OStatic

While we've all been speculating about whether Dell is working on Android netbooks, the computer hardware and software vendor was busy bundling open source applications to offer to small- and medium-sized business (SMB) customers looking for low cost alternatives to commercial software. The pre-configured SMB-in-a-box software is only available in the U.S. for now, but Dell expects to lauch a similar offering in Asia by the end of 2009.

Shortly after firing up my laptop, located just a hair closer to the State House in Boston than the Route 128 Technology Corridor that winds around Waltham, I stumbled across an opinion piece by Black Duck Software's Peter Vescuso for Mass High Tech on the financial benefits of open source. While Vescuso's Massachusetts-centric angle is due to Black Duck's location and the recent rumblings that the state is losing its tech edge, his points are pertinent to any geographic region and take a holistic look at the financial benefits of open source.

It got me thinking. Industries and markets are inextricably linked, and when one experiences a significant downturn, it ripples through connected markets, and the markets connected to those markets. Vescuso touches on the financial benefits of open source software -- the infrastructure is already there, established, and strong, and the open, accessible code eliminates wheel re-invention, allowing developers to innovate and experiment.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that IBM is currently in talks to purchase Sun Microsystems. The acquisition is not a foregone conclusion, due in part to the very different corporate cultures in the companies. Some believe this tension will ultimately help both companies succeed, if they can just get through the talks.

The acquisition could take place as early as this week, and it is speculated that IBM could pay over $6.5 billion for Sun. Sun's recent financials have been more than a little disappointing, and this purchase would take a toll on IBM's profits in the short term. Business isn't solely about the short term, however, and I can't help but agree with the WSJ, CNet's Matt Asay, and at least a few of those involved in the talks that this acquisition would be a positive one for IBM, Sun, and open source in general.

Recently, Black Duck Software conducted a survey of developers to ascertain what they know about open source software, and how they've used it in their workplaces.

While it's important to keep in mind that the survey consisted of about 50 participants at companies that were vastly different in size (ranging from less than 20 to more than 10,000 employees), and that Black Duck is in the business of servicing managed and secure open source deployments, there are still valid bits of information to take away from the results.

Information Week highlights some of the more interesting statistics the Black Duck surveyors collected. Even if the percentages in this impromptu survey would vary with a larger survey pool, the data is so vastly different it's safe to say there's a disturbing trend: Companies often take a hands off approach to managing open source software.

Last month, I covered some of the reasons why companies contribute less often to open source projects, and some possible reasons why. It's an intriguing topic not only because it highlights how groups approach projects differently than individuals, but because it is so pertinent to the growth of open source software. As more household name companies begin using and developing products that utilize open source software, a new demographic will get the opportunity to experience (and hopefully, embrace) the new products and their different, open, approach.

The GNOME Foundation's Executive Director, Stormy Peters, offers advice to companies interested in actively collaborating in the open source world. Her post outlines the basics of her talk at OSiM USA.

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.

There was an interesting write up on Forbes.com this week discussing who contributes most to open source projects -- and why. Even though many open source projects have a commercial or institutional component that contributes some degree of direction (or funding) to software development, and even though many businesses and institutions use open source software regularly, the vast majority of contributions to these projects come from individuals.

Forbes' Dan Woods, after hearing Alfresco's Matt Asay and Eclipse's Ian Skerrett speak of this contributor gap, concluded that there must be something very different about how institutions contribute.

I'm not above admitting that I wish I'd thought of this before Dave Neary. This week, Neary called for input from businesses that have migrated from Windows and closed software to open alternatives.

Neary intends on assembling the responses as a series of case studies, with each study addressing a different stage in the migration process. Neary's request isn't industry-specific, and from the description of topics he'd like to cover, businesses with some degree of hybridization are invited to share their experiences.

Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, and the analysts at RedMonk presented the results of a recent survey conducted on Ubuntu's use in server deployments. Nearly 7,000 people (representing the same number of organizations) participated in the survey, which was promoted on Ubuntu's web site and several Linux server-specific forums.

Canonical's marketing head, Gerry Carr, says that the survey is essential reading for any organization using (or considering using) Ubuntu's Server Edition. After taking a closer look at the survey, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in current server technologies, or where the server market is headed -- even if Ubuntu Server isn't part of the equation.

The Marketcetera team is as aware as the rest of us that economic changes are coming fast and furious, and that open source software can have an impact on a company's -- or individual's -- financial future. Honestly, one could say Marketcetera is twice as aware of open source software's financial potential.

Today, Marketcetera released the first full production release of its open source automated trading platform. Aimed at hedge fund managers, traders, brokers and dealers, the system is standardized, open, scalable and modular. This, says Marketcetera CEO Graham Miller, offers users faster deployments, better integration, and the ability to customize everything from the public APIs to data models.