Losing the Chains of Proprietary Lock-Ins
by Kristin Shoemaker - Feb. 20, 2009Comments (0)- Related Blog Posts
- Over 10 Open Source Cloud Computing Tools and Resources
- Training and Support: Still Key to Enterprise Open Source Adoption
- Linux Prospects, Post-Windows 7
- Open-Xchange and SugarCRM Join Forces to Integrate and Share Data
- Windows (L)users Are People, Too
If you ask a hundred different people why they use open source software, you're likely to receive at least fifty very different reasons. The responses might range from the ethical and philosophical to stark "bottom line" financial reasons. If you tell a hundred different people that don't use open source software why they should, using the responses given by the first group, it's likely that most won't immediately, aggressively, start seeking out open source alternatives to the software they use on a daily basis. There might be an interest, but not a pressing one. There's likely to be a healthy percentage of that second group who are just outright puzzled by the reasons given. It's not simply the philosophical ideas that puzzle them -- I've found that those who don't use open source software, or who haven't yet explored the ways "free as in speech" interacts and relates with "free as in beer," the financial reasons are just as ambiguous.
A good number of people (and organizations) using open source software are quite happy with the price tag (or lack thereof) but find the idea of "open" code inconsequential ("We don't have programmers, we'll never modify this"). The money saved comes from the low cost of the software, and if it should no longer meet the company's criteria, it's time to choose another application.
This perception is selling open source software short. Matt Asay at CNet has a good write up about this idea, and one I think can be taken even one step further.
Asay's piece centers around an article the Times UK published recently. A quote by Michael Tiemann of the Open Source Initiative and Red Hat declared that the era of "proprietary software lock-in" was over.
Asay says that he, like many in the industry, thought that open source software could never really take hold in highly specialized, niche industries. Many figured there simply wasn't enough financial incentive, or experts in specialized fields who were able to aid in the application development process (or, conversely, developers who had enough expertise in specialized fields to write applications). It's turned out that in most instances, it's not the case.
Tiemann says that because of this, most industries have no real, compelling reason they must keep using proprietary software. He says open source code is a wonderfully concrete way of measuring an application's ability to deliver. He says being locked in to any application is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
He's right, of course. Open source alternatives often save businesses (and individuals) money, especially over time. But I think he's brushing over one of the strongest assets of open source -- one that directly impacts the bottom line, one that makes the "free as in speech" argument as immediately compelling to hardcore businessmen as it does software developers.
There's no lock-in with open source applications. And in some way, open source applications never really die. Support and maintenance might stop on a project, but the code is always there. When a proprietary application is put to rest, its users must convert any content created in the software's native format to one that can be read by another application. This might be a mere inconvenience if the new application can work with the converted files in the same way as the program that created them. Often, though, content can't be converted well (or at all), and it must be recreated in some way, or kept on a machine that must now run the outdated software -- forever.
Open source applications attempt to make migrating content a less painful process. There might still be hiccups in data migration, but there tends to be less time and cost involved (and better data conversion success rates) than one finds with some proprietary migrations. And though maintenance might stop, because the source code is always there, it's possible to keep content accessible in a "native" environment until the content owners are truly satisfied with the conversion tools they have.
There are monetary savings stemming from lower cost software and from not being tied to a software suite due to contracts and licensing. Savings can come from accurate, faster data conversions and migrations. The biggest benefit isn't just measured in currency -- the applications you use, and the content you create with them, doesn't become prisoner to one platform, or the one remaining machine that is able to run them.
Comments
