Comments on: Open Source’s Dying Narrative http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/ A member of the Gartner Blog Network Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:44:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Open source’s “romantic narrative” | Open Ecosystems http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1150 Open source’s “romantic narrative” | Open Ecosystems Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:47:15 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1150 [...] (Gartner) post entitled “Open Source’s Dying Narrative” (read the whole thing here): Big software vendors and VCs throwing money around is not particularly interesting – that’s [...] [...] (Gartner) post entitled “Open Source’s Dying Narrative” (read the whole thing here): Big software vendors and VCs throwing money around is not particularly interesting – that’s [...]

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1149 Brian Prentice Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:55:32 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1149 Steven, The tenor of the note is better represented by the statement "...Open Source continues to get stronger. And it’s doing so because it is becoming an integral component of modern software businesses. Gartner has been predicting that by 2011, at least 80% of all commercial software solutions will include elements of open source." When you compare the comment I made to KD to that statement I think it's quite consistent. And no, those are the same IT organization I'm speaking to :-) But let's also remember that Open Source software is still software. The same symptoms that can lead to failed proprietary software implementations (i.e. poor scope, lacking oversight, non-existent success metrics, etc.) can cause problems with Open Source software implementations too. Thanks for your thoughts. Steven,
The tenor of the note is better represented by the statement “…Open Source continues to get stronger. And it’s doing so because it is becoming an integral component of modern software businesses. Gartner has been predicting that by 2011, at least 80% of all commercial software solutions will include elements of open source.” When you compare the comment I made to KD to that statement I think it’s quite consistent.

And no, those are the same IT organization I’m speaking to :-) But let’s also remember that Open Source software is still software. The same symptoms that can lead to failed proprietary software implementations (i.e. poor scope, lacking oversight, non-existent success metrics, etc.) can cause problems with Open Source software implementations too.

Thanks for your thoughts.

]]> By: steven http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1147 steven Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:29:25 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1147 Brian, Your comment "In fact, the average open source programmer is more likely to be a degree-holding, professional engineer who is developing open source code in support of their employer’s broader commercial objectives" seems to be inconsistent with the tenor of your original blog. Such persons are hardly likely to be "members of the “open source community” ready to sell out" as they have nothing to sell. If there are multiple commercial interests involved in a project and a single entity does not own (or otherwise control) all the source then the project is likely to be protected from marauding VCs. Your comment: "From my experience it is enterprise IT organizations most likely to be caught up in the dying Open Source narrative" amused me. These presumably would be different enterprise IT organizations than the ones that invested their employer's money in good solid long-lived proprietary offerings such as those shown at http://www.erpgraveyard.com/tombs.html on the page called "ERP Graveyard Scorecard". Brian,
Your comment “In fact, the average open source programmer is more likely to be a degree-holding, professional engineer who is developing open source code in support of their employer’s broader commercial objectives” seems to be inconsistent with the tenor of your original blog. Such persons are hardly likely to be “members of the “open source community” ready to sell out” as they have nothing to sell.

If there are multiple commercial interests involved in a project and a single entity does not own (or otherwise control) all the source then the project is likely to be protected from marauding VCs.

Your comment: “From my experience it is enterprise IT organizations most likely to be caught up in the dying Open Source narrative” amused me. These presumably would be different enterprise IT organizations than the ones that invested their employer’s money in good solid long-lived proprietary offerings such as those shown at http://www.erpgraveyard.com/tombs.html on the page called “ERP Graveyard Scorecard”.

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1146 Brian Prentice Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:42:34 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1146 KD - yes, the notion that free or open source software is supposed to be the provice of “fiercely independent geek-heroes” is a mis-characterization. That is my point. Such a view is invalid. And while I was using a little poetic license in my description, an image in that general vicinity is still common. In fact, the average open source programmer is more likely to be a degree-holding, professional engineer who is developing open source code in support of their employer's broader commercial objectives. KD – yes, the notion that free or open source software is supposed to be the provice of “fiercely independent geek-heroes” is a mis-characterization. That is my point. Such a view is invalid. And while I was using a little poetic license in my description, an image in that general vicinity is still common.

In fact, the average open source programmer is more likely to be a degree-holding, professional engineer who is developing open source code in support of their employer’s broader commercial objectives.

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1144 Brian Prentice Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:26:27 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1144 Dougal - relax, have some marmite on toast and don't get caught up over a single sentence - used in jest - from the entire blog post. :-) Dougal – relax, have some marmite on toast and don’t get caught up over a single sentence – used in jest – from the entire blog post. :-)

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1143 Brian Prentice Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:17:06 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1143 To Nils R Grotnes - well, we're in agreement with one key point. Never take IT advice from your gardner :-) (my firm's name is actually Gartner). Besides that your interpretation of this blog's "essence" is completely wrong! The fact is that not all Open Source projects have sustainable communities. Enterprise IT organizations that commit to such projects will find themselves in the awkward position of having to sustain the project by themselves. And yes - there are OSS solutions that are being specifically designed to move users into paid-for, proprietary offerings in order to get access to certain features. None of this means Open Source is doesn't work for business. In fact, the very specific point I'm raising is that it is increasingly being woven into software business models. My concern is that enterprise IT organizations do not understand the strategic possibilities of Open Source because they're obsessing with the tactical. You will note Niles that no one is paying for this blog. You'll note that there is no advertising. You should also note that this blog represents my personal opinion. But the reason there are organizations prepared to pay organization's like Gartner for their insight is because they don't trust the Pollyanna claims of starry-eyed optimists. Open Source has huge potential. More organizations are understanding that. But as this realization is growing so too is the recognition that Open Source is far more nuanced than so many people make out. My objective is to make whatever contribution I can to help people understand those distinctions. And I will do that in through a free, open blog in addition to the commercial offerings of my employer (which I make no apology for). To Nils R Grotnes – well, we’re in agreement with one key point. Never take IT advice from your gardner :-) (my firm’s name is actually Gartner).

Besides that your interpretation of this blog’s “essence” is completely wrong! The fact is that not all Open Source projects have sustainable communities. Enterprise IT organizations that commit to such projects will find themselves in the awkward position of having to sustain the project by themselves. And yes – there are OSS solutions that are being specifically designed to move users into paid-for, proprietary offerings in order to get access to certain features.

None of this means Open Source is doesn’t work for business. In fact, the very specific point I’m raising is that it is increasingly being woven into software business models. My concern is that enterprise IT organizations do not understand the strategic possibilities of Open Source because they’re obsessing with the tactical.

You will note Niles that no one is paying for this blog. You’ll note that there is no advertising. You should also note that this blog represents my personal opinion. But the reason there are organizations prepared to pay organization’s like Gartner for their insight is because they don’t trust the Pollyanna claims of starry-eyed optimists.

Open Source has huge potential. More organizations are understanding that. But as this realization is growing so too is the recognition that Open Source is far more nuanced than so many people make out. My objective is to make whatever contribution I can to help people understand those distinctions. And I will do that in through a free, open blog in addition to the commercial offerings of my employer (which I make no apology for).

]]> By: Romantic, Old-School Open Source Notions Abound | google android os blog http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1142 Romantic, Old-School Open Source Notions Abound | google android os blog Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:51:33 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1142 [...] Gartner analyst Brian Prentice and Zack Urlocker writing for InfoWorld have both posted thoughtful takes on open source’s place in the world now that big proprietary software vendors are scooping open source players up. "The fact that there are so many members of the ‘open source community’ ready to sell out – now that’s interesting," writes Prentice. "Well, actually," he adds, "it’s interesting only to the extent you still believe the romantic narrative that commonly circulates around Open Source. That story involves bands of fiercely independent geek-heroes." Actually, what’s interesting to me is that a lot of people do still believe that kind of thing. [...] [...] Gartner analyst Brian Prentice and Zack Urlocker writing for InfoWorld have both posted thoughtful takes on open source’s place in the world now that big proprietary software vendors are scooping open source players up. "The fact that there are so many members of the ‘open source community’ ready to sell out – now that’s interesting," writes Prentice. "Well, actually," he adds, "it’s interesting only to the extent you still believe the romantic narrative that commonly circulates around Open Source. That story involves bands of fiercely independent geek-heroes." Actually, what’s interesting to me is that a lot of people do still believe that kind of thing. [...]

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1141 Brian Prentice Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:47:53 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1141 To Gerhard Mack - you say "The rest of us don’t care who pays for it so if some venture capitalist wants to fork out a million or two for my favorite project I don’t really care so long as the license stays free and open." If only it were so easy! VCs are not about to throw money at software that is free and open. They may be many things but VCs are not stupid. So, what we're seeing emerging is more and more "commercial open source." In many cases the free, open solution is simply a functional subset of a full featured, proprietary offering. Therefore, OSS is essentially a sales & marketing tool - it's a way to prime the pump to move customers into payed-for and proprietary solutions. To Gerhard Mack – you say “The rest of us don’t care who pays for it so if some venture capitalist wants to fork out a million or two for my favorite project I don’t really care so long as the license stays free and open.”

If only it were so easy! VCs are not about to throw money at software that is free and open. They may be many things but VCs are not stupid. So, what we’re seeing emerging is more and more “commercial open source.” In many cases the free, open solution is simply a functional subset of a full featured, proprietary offering. Therefore, OSS is essentially a sales & marketing tool – it’s a way to prime the pump to move customers into payed-for and proprietary solutions.

]]> By: Brian Prentice http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1140 Brian Prentice Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:40:24 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1140 To James Dixon - I think you're making a good point here. I think there is a growing ideological rift between FOSS advocates and the broader Open Source community. Mind you, I'm not sure your average IT person is aware of that distinction. BTW - I really like your blog post. Well said! To James Dixon – I think you’re making a good point here. I think there is a growing ideological rift between FOSS advocates and the broader Open Source community. Mind you, I’m not sure your average IT person is aware of that distinction.

BTW – I really like your blog post. Well said!

]]> By: KD http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/comment-page-1/#comment-1137 KD Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:05:40 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2009/10/14/open-sources-dying-narrative/#comment-1137 I think the notion that free or open source software is supposed to be the provice of "fiercely independent geek-heroes" is a mischaracterization. What I've always thought was the main idea of free/open source software is that anyone who wants to use it, but finds that it lacks some capability they want, is free to enhance the software themselves or hire someone to make the enhancements. And, although it is not required (unless the software is GPL licensed and you distribute the changed version), it is sort of expected that you make the enhancements available for others to use, or to be incorporated into the official version of the software, as payback to the community, since you got a lot of value from the community to start with. The notion, in simpler terms, is that people implement what they need, and let everyone use it. I don't believe that is fairly characterized as "fiercely independent geek-heroes". It isn't the same as VCs buying up free software projects, either. And I think that there are not a lot of free software projects that match that ideal. Apache, at least originally, probably was pretty close. The Linux kernel isn't terribly far from it. In the case of the Linux kernel, the "fiercely independent geek-heroes" picture is sort of true, but more due to the nature of the software than due to the free software model itself. I think not enough organizations realize the advantages they could get by actively participating in free software projects in the way I described, above. Or if they do realize it, they don't see it happening, so they don't see a community to join. Maybe what we need is some free software advocates to promote that idea more widely, showing organizations that depend on software the advantages of sharing the development effort in the free software way. I think the notion that free or open source software is supposed to be the provice of “fiercely independent geek-heroes” is a mischaracterization.

What I’ve always thought was the main idea of free/open source software is that anyone who wants to use it, but finds that it lacks some capability they want, is free to enhance the software themselves or hire someone to make the enhancements. And, although it is not required (unless the software is GPL licensed and you distribute the changed version), it is sort of expected that you make the enhancements available for others to use, or to be incorporated into the official version of the software, as payback to the community, since you got a lot of value from the community to start with.

The notion, in simpler terms, is that people implement what they need, and let everyone use it.

I don’t believe that is fairly characterized as “fiercely independent geek-heroes”. It isn’t the same as VCs buying up free software projects, either. And I think that there are not a lot of free software projects that match that ideal. Apache, at least originally, probably was pretty close. The Linux kernel isn’t terribly far from it. In the case of the Linux kernel, the “fiercely independent geek-heroes” picture is sort of true, but more due to the nature of the software than due to the free software model itself.

I think not enough organizations realize the advantages they could get by actively participating in free software projects in the way I described, above. Or if they do realize it, they don’t see it happening, so they don’t see a community to join. Maybe what we need is some free software advocates to promote that idea more widely, showing organizations that depend on software the advantages of sharing the development effort in the free software way.

]]>