Kirstan has something to say about Open Source in his blog which you can find at:
http://soapragmatist.blogspot.com/ <<In these days of recession and shrinking IT budgets, development groups are forced to do more with less. This appears to be an opportunity for growth for Open Source projects, as companies find it difficult to purchase products, or even expand use of products they currently own. Open source products are available to assist in implementations of a wide range of IT problems. And with a very low cost of entry, development groups can kick the tires, and even implement an entire project, without awaiting the decision of an enterprise architecture group or budget committee. In a recent meeting with AMR Research, analyst Dave Brown talked about "Long Tail" effects within IT, where large, mainstream projects are still getting funding, but the large number of smaller, tactical projects are left to fend for themselves. This is exactly where Open Source can make the biggest impactÂ… the large number of tactical projects going on within a company, often "flying under the radar" of the corporate enterprise architects. And it is not just the stealth projects benefiting from Open Source. Many projects designated as "tactical" or short term solutions have the flexibility to select the most expedient solution, which often turns out to include Open Source. I discussed Long Tail effects in the creation of services here. So, in addition to areas where Open Source has a solid beachhead, like Linux usage for corporate servers, it certainly appears that Open Source is making additional headway, filling many nooks and crannies in the IT development space.>> It would be interesting to read the thoughts of those of you who work for proprietary software vendors! Gervas --- In [email protected], "Gervas Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There has been much commentary in various blogs about the respective > advantages of Open Source and Proprietary SOA software tools. Most of > the commentary seems to be in favour of Open Source with such points > being made as: > > (1) It is cheaper in TCO terms, as well as obvious licence expenses; > > (2) It tends to perform certain well defined functions while avoiding > bloatware overheads; > > (3) It tends not to be a jumble of software stacks shoved together in > an unwieldy mass as a result of post-acquisition consolidation. > > However, the major vendors are still in business and often have a > loyal following among major customers. It would be interesting to > hear the arguments on both sides, particularly from the proprietary > camp, which could be judged as needing to articulate its case more > clearly. > > Gervas > > PS I am neutral about the aforementioned points. >
