Bryce LiaBraaten
-------
Open source is a software development methodology. Open source software is software in which the user has much more control that traditional systems. Users of open source get access to the source code. This allows them to tailor it to their needs. Open source software is free, meaning no licensing fees, which makes it ideal for many businesses. While open source is free there are other costs that are associated with it. First you will need to have training for employees so they can utilize the resource. Also open source software, like Linux, often runs better then it’s counterparts, Microsoft Windows. Open source allows you to tailor exactly what you want do so it wastes less computer resources. While there are many benefits to open source there are some down sides. There is no support for your projects on open source. So you can’t just call the help line. This makes Open source not the ideal OS for critical functions but over time open source software is becoming much more reliable.
Open Source is one of the great ideas that have been helped immensely by the flatteners. Now with people all over the world developing Open source is coming into its own. Open source a great solution for many business. By using these new systems computing can be more efficient, because there will be less waste of resources. Open source also opens itself to a lot expansion and research by giving everyone the source code. I think this is a great idea because programmers all over the world are able to improve on open source software. This means in the future Open source may be the standard.
Darcy Cronwell
-----
Open Source is a source code to run or modify freely where you can alter to how you see fit with many different design possibilities, not like the standard proprietary software. Many companies don’t believe that Open Source is effective, they see it a “flaky, cheap and the work of amateur developers.” However, the myths of Open Source are just an excuse for businesses that are lacking in the technology world.
Just because it’s cheap does not justify its quality. Just by moving to Linux, open source software, Employease’s Alberg has seen a dramatic change in service failure and making applications run faster doubling business. Cost saving shouldn’t be a factor; it should be what is the best technology. You may to pay for training, maintenance, and support, but it keeps you away from vendors and having to upgrade and pay more money. Open Source has zero marginal cost because Open Source does not require addition licenses as it grows.
OS has large corporations of developers meaning that there is no categorized “one go-to-guy” support when something goes wrong. However, multiple sources have been proven to be helpful because being worldwide we can get support, communicate with a developer or download a patch no matter the time of day. Thomas Jinneman, IT director of RightNow Technologies justifies that “we’ve had more trouble getting support for some of our purchased commercial applications than we’ve had with open-source applications." Even with mission-critical apps, Open Source has proven to be faster and more reliable services.
Companies with an external focus, used to working collaboratively with other organizations, already using collaborative technologies, will gain much more from open source than companies with an internal focus. Even a company like Microsoft has its drawbacks, security loopholes, license fees…etc.
10 comments:
The idea that the mention of the term open source resonates free in the minds of many people is very interasting. The term open source does this to people because it is tied to breakthroughs. These are the liberation from closed software that many people wished for. Thi is why open source is tied to free because for many people open source is free-dom in the software world. For the people that crave this free-dom in the software world the amount required to put the open source software is wort it. The only problem with open source is that when people do what they came in to do they leave and so there is no real documentation of what happened. Other than this open source is like getting brciks, cement and the tools to build a house contradictory to closed source where the house is just purchased. The importance here is that the people will know the ins and outs of the software in open source although these are ins and outs that take a very long time to develop when there is a when it come to someone new becoming familiar with open source, but after that it is worth the effort.
Open Source: There's Good stuff, There's Bad stuff.
One interesting aspect of open sourse software is that even though its free there is a market for tech support. For example, Malcolm Wheatley decribes the JBoss Group that is basically the support for opensource JBoss.
Also a variety of opensource liceneses exist creating, yet again, more business for lawyers.
On another note I felt that in the summary that risk tolerance plays a significance in business open-source use but wasn't mentioned.
The author explained the myths of open source pretty well, but I am still a skeptic. Maybe it's because I don't have a whole lot of experience in IT, but I would have to run extensive tests before switching to open source software. Also, the first myth seems wrong. How can the price tag NOT be the attraction? That is the first thing I think of and would be attracted to if I were potentially switching my business to open source software.
Craig Sugiyama- Open source is a very interesting concept. The idea of allowing users to have an open code so they can modify software to fit their needs. I think there are some negatives and positive for a company that may use open source. I think that the fact that they can customize a software can be very handy as opposed to searching for one to buy. The costs of hiring the people to maintain and monitor it though may outweigh the benefits
I agree with all of Wheatley's arguments except the pricing issue. I think that price matters to most businesses and companies, and at the end everything depends on the business itself. Some businesses for example don't have "mission-critical applications"; therefore they would prefer open source applications because it's free, and so on.
Kim McNeely
I found the myth of “The savings aren’t real” to be interesting. Open source is described as free as in a free puppy, meaning that the software may be free, but that doesn’t make up for the costs in training and maintenance. However, it seems that most companies have found a substantial savings when they moved to open source. An example is Sabre Holdings, which is the company behind Travelocity. Sabre predicts that the move to open source will save the company up to tens of millions of dollars in the next few years.
Sara Supple- I found the Open Source article to be pretty interesting, although I'm not sure I agree with all the author's points. Like his first one about how even though it's free, the 'price tag is irrelevant'. That just doesn't make sense. I do understand the part about there being no support however, because when people start entering in their own code to meet specific needs they will probably run into problems, and then what? There isn't really anyone to call when something goes wrong. But overall, I thought the article was thought provoking.
After reading this article, I find that open source software is more efficent for many businesses. This is a way for businesses to use less resources. By people having the availability of source codes this creates room for growth and people to become more involoved.
the problemwith ipen source is that as a company you cannot fall back on it services. But, what if you chose to buy it as a utility that was 'open source'? could the utility provider provide the it support? i see open source as a problem especially when we learn that there may be new coding practices in the IT world.
i was used to use Linux, but actually, as it is free, it was really unstable. But, i didn't know that it also has paying version, and it's really expensive than i expected.
And i think as it is exposed to everyone, so it can be developed much better than not, like MS.
Post a Comment