> From: Austin Godber > Here is a snip from a slashdot thread today > (the one about MS Office). > I am wondering if this is a good summary of > business attitudes, and if > so, how should opensource deal with it? > > ---- > The reason that they [businesses] won't touch > OSS is because they > perceive risk to their careers in going with > it. It's not that OSS is > more or less buggy, it's a matter of them > having to take the blame if it > goes badly. If you buy from a proprietary > software vendor, then you've > got somebody that you are paying, that you can > yell at if things go > wrong. The decision to use their software won't > ever be questioned, and > either they'll be made to fix it, or another > vendor will be chosen. The > decision to pick that vendor will likely never > be questioned as long as > the manager can show some due diligence in > making the decision. > > On the other hand, if they choose an open > source product, if there is a > bug, there's nobody to pass the buck too. So > the manager is taking on > the burden of responsibility if that software > does have bugs in it. > He'll be perceived as exposing the company to > unnecessary risk just to > save a few bucks. > > This is part of an overall attitude problem in > corporate america. > Managers, generally, suffer more for a mistake > than they gain for a > success. Success is expected, that's doing your > job. Failure is > incompetence. Of course failure caused by an > effort to get the company > ahead of the game is still failure, so why take > the risk. Hire > contractors, and pay for software vendors > because if there is a mistake > you just dump the blame onto them, cut ties, > and your job is secure. The questions Austin asks are: 1. is a good summary of business attitudes? 2. how should opensource deal with it? My experience as the "Senior Techie" at a mid-sized American corporation ($2.5B) is the answer to #1 is yes, in many cases. A lot of this is the PERCEPTION that many middle and upper level IT managers have. But this is breaking up and more and more, and OSS is being considered increasingly legitimate. Backing by IBM and others is helping change this perception. In response to #2, (and a response here is very important! We all need to work on this) several people have hit on important ideas. From my experience, to those who are scared of risking OSS, one needs to emphasize that today's proprietary software really does NOT provide you with ANY legal recourse. You can't sue MS because they have a known security hole and they don't patch it. Or if there software doesn't work - there's just nothing legal you can do. Put any modern EULA in front of the chickens and read it together. Discuss real-life experiences with software failures. This is basically an issue of PERCEPTION. It SEEMS like there is more recourse against proprietary software. In reality, there is little difference. As far as technical support, proprietary software sometimes has the edge, sometimes not. If you have a problem with Exchange, you can call MS IT Pro "Pay Per Incident" support for $245 and they will stick with you until the problem is either resolved or it is determined the problem is not with the MS product. If you run postfix or sendmail or qmail or any other well-established OS product, you will get very fast response times on the mailing lists, but you won't get to hear a soothing voice. Lesser known and used OSS is sometimes tougher to get help on. But I would take the free maillist support of a major OSS product than a $245 call to MS anyday. The mail list gives me access to many wizards all at once. Also I think if managers go with OSS *JUST* to save $, they are more at risk of critcism if there is a problem. If they support their decisions because of known problems with proprietary software or with known advantages of OSS, they will have firmer ground to stand on. They should be made aware of these differences. Good luck in your own battles against FUD, /scott . __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com