How OSS Models Put Vendor Support on Solid Ground 45
Jane Walker writes "How can vendors offer free enterprise software and be financially strong enough to provide commercial support? It's all about hybrids, says expert Julie Hanna Farris. Find out how to determine if a commercial open source vendor has the chops to support products in the long term."
It works (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
So while a support contract may not be for you, there are a lot of companies out there who need one.
Re:Not quite... (Score:2, Funny)
It was a pain in the ass to determine if you have to plug your network cable in the socket with label D123-S2, D123-S3, or D123-S4 (for your company laptop). The only way to know for sure that was to go in the basement to check if the cable was physically plug into a switch or a pbx ( or often nowhere )
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
All ports are labelled in my lab, isolated, production, phone. Color coded too (isolated is a yellow label). When I leave my lab and need connectivity (and can't get the campus WiFi) I sometimes have to take the approach:
1) jack in and look for link
2) dhcp request / view config / determine if the network is a corp. or lab connection
3) go back to 1 till I find a corp drop.
really pisses me off...
-nB
That is a problem of labeling... (Score:2)
Re:That is a problem of labeling... (Score:1)
Off course physically
Re:Not quite... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whilst I haven't had experience of Open Office and the like, I have used tools like JBoss, and I've found that these tools (with their complicated XML file configuration) can be just as difficult to set up and use as the non-open ones (WebLogic for example).
My point, I suppose, is that no product is ever 100% foolproof, and if some people can make a viable go at providing services for OSS then good for them
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
Re:Not quite... (Score:1)
You are missing a two factors here.
First, any software that is complex enough to be useful is going to have bugs. Design bugs, functional bugs, security bugs, whatever. Anyone who says different (even Donald Knuth) is ignoring reality or selling snake oil.
Second, a program may be perfectly usable as released, and do everything that the developers could imagine. However, there are going to be some customers who want things that the developers could not imagine, precisely because they do not know th
If support is the *only* revenue stream? No (Score:1)
I would rather want them to be in a situation where support is a compulsory added cost to the vendor (maybe them charging for it slightly less than what it costs them), so that they are more hard pressed to improve the software.
Open Source is good. Support is good. But, an Open Source vendor with support as the *only* revenue stream? Not quite
Viability (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Viability (Score:1)
I think that's a great approach and tends to maximize customer value. The one thing that wasn't pointed to in the article which I think bears mentioning with respect to OSS solutions is that one should keep in mind the viability of the development/support community OUTSIDE of the vendor that's selling the solution.
In t
Question. (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you do if you're just starting out?
There's been a couple of times when I've mentioned F/OSS to business owner as a potential addition or replacement to his IT infrastructure (MySQL, Open Office) and as soon as they hear "free" they get this funny glaze over their eyes. Small businesses LOVE the word "free", but I think they equate "free" with junk - "you get what you pay for" attitude. I think they're also afraid of things not working, which equals no revenue coming in. This is a hurdle that I can't seem to get over.
Yeah, I'm a shitty sales guy.
Re:Question. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then avoid using the word 'free' until after they're familiar with the product. Talk about 'open source', 'reduced risks/costs', 'avoiding lock-in', etc.
Save the philosophy till later.
Re:Question. (Score:1)
If you take a guy that is costing you 1000 $/day and you replace his desktop. If you need to replace his desktop by Windows or Linux, the cost of the license itself will be pretty insignificant compared to what you loose when the guy is learning the new product ( be it a new version of windows or a linux desktop )
Free software or not, the cost of migration is != 0 The fact that the license to use the sof
Re:Question. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question. (Score:2, Funny)
And when they complain about the cost and come asking for discounts, give them huge discounts
Re:Question. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question. (Score:2)
Wicked: just charge them a heap of money - then they will know how good it is!
+5 interview (Score:5, Interesting)
She goes on to state that you must have a solid revenue stream based off the open source product somehow (then goes on to list various ways such as support, open sourcing parts of the program and closed source for the innovative part).
It sounds like this company has a good head on its shoulders and will be around awhile. Sure, there are those of us who open source for the freedom part (and this will always continue in universities, government, private individuals), but this company has figured out how to add value to a solid core business model using open source.
Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is pretty important. It's not just a simple "if its expensive, it must be good" kind of misattribution that some advocates argue. In part it's a "if everybody does it" kind of argument that actually works: "If we find it worth it to pay for this, then so do other businesses. Which means these people have a real, sustainable income stream, and a real future."
But for OSS vendors, I think the most important aspect is that the client gets a horse in the race, so to speak. As a paying client, they get a seat at the table, even if by proxy, and have a voice in what will happen with the product. They become Somebody. True, paying a developer to participate is another way - and even more influential - but if your business isn't software in the first place that is just not feasible. Paying a company to, in effect, pay developers by proxy is the next best thing.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
That only works with small products. If I'm paying genericJoeSupportGuy for Apache support, that doesn't mean that I get to influence Apache in any way. But you'd also get this with small products with closed source, as well. If you're one of only a few customers, they'll help tailor it to your wants and needs.
Re:Key point (Score:1)
Re:Key point (Score:1)
In a way, you do: you create a market for Apache support. That influences the value of the product since it creates an incentive to offer Apache support. The support people form communities, they find out what problems they need to be solved, they let Apache know what should be worked on etc. Every little helps, as the old lady said.
Re:Key point (Score:1)
I totally agree. We inherited a large number of really low revenue contracts that were locked in forever. We went to those clients and a
The point that is missed (Score:5, Insightful)
B.
Re:The point that is missed (Score:2, Insightful)
And I suspect that many many users, who didn't want to upgrade their hardware just to run the new OS and do the same activities as before gave Redmond the finger and said "Screw you!" These then went on to either upgrade to alternative operating systems, or just stayed with the 9x line and found their support from the 9x user communit
Re:The point that is missed (Score:1)
But unlike Windows, a Slackware or other Linux upgrade normally doesn't require a hardware upgrade as well. Hell, I remember when I upgraded my Debian system from a 2.4 to a 2.6 kernel. It seemed to me that I actually had a boost in performance, which to me is one major
Re:The point that is missed (Score:2)
B.
in other words (Score:1, Funny)
quality of service (Score:5, Insightful)
A business advantage is that even a halted open source project can be revived, it is always for you to use. And if some company thinks something is missing they can add it. So if you are a company dependant of open software, you want to have a thriving community behind the specific products you use in the first place, besides some support of some OSS-business.
Support first
Professionals don't neccesary care about "free" they want to have a certain level of support. So for OSS companies it's just how they can compete with the support of it's closed source rivals. I think this explains why a lot of business people still haven't really grasped the concept of open source.
product second
For a lot of people "open source" is a relatively new term. They have problems understanding it, let alone knowing what to do with it. Product / market share comparisons are a better basis to promote open software for someone who has never heard of it.
Who uses company support (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who uses company support (Score:2)
Never mind that you take the option with the dedicated support, and then find the internet better anyway; it's about having something to fall back on, that won't cost people their career. This is where the hybrid options help; by paying for some form of s
Re:Who uses company support (Score:1)
Re:Who uses company support (Score:1)
his is of course not to say that closed source suppliers may not do the same - if have first hand experienc
Re:Who uses company support (Score:1)
expert, eh, at what precisely? (Score:1, Insightful)
I have no problem with proprietary or partially open source companies.
However I can't stand companies that misrepresent themselves as open
source companies, hybrid or otherwise. Scalix consistently tries to
pass themselves off an as open source company. Yes their stuff runs
on OSS platforms, yes they probably include some OSS software and/or
libraries in their product, and sure they have an Evolution connector
that is GPL. But *most* of their s
Re:expert, eh, at what precisely? (Score:3, Insightful)
Missed the point, again... (Score:2)
All nice, and everything... But TFA missed the point, as do almost all articles about FOSS comercial viability.
With proprietary software, somebody goes out, writtes a piece of software, and try to license THEIR software to you. They need to have a good business plan if want to stay on the market. But with free software, the software is YOURS (comunitary). So, you get people to change your software to you.
That point of view, that people seem to not grasp, puts an end on that need of sucessfull FOSS busines