus what is actually written.
I said that the economic benefits of OSS come over the long term, not the short term. When you can get away mandatory, costly OS/productivity suite "upgrades" every few years (that eventually render your old document formats useless - what's the cost of losing your data?), and when you can pay for the support you need versus costly, mandatory database ELA renegotiations every 3 years, you will save money and have much more flexibility for the long term.
And it sounds like we agree on how OSS should be supported (by a vendor with enterprise/mission critical support), and how the open source model fosters competition to keep support prices fair. Anyone who thinks open source support should be free is, as you say, smoking dope - if you are running mission critical apps, open or not, you pay for support (from a vendor or via salaries for in-house employees). You are right about Oracle - compared to their overall business model the Linux support business is beans. But it certainly benefits end users. I am willing to bet that 10 years from now that will be the more viable business model, as more and more enterprises wake up to this opportunity (and vendors come up with ways to move 30 years worth of locked-in data to open standards/formats).
Never did I say that switching costs are reduced, drastically or otherwise. It does cost money upfront to switch, train, and engage in different support models (and like Byron said, open doesn't mean free) - but that upfront cost should be dwarfed by the money you will save within the first 3 years alone (after you skip the next forced upgrade or ELA renegotiation), and get even better over the long term.
Change always costs money but if you are executing the right strategy and thinking beyond the next purchase order it means more savings, profits and competitiveness for the long run. Think like a senior executive, not an first-year accountant.