Click here to Skip to main content
13,042,819 members (79,606 online)
Rate this:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
See more:
Hi to all,

So I'm pondering about a question today...
Was open source such a good idea after all?
What rules are there directed at open source companies?
E.g. Can they just swich over to being a Commertial company when they've build
a large user base and force everyone to follow?

How about a open source standard?
What happens when a company/person just abandons his/her software.
What is being done by version conflics.
E.g. This plugin is ment for version 2.1 and is not supported by version 6.2 of the system.

The list can go on...

How about a new concept... Open Commercial. Pay developers, Charge companies, Sell software to other users.
Sure this idea can be refined... but you catch my drift?

Hope someone listens,
Posted 17-Mar-11 21:08pm

1 solution

Rate this: bad
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.

Solution 1

Whilst I'm not a great fan of open source I can see the appeal and it works well under most circumstances. Some of the objections you raise would be the same at a commercial company; people leave, business needs change, technology changes so there is never a guarantee that what you buy today will be usable tomorrow, so to speak. Same goes with Open Source but without the initial cost.

However, there is a 'total cost of ownership' related to any product so, even though the open source product may appear to be free, in reality there are ongoing support costs.

This is true of any product regardless of the initial cost or licensing criteria: business has to decide how it wishes to pay for product and what levels of support are required to keep employees working. Very often this is easier to do with a large behemoth like Microsoft or other commercial companies and products and more difficult with Linux or any other of the myriad open source products.

Bottom line: there is no simple answer: a business has to hope that it has employees who make the right technical buying decisions for their business and that the products they choose are supportable and cost effective across the business life cycle and adequately cover business needs.

My experience is that all of the investment and retail banks I have worked for have, primarily, chosen Microsoft and not a single one has used open source (or Apple) other than for the odd specialised application. I'm not saying they are 100% correct for taking this position but they made those decisions based on cost and ease of use. Whilst there are many that deride Microsoft, they make very usable software which fits into the business cycle very simply. Open source still appears to be lacking and until they catch up the answer may well continue to be Microsoft (commercial) as opposed to to Open Source (free?).
R. Erasmus 18-Mar-11 4:50am
Yeah I hear what you are saying and somewhat agree... However for a company like Microsoft to shift to a more programmer friendly stance as open source is, would surely be nice. Thus you'll get, good structure, well maintained, fits easy into development process, standardized + development software freely available to anyone that would like to write some code... with no limitations.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

  Print Answers RSS
Top Experts
Last 24hrsThis month

Advertise | Privacy | Mobile
Web02 | 2.8.170713.1 | Last Updated 18 Mar 2011
Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2017
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
Layout: fixed | fluid

CodeProject, 503-250 Ferrand Drive Toronto Ontario, M3C 3G8 Canada +1 416-849-8900 x 100