| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Kim Polese: Next stop--open source (ZDNet)
Kim Polese: Next stop--open source (ZDNet)
Posted Nov 4, 2004 18:40 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144)Parent article: Kim Polese: Next stop--open source (ZDNet)
Part of the problem here is that companies need to rethink their relationship with software when it comes to opensource. If I were the CTO of a large company looking at open source software then I would be looking less at the cost savings and more at the potential for additional flexibility. To elaborate, I'd identify products that were of interest to me, say OpenOffice for example. Then I'd figure out what features could be added to enhance my companies ability to do busines. Put another way, to gain a competative advantage. I'd then hire people to make those additions. I'd also work to get those enhancements and changes incorporated back into the main line source as this would reduce my long term support costs and hopefully encourage others to do the same.
And no, I don't think this is idealistic. Its really a pretty pragmatic approach to the world. I'd get a piece of software that fit my company like a glove, in house resources to make any fixes or additional customizations I needed and I would have much greater control over costs.
Right now companies are at the mercy of their vendors. Vendors who have to please many different customers as well as their share holders. The opensource model in conjunction with inhouse resources would totally change the dynamic in my favor...
(Log in to post comments)
Kim Polese: Next stop--open source (ZDNet)
Posted Nov 5, 2004 3:23 UTC (Fri) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]
I think your model assumes that you have the management competency to hire good developers and manage them well. It also assumes that great developers will work inside companies without much in the way of career advancement. Basically, if you become the "OpenOffice developer" at an automobile manufacturer, you won't necessarily be rewarded for becoming a really good OpenOffice developer career-wise. Moreover, most of the really good developers I know like to work and hang out with other really good developers.
It's going to take some fiddling around with business models to get it right, but I think the concept of a good support organization has potential.
Rob
Kim Polese: Next stop--open source (ZDNet)
Posted Nov 5, 2004 17:48 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]
I can see where you're coming from. In theory larger companies would end up with groups of half a dozen to a dozen developers working on various projects. Sure, there would be turnover as some people would want more opportunity then such a setup would present but this isn't that much different from traditional software development projects.
Small the mid sized companies might be better served by buying support from outside companies. Ideally there would be more then one support company per product so that that there would be a bit of choice and competition.
The key is to try to figure out if the OpenSource model can be made to fit better into the traditional way of doing business. I think it can. In fact I think there are some very compelling arguments why it is a much better model then what is common today.
I'd liken it to the transition from mainframes to minis in some ways...