From: David Gibbs
*** REPLYING TO A THREAD IN MIDRANGE-L ***
See, I had a hard time figuring out where to put this. I almost went with
PC_TECH, but with the availability of PHP more and more Open Source will be
loaded on System i machines, and of course most of those systems, at least
in our business niche, need to deal with midrange computers for their
back-end data.
I think that any discussion of Open Source is technical in nature, though,
isn't it? So I didn't think it fit here, either. That's why I ended up
putting it in MIDRANGE-L. Oh well, you're the arbiter.
Personally, I consider the phrases "Open Source" and "Out of the box"
mutually exclusive when it comes to web applications.
This, unfortunately, puts you in an ever-dwindling minority, at least at the
C-executive level. Of course, the idea that software is componentized is
one of the driving forces behind outsourcing as well, so every outsourcing
firm continues to push the plug and play mantra as well.
Anytime you setup an open source web application, you really need to
have a through understanding of what you are doing. And your
implementation plan needs to have plenty of time allocated to a beta
('course that goes for any application really).
And yet, we don't see that, *ESPECIALLY* when it comes to web presence.
Since web presence is still considered an expense by many companies, and a
non-critical one at that, the cost of spending time actually testing is
considered to be wasted money. This is exacerbated by the many gazillions
of consultants out there who will sell you phpBB or Joomla or whatever
without really understanding the difference between a World of Warcraft fan
site and a business web presence.
I'm sorry, but software at that level of fragility would never have
made it out the door in the 80s and even the early 90s.
The thing about open source software is that it is generally subject to
"Technical Darwinism" ... if there is fragility in the system, and
people notice it, it will get fixed fairly quickly (especially if the
application is popular).
I think my comment is less about the software itself, although the fact that
some Open Source software is continually in a state of beta release
(especially at the leading edge) makes me question its suitability for
mission-critical business systems. Business systems are different than user
applications. Technical Darwinism implies that you're using the software
the same way everyone else is, and while that's probably fairly true for end
users, it's actually the opposite of what often happens in the corporate
world.
This is especially true when you use software for purposes other than that
which it was originally intended (which certainly describes just about every
business system I've ever seen). Since your particular problem may be
unique to your company, you may not get the fast response time that a more
popular fix might get, and frankly you have no recourse at that point other
than fixing it yourself. Here Darwinism actually plays against you.
I guess in some ways my comment is probably more directed towards the
concept of companies thinking they can contract a one-time cost for a
consultant to build their site and then hope that it will just continue to
run. If your site is anything more business-oriented than a blog with an
RSS feed, then you're going to have to budget for a person to maintain,
upgrade and enhance the site. This may not be a full-time employee, but it
should probably be someone in your organization because contractors,
especially web contractors, seem to have a habit of leaving the field.
I'll be interested to hear what others think.
Joe
midrange.com
