7 reasons why serious companies avoid open source

If you ever wondered why companies use Windows, MS Office and other commercial products instead of open source alternatives, here's the explanation: archive.is/P7wfl#10%

Other urls found in this thread:

cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

well opensource servers tend to be more expensive in the long run

The reason is actually quite a lot simpler than the article you've posted and A. Tannenbaum (the author and developer of MINIX operating system) addressed it in his Open letter to Intel. cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

Quoting:
>Also a hint was the discussion about the license. I (implicitly) gathered that the fact that MINIX uses the Berkeley license was very important.
>I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free.

Serious companies are quite happy to use open source software granted it's licensed under a permissive license that allows modification of the source while at the same time allowing for license changing (to a proprietary model).

Serious companies suffer greatly from the "nigger mentality" or "nigger sense of justice" where
>If I take somone's hard work without paying it's great
>But if someone takes my hard work without paying in return it's bad.

>all this rationalizing gymnastics to avoid admitting that open source is simply lower quality than proprietary

Bottom line the reason is proprietary software is just objectively better 80% of the time.

nope

>what is TCO?

why do companies all have that stupid fucking picture of a bunch of monkeys in suits smiling? what is the meaning? they all do it which makes it creepy as fuck

I work for a large international corporation dealing in software and pretty much all the software we use for development as well as infrastructure/servers is open source. I actually can't think of anything proprietary which I use at work other than Skype for Business, and that's kind of optional. Windows is the "default" OS for developer workstations, but anyone can switch to Linux on their own if they like, which I've done.

...

My company encourages the use of open source software to cut down on licensing costs, having said that OSS is usually shitty enough that I go for proprietary anyway.
Imagine asking for Windows, being given a Mac, and then all of your OSS options being designed for UNIX and can't do shit without a crappy unstable X11 server.

>we are diverse, inclusive, friendly, modern, relaxed, young, experienced and a great place to be at

You know how many excel monkeys are out there? Goons that run Win10 at home? Non-tech-tards that can't adapt to using a MacOS or Linux setup?

That's the cost. You stick within the MS ecosystem, get Sharepoint like every other company and it just works. You don't need to retrain and everyones workflows stay the same. If you're not using advanced functionality your company can probably get away with using FOSS. If you have severely-custom needs, you require FOSS.

The Chad Torvalds vs the Virgin Tannenbaum

Only open source, do not support the proprietary software

Chad GPL vs virgin permissive license

Chinese gov't shills strike again!

A FUD campaign. Linux sysadmins are so ubiquitous now there's nothing cheaper about running an AD.

>Reason #1 – Lacks a traceable software development life cycle
Pic related.
>Reason #2 – Designed for functionality not robustness
Check out ZFS and Kubernetes and try saying they are not robust.
>Reason #3 – Accidentally exposing confidential intellectual property
>Muh GPL
There is so much MIT/BSD software in libraries you would use and link that this is a shitty excuse.
>Reason #4 – Lacking automated or manual tests
Ha ha ha ha ha.
>Reason #5 – Poor documentation or documentation that is lacking completely
Not a problem in any relevant project.
>Reason # 6 – Real-time support is lacking
Pic related again.
>Reason #7 – Integration is never as easy as it seems
Neither is building a Windows Server farm.

only point 3 and 6 are legit desu.

all of these reasons are 'they are too dumb to use linux'

seems legit, some morons shoving off 'vendor solutions' they wrote in word-macros

> >Reason # 6 – Real-time support is lacking
What kind of support you expect if it's free.
Moreover, the same applies to MS, even though they provide paid proprietary programs. Like literally, it costs $50+ to make them troubleshoot their glitches.

Thanks Mr. Shark!

>Jacob Beningo is an embedded software consultant
>jacob
dude is a kike.
>consultant
His job is to sell things, no wonder he lies on the internet.
He clearly does not know what he is talking about.
You should see his website for a good laugh, straight outta 2005.

Something you can't even accurately calculate for proprietary software.

Why do you call that the "nigger mentality" when it was whites that enslaved blacks while fighting the British for their taxation?

That's not lacking, and do you have any idea how much cheaper it is to pay $50 one time than hire a software dev for $80k/yr?

>someone is providing a free public service
>Reeeee don't take it and make something profitable reeee!
I understand the thought process but honestly it should be obvious why for profits generally avoid such a situation. I wouldn't work on cuck license myself but I don't expect private sector to use GPL either.

Ultimately open source is parallel to proprietary and the better system for serving the needs of each sector of society will win out.

We tend to avoid open source only because a lot of licences mean we can't incorporate it into our proprietary software, even if they are external libraries. A lot of the time we're not even allowed as a company to contribute back features or bug fixes we apply internally, which means we're always having to merge codebases or run out of date versions.

We recently had a policy update that would've meant we couldn't even develop software for Linux because using any of the standard Linux packages would've gone against the policy. Fortunately they realised this was dumb and put in an exception to that rule.

I really wish we used open source more and appropriately but legal teams win out over developers.

>as if anyone has actually 'suffered' from the nigger mentality

Blacks sold black slaves to Jews who then sold then to a tiny elite of white and Jewish slave owners. Educate yourself racist.

> software dev
Being a Linux admin myself, I may say I'm not a 'software dev', although I can literally lump things toghether in C googling my way through with Stackoverflow.
> pay $50 one time
That is, if you're lucky.
Small businesses don't need a Linux admin hired on a full day or a Windows infrastructure. Pay him once for 1-2 months of work tops to set up everything and it will have 24/7 uptime for years.

>None of these issues are not true of commercially developed software. While Open Source software may require some additional due diligence you can actually do so as the source is in fact available. There is no guarantee that any of these issues wouldn't be the case for any software. Missing features and unfixed bugs can go years in commercial software with no opportunity to address and expecting "real time support" for free is naive. At least with open source you can dive in to see.
Why did you even bother posting that crap if the comment directly below already blasted the argument into pieces?

>What kind of support you expect if it's free.
None, that's why it's a legit argument.
Sometimes, none is even needed (when the community is big enough).
The advantage of proprietary software is that it often comes with a contract.

>implying open-source and commercial are mutually exclusive

>totally ignoring the fact that anything you develop axiomatically becomes part of your competitor's toolkit too
inb4 gomunism was neber dried

thanks mr shark

trolling

Is there an ongoing serious attempt at an open source office suite aimed at professionals?

>implying it wouldn't just be paid for by the orgs that need it anyway

You mean LibreOffice, that is paid by a number of governments?
Not that this is necessarily a good thing...

>Educate yourself racist
What a difference a small comma can do.

Doesn't LibreOffice still have some shortcomings that make it not 100% suitable for industry use? For example, I recall reading about how their spreadsheets only support a fixed number of columns/rows.

>I don't expect private sector to use GPL either
You are aware, I hope, that the GPL only requires you to provide source code to anyone you distribute your software to, rather than just anyone who asks, right? It does not specify whom you have to distribute it to. It's perfectly fine to modify a piece of GPL software for internal use and never have to distribute the changes.

If you take a GPL'd program, make some small changes, and start selling it to others, then it starts to seem very fair that you also publicize the changes.

>rather than just anyone who asks, right?
Since when?

Since always.

>they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free.

Serious companies are still retarded - GPL source requirements don't kick in unless you're distributing the software outside of your company

Have you read the fucking license?
The terms only apply when you're distributing the software. As an end user you pretty much don't give a shit ever

Arch never provides me the sources of the packages. Last time I check I have no sources of arch packages on my laptop.

thanks mr shark

I haven't used Arch, so I can't speak for it specifically, but most distros (including Debian and Red Hat) have separate source repositories where they make the source code corresponding to the binary packages available. I'd be surprised if Arch hadn't something similar.

That doesn't mean, mind you, that the source code must be provided in the same package and at the same time that you receive a binary copy. The license only requires that it be possible to acquire it in some reasonable way.

YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.

I work at IBM and we are encouraged to use open source software/libraries.

So when can we expect the source code to z/OS?

Or AIX.
I wanna see what AIX is like

Just the read the damn license before using it, perhaps?

it means that they want to save money by using other peoples work instead of making their own.

You never been into the server room of those companies, did you?
Everyone use linux on the servers, and windows on the client user side because it is what just werks.

thanks mr shark

I really like how they bitch about how some people don't let companies take free software, modify it slightly, and sell it as proprietary.

Personally I don't care what they want to do, or their reasons for doing it. I use what I want, for my own reasons. They can do the same.

thanks mr tiburón

>just read the license
>implying they didn't
They're not using GPL because they have read it you uneducated redneck.

...