Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It's hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice's scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what's happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets -- and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
Thread beginning with comment 453455
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The problem is finding support contracts for Alfresco.

We looked at using Alfresco and/or Umbraco and we couldn't find many companies to provide support. When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't acceptable. Also Umbraco (especially) has very little functionality without any 3rd party components. The problem is that we won't be able to support for these 3rd party components.

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

However there were plenty of companies which supported sharepoint, and there was more functionality out of the box.

Edited 2010-12-14 11:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

The problem is finding support contracts for Alfresco.

We looked at using Alfresco and/or Umbraco and we couldn't find many companies to provide support. When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't acceptable. Also Umbraco (especially) has very little functionality without any 3rd party components. The problem is that we won't be able to support for these 3rd party components.

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

However there were plenty of companies which supported sharepoint, and there was more functionality out of the box.

There is a difference here in the way the two worlds operation. Yes I can understand why its hard to get at first when you don't compare fairly.

http://www.alfresco.com/services/subscription/ Alfresco sells support directly with even requirements for rapid responce..

Now can you buy support for Microsoft Sharepoint from Microsoft answer no you cannot. So you must use third parties.

RedHat also provides global support contracts that cover Alfresco. Both Redhat and Alfresco will do patches on Alfresco without waiting for upstream merging if it will address client issues.

Redhat is a support specialist also the Redhat path integrates in JBoss as well http://www.jboss.org/.

umbraco support is basically nothing so I can understand you not touching that.

Now please be truthful. Who is going to be able to fix up Sharepoint bugs for you and not have to wait for upstream to fix. Answer no one.

So please explain why this is a problem.
When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't
Since this is exactly what you have to put up with using sharepoint. So comparing equally Sharepoint is not suitable for your business either.

List of what Sharepoint lacks compare to Alfresco.
1)There is no direct support contract option. So requiring rapid response to software issues. Yes you can pay Alfresco for 24 hour support and bug fixes ASP.
2)There is no option to higher your own coders if a problem is 100 percent critical to be fix ASP.
3)There is no options to use specialists like Redhat to provide 24 hour coder assistance.

So what is your problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There is a difference here in the way the two worlds operation. Yes I can understand why its hard to get at first when you don't compare fairly.

http://www.alfresco.com/services/subscription/ Alfresco sells support directly with even requirements for rapid responce..

Now can you buy support for Microsoft Sharepoint from Microsoft answer no you cannot. So you must use third parties.


There are plenty of Microsoft Gold Partners in the uk, for Alfresco there is only alfresco. Lets face it Microsoft are not going anywhere tomorrow. Who knows about Alfresco.

RedHat also provides global support contracts that cover Alfresco. Both Redhat and Alfresco will do patches on Alfresco without waiting for upstream merging if it will address client issues.

Redhat is a support specialist also the Redhat path integrates in JBoss as well http://www.jboss.org/.

umbraco support is basically nothing so I can understand you not touching that.[q]

We don't have any in house experience with Redhat Linux, JBOSS, Apache, Apache Tomcat, MySQL or Postgres.

We however have extensive in house experience with Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2005/8 and IIS. Also we need these solutions to work with Microsoft Active Directory.

[q]Now please be truthful. Who is going to be able to fix up Sharepoint bugs for you and not have to wait for upstream to fix. Answer no one.

When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't
Since this is exactly what you have to put up with using sharepoint. So comparing equally Sharepoint is not suitable for your business either.

List of what Sharepoint lacks compare to Alfresco.
1)There is no direct support contract option. So requiring rapid response to software issues. Yes you can pay Alfresco for 24 hour support and bug fixes ASP.
2)There is no option to higher your own coders if a problem is 100 percent critical to be fix ASP.
3)There is no options to use specialists like Redhat to provide 24 hour coder assistance.

So what is your problem.


Any software defects that are that critical to Sharepoint or ASP.NET will be so big that pretty much every customer will be affected, not just us. So a patch will be out pretty quick.

Also any problem that big should/would be caught before deploy, because we would have to extensively test Sharepoint before initial deploy and before any upgrades are made.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.


This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.

If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers. Once again your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Fill your boots.

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.

Edited 2010-12-14 12:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?


Sharepoint we can get support for, we cannot get adequate support for OpenSource alternatives.

There are plenty of Microsoft Certified Partners which we can find support contracts with ... so we have plenty of choice.

Also because we are a charity, Microsoft and Google give us a significant discount (90%+) on their software (and in google's case Hardware).

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.


Again, we must have a support contract. We cannot find anyone to support us.

We do not have the resources in house to support it.

For example we use Oracle, SQL Server 2005/2008, Windows Server 2003 R2 and IIS, our current Admins do not have any know say PostgresSQL (MySQL does not have any GIS capabilities), Apache and Linux.

Using LAPP stack will be most likely be more costly since we have to migrate our current software and skillset over. This cost is minute compared to the licensing costs from Microsoft.

If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers.


[sarcasm]Yes we can just write our own, because writing software is so simple.[/sarcasm]

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.


When I did work for a software house, MIT/BSD licenses were acceptable and any license where we didn't have to "give the code back".

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.

GPL isn't a one size fits all solution. I wish you would stop pretending it is.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

Who cares what redistribution license is used for internal stuff like this? Since you never redistribute the code to anyone the GPL is simply irrelevant.

Edited 2010-12-14 13:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.


If you are a user of the product, you have nothing to worry about when dealing with GPL. Even if you might want to sell the whole product to someone else.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

This is an honest question; why was GPL not acceptable for your business? What industry are you in and what restrictions or management issues arose around GPL? Was it only GPL or all FOSS licenses (I could see GPL being an issue where MIT or BSD was not).

Reply Parent Score: 3