The Three Advantages
- Article 6 of 16
- LinuxUser & Developer, October 2005
Understanding the open source business model. In the second of a series of articles on the changing market for open source software, Rob Buckley looks at the benefits that customers are looking for when they choose an open source solution
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | All 3 Pages
Three years ago, Allan Paterson joined the Isle of Man’s government as director of its Information Services Division. He found the systems fragmented, with individual business units and contractors having installed technology with no consideration of an overall strategy for the government. Novell, which Paterson says had placed the Isle of Man low on its priorities list, was not performing and hardware vendors were offering to help by bundling software that “gave them high margins” but didn’t solve the integration problems of the Isle of Man.
Paterson looked at a number of factors before making his decisions: what skills were available on the island; which platform would allow the government to make business changes; channel support; prices, given his limited budget; and – most important of all – what combination of integrated packages with a common look and feel were available. Weighing his options, Paterson decided Microsoft was the best choice.
“I don’t think there’s a single right answer, but I’m extremely comfortable with the choice. I don’t want to tender everything, I want long-term service agreements. If you’re looking for a managed services relationship with third parties, you need to minimise integration issues, and I think very sensibly you end up with a Wintel environment.”
For larger companies and requirements, open source software needs to be able to integrate with the other applications for it to stand a chance of adoption. It also needs companies able to provide these integrated packages, because larger organisations want to avoid management headaches at all costs. Newham Borough Council famously backed away from a switch to open source software a year ago. A study by the council of the total cost of ownership of both open and closed source infrastructures showed that there were technological problems as well as issues around training that would have made the open source option more expensive. But, in part, it was because Microsoft “made us a deal we couldn’t refuse”, says John Defoe, strategic ICT consultant at Newham.
Yet while many would argue the study was flawed and it was Microsoft’s last offer that made open source look bad, the problem remains that there was no open source company that was willing or even able to undercut Microsoft’s bid.
When developing a “PC through the TV” system for residents, Newham chose to base the system on Linux to avoid Microsoft licensing costs. But without IBM to provide the necessary development skills, blade servers and software platform, Newham might well have opted for Microsoft again.
“IBM had the necessary mix of hardware and software skills for the contract,” says Defoe. “What I didn’t want was a mix of hardware, software and consultancy from people for obvious management reasons.”
IBM has been “superb” says Defoe, but their commitment to Linux has been less than their “commitment to my project”, which has obviously impressed him.
To be attractive to larger organisations, open source needs a thorough ecosystem of supporting companies, channel partners, consultants and integrators who can create an integrated system of components that are easy to manage and cheap to deploy. At the moment, that isn’t yet available and IBM is probably the only viable alternative to this – it’s practically an ecosystem in itself. But one company, even one of IBM’s size, isn’t enough to propel open source into every organisation in the world. Proprietary software vendors, in particular Microsoft, that can offer a range of products that fulfil organisations’ total management and technology needs will continue to plug the gaps these holes in the open source ecosystem leave.
In the next issue, we’ll look at whether there’s enough nourishment for open source companies to grow to meet these needs. That nourishment, if it’s going to come from anywhere, is in the hands of venture capitalists. But do the money men really understand open source, and are they willing to invest in something that’s “communist” and “un-American”?
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | All 3 Pages