Lack of support for open source applications remains a barrier to adoption, but this is gradually changing, says OpenLogic CTO Ron Cope. In this interview, Cope discusses these and other open source issues, and talks about his company’s upcoming product announcements at this week’s LinuxWorld conference.
It is a pretty quick read and a decent interview. FYI: The title is somewhat misleading; vendor lock-in was breifly mentioned.
An excerpt from the beginning of the article is given below. It shows how the lack of standard systems is hurting Linux today. Without standard systems, each flavor of Linux and Linux company does not work well with other flavors. So the customer ends up with major increases in support costs.
What do you see as their biggest barriers to deploying mission-critical open source software?
Cope: The biggest barrier corporate IT shops have in deploying mission-critical open source is the lack of supported choice. That is to say it’s relatively easy to go with a single vendor that provides everything, like IBM, and take one of each thing they sell, but it’s more difficult to avoid vendor lock-in, choose what’s best for them, and still get support.
For example, almost every shop is unique in that there’s always those one or two extra open source pieces they want to use that make them different from other shops, or they choose to assemble a stack that doesn’t quite fit any particular vendor’s sweet spot. As the one-size-fits-all approach clearly doesn’t work, they need to have vendors work across boundaries and support, such as Apache with JBoss with PostgreSQL.
How would you say that Linux on the server stacks up against Windows today?
Cope: I would say that Linux is more stable, but Windows still has the advantage of easy-to-use GUI’s, documentation, and availability of training and certification. Over time, Linux will continue to make in-roads as each of these areas is addressed while maintaining a lower TCO.
CIOs need to start using open source now, even if it’s just for departmental applications at first, so they can work through the special opportunities and challenges that come with open source before tackling future enterprise-wide deployments in a rush.
This assumes that a commercial product can’t do everything Linux can do totally circumventing any need for a rushed enterprise-wide deployment of Linux. Most IT shops have no need for Linux becasue commercial unix does everything they need on an existing investment. Why would anyone want to “work through” open source special challenges? for no clear advantage?
This assumes that a commercial product can’t do everything Linux can do totally circumventing any need for a rushed enterprise-wide deployment of Linux. Most IT shops have no need for Linux becasue commercial unix does everything they need on an existing investment. Why would anyone want to “work through” open source special challenges? for no clear advantage?
Because every executive needs some project in his back pocket for how he is trying to save money for the company. Even if it is total bullshit, the hype of Linux is “free”. So the exec will fund a back burner Linux project or two.
It’s all part of the deception that is called “management”.