Sam Varghese
Tuesday, 03 November 2009 07:48
Opinion and Analysis
Page 3 of 4
The next bit that caught my eye is: "Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is rare for completely open source projects to be successful."
Now that takes some beating, doesn't it? Going by that logic Linux isn't successful. Apache isn't successful. Firefox is an abject failure. We GNU/Linux users are sure a bunch of real losers to be using software that has failed so miserably.
And it goes on "...these projects often end up being archipelagos of systems driven by a philosophical principle that is anti-proprietary." The last I heard there are plenty of proprietary applications being run on Linux - which wouldn't be possible if it was anti-proprietary - but, hey, who am I to contradict the chief strategist and vice-president of innovation at such a big company?
I guess that companies like HP, Oracle, Intel, IBM, Novell, Nokia, Google, and a host of others don't really qualify as proprietary companies then - they all seem to be remarkably friendly to open source. Even Microsoft is talking nice things about open source these days - but then maybe they've shunned the proprietary label as well. I could be wrong, though - I'm just a journalist, I'm no vice-president or chief strategist of even a one-man company.
The paper is available
here. Not to tire you too much, gentle reader, it touches on total cost of ownership ("It is very unlikely that an open source solution is any less expensive than a proprietary solution"), compatibility ("for libraries that choose an open source system, the opportunity to integrate different systems into the solution is limited, at best"), customisation ("However, it should be stated that customization is not without risk. Extensive customization, especially with potentially little or no documentation can make upgrades and changes increasingly difficult.") and so on.
The crowning bit of ignorance is where Abram writes: "Open source is often represented as more secure. This, too, is debatable. Some of the most security-conscious entities, like the United States Department of Defense, restrict the use of open source software for fear that it could pose a terrorist opportunity."
If memory serves me right, just a few days ago, iTWire was among a host of tech publications that
ran a story which said that the US Defence Department had given the thumbs-up to increased deployment of open source software. This was no speculation; the DoD put out a statement to this effect.
Damn! It must have been a fake - else surely SirsiDynix and the good Mr Abram would have modified their document?
CONTINUED
