--- In [email protected], Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@...> wrote: > > Hi Sanjiva, > > I know that most open source have 24x365 support. It's just that most large > customer feel more comfortable with support from the large companies like > IBM and Oracle. The major reasoning is that there is less chance of large > company going out of business soon.
Rather as we would have thought about General Motors and Lehman Brothers a couple of years ago?? Open Source is changing the business paradigm. It is probably those large software houses who are mainly dependent on huge licence fees that are looking the most vulnerable strategically. IBM to their credit have seen this coming for some time, hence they being the first major player to shift the emphasis from hardware and software licences to services. Gervas The economic conditions are changing and > this is actually a false premise, but it difficult to change how people > feel. > I think the open source business is actually in a different market until it > reaches maturity such as Apache has. I just met a person in the cloud market > and found he was having some technical difficulties which I think an open > source software can solve. I'll try to build a prototype of the solution and > see how the users and market react. > > Cheers, > H.Ozawa > > 2009/12/13 Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanj...@...> > > > > > > > Ozawa-san, I think most of the open source technologies Dion listed have > > companies offering 24x7x365 support. > > > > In our case (WSO2), we consistently get customer feedback about how our > > support is MUCH BETTER than that offered by Oracle, IBM etc.. And yes, we > > take full blame too if something goes wrong, even though often its the > > customer's own doing. > > > > Its pure myth to say that going with open source SOA means there's no > > support. You just have to pick the right one :-). > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Hitoshi Ozawa <htshoz...@...>wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Enjoyable article, but I think the article a little short-sighted in > >> implicitly expressing that technology such as SOAP is sufficient for > >> interoperability. > >> The question with open-source solution is the quality and whether there is > >> a good 24x365 hour support. It's also ironical, but even if the vendor > >> solution requires many months to resolve defects, it's preferred over open > >> source solutions because there's a clear party where blame can be placed. > >> :-) > >> > >> H.Ozawa > >> > >> 2009/12/12 Gervas Douglas <gervas.doug...@...> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> <<It's a truism that you don't have to buy software to deliver on SOA, > >>> which is primarily a style of technical architecture and business strategy > >>> and isn't really something you can go out and purchase. > >>> > >>> But it's also true that enabling software can make the job of delivering > >>> on SOA 10x easier. Or on occasion, though hopefully not, much worse (10x > >>> harder.) But if software can indeed really help make the transition to SOA > >>> faster and easier, then the situation today is increasingly becoming a > >>> head-to-head competition between commercial and open source SOA > >>> solutions.. > >>> > >>> It should be pointed out that the technical support for SOA, at least in > >>> terms of creating interoperable services, has long been built into most > >>> modern development stacks today, whether that is .NET, J2EE, and to a > >>> lesser > >>> degree even the now-rapidly proliferating cloud computing platforms. > >>> > >>> However -- especially when it comes to the full spectrum of SOA > >>> requirements -- no pure play development platform has it all when it comes > >>> to the technical capabilities of the modern SOA with its need for many > >>> flavors of service, management, metering, security, and the need to easily > >>> connect to hundreds of types of underlying datasets. This means that > >>> despite > >>> whatever technology platforms you're using today, you'll either need to > >>> develop additional SOA capabilities, buy them, or increasingly, adopt a > >>> community-based solution. > >>> > >>> [image: SOA Success Formula: Business Architecture + Interoperability + > >>> Governance] > >>> > >>> Thus many of today's enterprise-class SOA efforts have made investments > >>> of some kind in software to support development, testing, security, > >>> management, and governance across today's service-oriented architecture > >>> spectrum. Credible open source alternatives to commercial SOA products > >>> have > >>> been emerging for quite a while now but I'm only now seeing a relatively > >>> sudden and noticeable uptick in both interest in as well as the > >>> completeness > >>> of the offerings themselves. > >>> > >>> Part of this is no doubt the recession and is due to cost sensitivity, > >>> but the rest is the compelling nature and maturity of the latest open > >>> source > >>> SOA offerings. The transparency of and ability to influence open source > >>> projects continues to be no small factor either as implementers struggle > >>> with more opaque less-frequently updated commercial products.. > >>> > >>> Since SOA can and should be highly strategic to the way companies operate > >>> at their core, deciding to build on community-built solutions can feel > >>> like > >>> a big step that is rife with implications for those who may have to bet > >>> their career on their SOA decisions. This brings us full circle back to > >>> the > >>> title of this piece: Is open source, a world that's more steeped in the > >>> sometimes anti-establishment free software movement and consumer Web > >>> development, really going to deliver on the increasingly sophisticated > >>> requirements of serious "big enterprise" SOA efforts? > >>> > >>> The answer is, as with many complex issues, "it depends." > >>> > >>> To understand if open source can provide additional value to SOA today > >>> over commercial products we have to consider where it helps improve some > >>> key > >>> aspects of SOA. From my perspective, there are generally three top level > >>> requirements for a successful SOA effort: > >>> > >>> - *Business architecture*. If you are creating services but with no > >>> strategic plan, you're just doing low-level integration. It still has > >>> value > >>> but the big gains in SOA come from a resilient, adaptive global plan > >>> implemented locally -- see my piece on fixing modern enterprise > >>> > >>> architecture<http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/09/fixing_enterprise_architecture.php>for > >>> more details -- that gives the whole organization a way of thinking > >>> about a component-based business that is shared, pluggable, > >>> connectable, > >>> reusable, and highly evolvable. Tools have limited impact to this key > >>> aspect > >>> of SOA but some modeling, repository, and policy solutions can > >>> certainly > >>> help. Open source is not very strong in these places for SOA yet > >>> (though if > >>> I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it in comments below.) > >>> - *Interoperability.* This is *the* core way that SOA delivers its > >>> value by enabling reusable business services and data, pulling down > >>> silos > >>> along the way. Without this the higher order functions such as BPM and > >>> orchestration can't be achieved. In my experience there are a > >>> surprisingly > >>> large number of enemies to interoperability including standards > >>> themselves > >>> sometimes, which in the SOA space are many and varied and complied with > >>> differently. Most know I'm increasingly of the view that simple > >>> services enable the most value > >>> creation<http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/10/the_services_continuum_expandi.php>, > >>> but either way, open source vendors now can deliver on all but the most > >>> advanced interoperability requirements (toolkit variations, programming > >>> language/platform support, service types such as SOAP and REST, schema > >>> incompatibility) and to a lesser extent QoS, governance, and some > >>> security > >>> requirements. > >>> - *Governance.* Software support for activities related to exercising > >>> control over services in an SOA is one part of governance. This > >>> function, > >>> like business architecture, is only partially a technical one and while > >>> tools can certainly help, this is one area where open source is still > >>> fairly > >>> weak. > >>> > >>> So for now, open source is fairly limited in two of the three top level > >>> aspects of SOA while being strongest in the actual implementation of > >>> services and process automation. In this realm, the only place that open > >>> source SOA seems significantly limited at the moment is in the number of > >>> adapters to different back-end enterprise data sources and in open source > >>> mashup development tools. This, unfortunately, is one of the critical > >>> barriers to tapping into the value of SOA and so for now, I'd give open > >>> source a qualified yes as part of a mature SOA strategy with the caveat > >>> that > >>> it's not possible to build a fully open source enterprise SOA stack today. > >>> > >>> The bottom line here is that open source solutions can provide real value > >>> to SOA efforts today, both in terms of reductions in up-front cost as well > >>> as other the attendant benefits of open source including the ability to > >>> directly influence product evolution, more transparent architecture, as > >>> long > >>> as its functional strengths in service fabric are clearly understood and > >>> respected. > >>> > >>> *Related: Where is SOA headed? Where the Web > >>> Goes...<http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/09/where_is_soa_heading_where_the.php> > >>> * > >>> > >>> As for the future, I believe it's highly likely the open source will > >>> continue to encroach on the commercial SOA space especially on the more > >>> technical aspects of the practice. But for the foreseeable future, > >>> commercial solutions with strong integration with other commercial > >>> products, > >>> as well as governance software that also has strong commercial product > >>> awareness, will continue to have a sustained and significant advantage. If > >>> your organization is already far down the road on implementing an open > >>> source software strategy, then you will probably find open source SOA > >>> about > >>> to hit prime time for you and unlikely to fail to meet your needs in the > >>> medium to long term. However, companies with a strong COTS presence in > >>> their > >>> application portfolios will have to be much more careful to ensure their > >>> open source tools can play well and deeply integrate with their data. > >>> > >>> *Sidebar:* Software AG's Chief Strategist Miko Matsumura replied to a > >>> Twitter query I issued on open source SOA today, summarizing the current > >>> situation in a pithy way that only 140 characters can enforce: "*my > >>> opinion on Open Source SOA stuff--upfront cost=A++ infrastructure=B+ > >>> (great > >>> standards support poor adapters) governance D-.*" Well said. > >>> > >>> What are good examples of open source SOA? I encourage you to take a look > >>> at Apache Tuscany <http://tuscany.apache.org/%22>, Apache > >>> Synapse<http://synapse.apache.org/>, > >>> FUSE <http://fusesource.com/>, JBOSS Open Source > >>> SOA<http://www.jboss.com/products/platforms/soa/>, > >>> jBPM <http://www.jboss.org/jbossjbpm/>, > >>> Drools<http://www.jboss.org/drools/>, > >>> Esper <http://esper.codehaus.org/>, Petals <http://petals.ow2.org/>, and > >>> all of the WSO2 suite <http://wso2.org/>. > >>> > >>> *Are you exploring open source SOA? Why or why not?>>* > >>> *You can read this at: > >>> http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/12/is_the_future_of_soa_open_sour.php > >>> > >>> Gervas* > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > > Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; > > http://www.opensource.lk/ > > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > > > > Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > > > > > >
