By Naked CIO, 6 May 2008 12:16
COMMENT
Despite grandiose claims for open source software, the truth about it has been evident for some time. But at least as a niche technology, businesses can take it seriously, says the Naked CIO.
Is the debate about open source finally over? The practicalities of managing open source in a business context became clear years ago. In that environment, open source is difficult and cumbersome, so surely the honeymoon period should have ended long ago.
Exclusive Special Report: CIO Agenda 2008
Find out what's hot on the top tech execs' agendas for 2008Â…
♦ Video: CIO Agenda 2008
♦ Naked CIO: The true cost of IT
♦ Why IT must escape the belt-tightening
♦ Cost-cutting tops CIO priorities
♦ Recession fears hit IT budgets
♦ What governance can really mean to business
♦ The CIO shopping list
Of course, open source has found its niche and will continue to be of practical value in the realm of web and network security. But its application to business is limited. Many of my colleagues are now reaching similar conclusions.
As a CIO with a background in mixed environments - and who still manages one - I can say with certainty that maintaining and developing in a cohesive open source environment is complex, costly and ineffective, except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature.
Technology gurus are probably cringing at these words. Many of them believe that open source is the only true way to capture the creative and entrepreneurial nature of technologists. But that's not how it looks from my position as a relatively new CIO of a global and complex business environment.
Open source lacks true and defined standards, best-of-breed capabilities, fully functional integration and knowledgeable staff to support it cost-effectively.
So I'm pleased that the debate is quietening down and that effective open source applications have now carved out a niche. Arriving at this point allows for effective planning and the true development of standards and best practice.
Having tried to manage open source environments, the degree to which rather eccentric - apologies for the generalisation - open source custodians and Unix engineers customise their environments creates extremely bulky systems and applications that are difficult to manage.
From an organisational perspective, in its level of customisation and lack of true industry standards, this is cowboy technology.
I know I'm leaving myself open to criticism from open source loving technologists but as a CIO you need to look at these debates from a business perspective and drive value, standards and effective management in your organisation.
If you implement an open source environment be sure to ask yourself some very important questions:
- What is the business driver behind this initiative?
- Is the true cost - including the labour to support it, annual subscription fees and the technical gaps in support, integration and innovation - lower then other alternatives?
- Can I find capable resources cost-effectively to deliver an open source environment and then support it over time?
- Can standards be implemented that allow for effective management of an open source application?
In the end everyone has a view on this debate. I would love to see open source continue to grow from a technology perspective.
But would I rely on it in a business perspective? Absolutely not - at least not as the main platform driver in my organisation.
Comments
There are 20 comments. Join the discussion
1. MadCabbage
I think the Naked CIO is confusing open source with server and desktop OSs. Open source is everywhere - in routers, in switches, in storage arrays, as the base of all commercial virtualisation software.
In these places it's been repackaged as a "commercial" system, providing the standards that software developers need.
So open source is alive, well and growing - and the Naked CIO will undoubtly be using it.
2. Austin Holdsworth
There's a whole stack of generalisations here across a broad spectrum of choices and that's why I don't necessarily agree with its conclusions.
Open source refers to the licence and terms of use for any given piece of software. Not necersarily its heritage and its value as an enterprise platform.
Most well-known and mature open source applications come with optional commercial support from companies with credible means. Spanning areas such as CRM, ERP, RDBMS, document/content management, sales automation, desktop OS, thin client OS, storage OS, multimedia production, codec, remote access, software developments suites - to name a few.
In a commercial decision making process, the CIO should apply the same due diligence to open source software selection as to closed source. Examine the vendor, the credibility of a long-term support arrangement, skills in the marketplace, training etc.
Our CIO might be surprised to find that many offerings are surprisingly attractive for a commercial enterprise, and having unfettered access to the source code brings new opportunities to bring some of the bespoke work in-house and at low cost.
Not all open source software is the result of a back-bedroom programming project by enthusiastic computer studies student. Some applications are almost entirely commercially derived. It’s just that the licence is better.
3. Andrew Robb
Open source is alive and well in commercial applications.
There seems to be confusion in this article between open source and GNU Linux. The restrictive GNU licence now has many competitors, most of which allow commercial exploitation.
Open source tends to go along with open standards just as proprietary source goes with proprietary 'standards'.
Don't be fooled into thinking that single sourcing won't involve any open source.
4. John Sniadowski
I get the feeling that the author of this article has just had his Sunday afternoon bowls match disturbed. Oh dear, those pestilential open source chaps are at it again.
Why don't they just go away back to their bedrooms and safely play there? Oh drat. Now look what I have done. My jack has gone right off the end of the green. I just can't concentrate on the matter at hand. You open source people ought to know better. Go home and leave me alone.
The fact is, Mr CIO, that open source is all around you and is now embedded in the fabric of many things so much so that a weary old CIO like you will think its magic or preposterous. I think I had better go back to my cup of coffee before I waste any more of my precious break time on this article.
5. Andrew Robb
He dropped one here: "Having tried to manage open source environments, the degree to which rather eccentric - apologies for the generalisation - open source custodians and Unix engineers customise their environments creates extremely bulky systems and applications that are difficult to manage."
Does this imply that he hates Unix too? What on earth does he mean by "bulky"? Does "difficult to manage" imply he does not understand what is said to him by Unix administrators?
6. Karen Challinor
So what you are saying is you have no systems management experience on Unix or Linux systems, especially if you regard them as "bulky" - have you taken a look at Vista's hardware footprint recently?
Because all the system knowledge resided in the people you were managing they did things you regarded as strange and used procedures you regard as unwieldy.
I suspect these staff were not hired for their open source knowledge, which was probably minimal compared with their Microsoft knowledge, and they were thrust at the system with instructions to "get it working".
So before you dismiss open source out of hand I suggest you:
1. Acquire some expertise in the area yourself, if only so you can understand what your staff are doing.
2. Try hiring staff primarily for their open source qualifications.
7. Simon
Hmm, another CIO without the skills required.
I can only assume that by "hard to manage" he means "can't be controlled entirely by randomly clicking buttons in a pretty GUI until it does something resembling what's required".
This seems to be the expectation of a great many supposedly experienced people in the Microsoft camp. OK, my experience is limited to a relatively small number of packages, but generally they all have one thing in common - they can do things the Microsoft equivalent can't do.
In some case the MS equivalent can actually do it, but it involved messing around with some - to be polite - twisted logic settings in this big blob called the registry. Choice: simple gui with limited flexibility, complex registry with 'interesting' keywords and values, or simple flat tex file with human readable values and settings - and all perusable in one place. Hmm, tricky one that.
Now standards. About the only place you will find anything even attempting to be standards compliant is the open source world. The proprietary vendors go out of their way to avoid standards.
Integration - well, I suppose he has a point there. There really isn't anything to compare with the 'blob' of MS Office+Exchange - thankfully.
Another example of what you can do if you ignore standards - even your own - and go go about building an obfuscated mess.
And what's all this about the lack of "knowledgeable staff to support it cost-effectively"? There are plenty of staff who can support it. The common problem is that people so often employ 'experts' on Microsoft products and then expect them to switch.
If you want open source skills then you should buy open source skills, just as if you want Microsoft skills then buy Microsoft skills. The current state of play is like buying a motorbike and then complaining that it can't tow your big caravan.
I coud go on, and on, and on - but I think we can all see where this CIO is going wrong.
8. Vidar Hokstad
Talk about demonstrating how clueless he is.
I very much doubt this Naked CIO manages to avoid open source. Few organizations today would be able to avoid running open source products unless they worked very hard to - so many products have open source somewhere, whether as parts of libraries they depend on or as part of the firmware for hardware devices such as routers.
Open source in those situations is generally chosen because it's the most suitable alternative, not because it's open source.
That's the key mistake the Naked CIO makes: the licence a piece of software is under is not a guarantee for anything. You'll find people selling abysmal proprietary products, and you will find abysmal open source products.
The key is to pick the products that provide the best value. But access to the source is part of that - it is by now means worthless, and need to be part of the assessments you make.
None of the businesses I've worked in could have existed without open source. You might have heard of at least one of them: Yahoo! - one of the largest users of FreeBSD, Apache and PHP.
9. Tiger Woods
I'd just like to ask one question. How does a brain dead person get to be a CIO?
10. Carlos Camargo
Naked CIO hiding behind an anonymity cloak? C'mon some of the biggest companies in the world use FOSS, extensively.
For banking, databases, computing, even for desktops. So, where is your proof? And who are you? Why not post as "Anonymous Coward"? That is more what you are since you did not post your name or company. Far from "naked," you are fully hidden. Is that you monkey-boy Ballmer?
11. Soyuz
If this is some kind of comic journalism, then I didn't find it enjoyable. Writing against the current trend is not funny any more - it's been done before. If you're being serious, you have got the whole thing wrong.
12. Dan
The CIO here is either trying the wrong open source software or confusing projects with open source packages that are backed by commercial support — that is as good or better than its proprietary counterparts.
Every decision maker should use the same due diligence when selecting open source software as it does with proprietary options. Who is the vendor? Who are their successful customers? What support do they provide?
A CIO that does this would find that open source is more than alive in both the SMB and enterprise environments whether it's data and application integration, CRM, ERP, etc.
13. Jason Ross
I see the value in open and closed software and implement both. I am of the opinion that the reason OSS fails in the enterprise space is a lack of discipline.
Most enterprise IT professionals lack the skills to be able to effectively develop, deploy and most importntly document what has been developed.
IMHO this is a failing of the people and the processes and not the applications or development methodologies used.
14. Pete Kronowitt
Misleading name. The Naked CEO certainly should put on some clothes and look in the mirror. He or she speaks truth when saying, "maintaining and developing in a cohesive open source environment is complex, costly and ineffective, except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature."
Really? How many CIOs will deploy immature technology? Open source is far from niche when Linux is one-third of the server shipments.
We haven't seen open source disrupt the enterprise business model just yet, but it's coming. When open source business applications mature, and they will, small business will finally be able to utilise enterprise capable software. Then we'll see if the CIO is wearing any clothes.
15. Allan Nelson
Oracle RAC on Linux, niche player? Oracle E-Business Suite on Linux, narrow application? People too hard to get for Unix-like OSs? Be real. Over-generalised Naked CIO with problems spotting elephants? Yup.
16. RFH
"Except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature".
This comment is pretty much equivalent to: "Open source is bad, except in those cases in which it is good".
17. anonymous
Dear Mr Naked CIO,
Given that you are a relatively new CIO, I suggest you go off and play in your sandbox - clearly you're going to be an unemployed CIO in the near future.
The value of open source is no longer even seriously questioned. Equally the problems associated with closed source and vendor lock-in is a problem, All you have to do is take a look at Microsoft's shanagans in getting OOXML passed as a standard by the ISO, when in fact a standard already existed in the form of ODF.
It is CIOs such as you who constantly want to move the goal posts and put money ahead of commonality who are the problem not open source. In the near future, the only thing that will be dead are dinosaurs such as you who can't keep up with the innovations in open source.
18. Joe Whitehead
There's open source, and then there's open source. Some code is a lot more open than others, and some code makes a lot more sense to use than others.
Example: Home gateways - commonly called routers - often use VxWorks, Linux, and a few other OSes. It makes sense with all the mature networking tools implemented in both closed and open source code, that open source is perfectly fine for this application. The catch is the GPL makes Linksys/Dlink/etc. provide code that has been modified to turn $50 routers into replacements for $500 routers.
A case where open source makes no sense is when developing a program that you want market value from, by being one of the few who can legally implement it. Examples include RAR archives, StuffIt archives, WMV/WMA DRMed media files, and XBOX executables. You don't want to use GPL-style open source tools except as distinctly compiled programs.
19. Guy Lafleur
Naked CIO seems to use open source as a wildcard for everything from software to development process and everything in between. If he is taking about open source software, they are all different and although the most prominent example is the popular GNU General Public License (GPL), there are quite a few open source software licenscs have qualified within the boundary of the Open Source Definition.
20. Anthony Gold
Your concerns are certainly of note and are, in turn, the challenges many vendors will be attempting to address on behalf of their customers and prospective customers regardless of whether they are an open source or proprietary vendor. Business drivers, "true cost", cost-effective resources and the desire for standardisation are key to any decisions where business and IT investment is concerned.
However, there is a challenge I’m sure you and many CIOs have faced; most IT environments are hybrid environments because people want to leverage the best-fit products to solve their business challenges and are increasingly evaluating the plethora of solutions prior to making their choices.
What I am getting at is a larger issue, and ties back to your concerns, is what I call "the CIO conundrum" - or the dilemma faced by executives trying to leverage open solutions while integrating them with proprietary systems to more toward improved business performance or getting more bang for the proverbial IT buck.