COVER -> RECOMMENDED DAILY REQUIREMENT
PAID SMART - I am sure by this point both Mr.Cantarella and Rod's email boxes are overflowing with blasts, flames and other brick-bats of all sorts. It will happen as sure are the sun comes up. But let's take Mr.Cantarella's argument as TRUE. For the vast majority of users Windows and Office WORK. That is fantastic. Value is perceived and paid for accordingly.
But let us reflect on Ed's argument as to why this is perceived as the proper course for business.
- Implied liability of the provider.
- Lack of standardization.
- Repetition of work.
On point (1) what is implied? I would suggest that Mr.Cantarella consider the warranty exclusions provided in the usual software contract:
Maker does not warrant the product to suitability of purpose. The provider makes no expressed warranty to secondary damage to equipment or business processes incurred in the use of the product.
Under provisions now coming out of Virginia, the maker, should they desire to follow VA statutes, would have sufferable damages severely limited if not totally eliminated. You are left with proving negligence --- very tough to litigate.
| The World's Magazine: g21.net
Event # 213: WE LIKE THE FUNK This Pull-down Menu will hyperjump you to all our great features. Try it! JOIN THE G21 MAILING LIST. Get updates on new features. Take part in our Readership polls, shape the future of The World's Magazine. It's easy! E-mail The World's Magazine with the "Subject" line: SUBSCRIBE. Want to know more about our community? The Info is here. LAST WEEK's EDITION For Deep Background visit the G21-Barnes & Noble Shop OR get great books at the G21 BARNES & NOBLE SEARCH ENGINE Discover the MOIA Discussion List |
As a practical matter, the average small business owner has little chance of waging a court case against the top ten IT companies. If DOJ has yet to dent the Microsoft armor your individual business has little chance indeed. For a practical matter then the small business owner is already "flying naked" as to limited liability. If that is the case, the Open Source movement has as good a chance as any business model.
As to point (2) Open Source will likely continue to be perceived as lagging behind in this arena. The commercial enterprise products are tightly controlled and have applied methodologies for testing, and release. But consider:
- Microsoft, Oracle et. al. all have continuous updates going on all the time. Do not service packs constitute nothing more than a recall disguised as an enhancement? Auto makers call it what it is --- an error. Office 2000 is not backward compatible with all the file formats of previous versions, most notably Access.
- In the Open Source arena the role of standardization is being filled with the likes of RedHat and Caldera (with due considerations of others). These entities are implemented as commercial enterprises no less than Microsoft or Oracle. The package pricing is the entry price to have that level of standardization. By abiding by a rigorous introduction and package update policy from the likes of the firms mentioned the success rate for standardization will most likely equal that of Microsoft and Oracle.
Point (3) is curious for it's perspective. For who is it repetitious? For the development community certainly. Open Source follows the "Bazaar" model of development. Many will be the great idea that fails due to lack of architectural forethought or not enough community interest.
But for the end user this is a different story. Proper selection of packages can mitigate this issue. There are many Open Source products that have a long legacy, WordPerfect 8 being a prime example. Don't accept the first release. Apply some discipline to what is introduced into the computing environment. Stick with applications that are signified as compatible with the kernel package provider.
What is the theme here? For the small business owner:
- Computational and data management risks are now part of the business risk equation. Do not expect the software houses to mitigate that risk for you. Your access to limited liability via a third party is minimal.
- Utilize the tools provided by your provider of choice(s) in a consistent manner. Package images for replication of multiple systems. Utilize networks to manage all systems in a systematic integrated method.
- Practice safe computing.
- Stay with a single OS provider.
- Select known stable packages.
- "Play" on a test box, thou shall leave production inviolate.
- Backup critical systems on a regular schedule.
- Hire a consultant when appropriate. Paying for the expertise of a computer professional is no different than your banker, broker or other suppliers.
- Treat your data as gold. The tapes you hold in your hand can be placed on new machines. Lose your accounts receivable and you really won't care what OS you are running --- you're out of business, Ed.
And the Future?
In a curious turn of events Open Source may just become the provider of choice in the future. Certain business drivers will tip slowly in its favor:The legal landscape is shifting the liability to the end user. Under that environment Open Source is a contender.
Due to the "Bazaar" nature of the Open Source movement, little likelihood of a product or service being co-opted by a single provider.
Support by the Linux OS providers can be acquired under the provisions similar to those by the major OS/Application providers.
Use of GPL licensing will likely sidestep the UCC issues associated with commercial software. Aside, the user of Open Source would not really care anyway.
Major Asian players are opting for Linux/Unix as the OS platform of choice. Internalization by overseas entities may be a bigger opportunity for the Open Source movement and the small business owner in general.
The lack of source (whether used or not) places enterprises at risk of losing services when the provider goes to the Internet web page in the sky. Access to the source on disk is an insurance policy of last resort. This is so critical that Fortune 500 companies negotiate third party escrow provisions to software source in all software contracts. You, the little guy, can't afford it and will not likely have access as a practical matter.
Reliability of Unix is a known quantity. GUI interfaces can hide the intricate command interface like it did for DOS.
Support for Linux as a certification path for technical staff is reaching critical mass. This is important to the business owner in that there is a pool of talent available to manage systems as part of the support equation. Documentation for Open Source software is now considered world class. O'Riley has made a mark in this arena as the premier publisher of Unix documentation.
The nature of the computing environment is changing. Long term, purchase of commercial software is becoming a losing proposition with continually escalating costs. Programs are becoming increasingly complex requiring large program teams to develop, edit, debug and validate the systems. These costs are passed on to the consumer. If team size becomes a critical component of future development cycles, Open Source will be a dominant factor. Open Source can shorten the edit-debug-validate cycle considerably. Costs are minimized in the Open Source model in that the test-debug cycle can be supported using Îcontributed' labor that is off balance sheet.
In close I would like to paraphrase an IBM idiom: "Nobody has been audited by the SPA for using Open Source!"
RDR RECOMMENDED SITE OF THE DAY: Check Al-Ahram, my newspaper of choice when I lived in Egypt.
