by Mark Driver | February 4, 2009 | 1 Comment
I just published a short “finding” research note on leveraging open source to save money.
Clients can find it here. It’s a very short piece meant to serve as a quick place holder while I work on a much more in-depth note. I hope to have that one ready by end of February.
Here is a quick excerpt with a couple of key points….
The challenge when optimizing cost with open-source software is twofold:
- First, cost must be reduced in one budget area (for example, acquisition cost), without that cost spilling over into other buckets (for example, service and support). Toward this end, adopters must avoid the common mistake of simply burying and obscuring costs by moving them from one budget area to another.
- Second, reducing budget costs with open source serves little purpose if you reduce the quality of service, or increase the risk beyond acceptable thresholds. Foregoing contracted service and support without realistic internal resource bandwidth to retain service levels will lead to catastrophe that could wipe away any illusion of cost savings.
This is of course old news to OSS insiders but you’d be amazed a the level of confusion I come across in many mainstream IT shops. They are being inundated with so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt from both sides of the debate that they are often paralyzed to act one way or the other.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | January 27, 2009 | Comments Off
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/dec/11/cisco-lawsuit/
The Software Freedom Law Center is the main watch dog for the GPL family of licenses.
Its rare that we see oss license litigation make it to court. In most cases these issus are settled quietly behind closed doors. But ironically the problem is that we dont have much modern case law on the books to create solid precidence behind many OSS license issues.
Its sounds odd but its actually a good thing that some of these make it to a point where we can publicly see the outcome. I for one will be watching this one closely. But then again who wants to bet both parties come to a agreement under non-disclosed terms shortly?
Category: Uncategorized Tags: open source software
by Mark Driver | January 4, 2009 | Comments Off
by Mark Driver | December 10, 2008 | 1 Comment
I just published a new research note on dynamic (scripting) languages. Gartner clients can find the full note here but the following is a quick highlight of the content….
Dynamic programming languages, such as PHP, Python and Ruby, are making their way into mainstream IT efforts. Although these tools provide new opportunities for IT organizations to maximize the business value of next-generation application development (AD) efforts, they come with a host of new challenges.
Key Findings
- Dynamic programming languages offer a number of unique capabilities that cannot be duplicated with established market-leading technologies.
- Dynamic programming languages require new best practices, not only for AD, but also for production capacity planning.
- Dynamic programming languages will not be fully supported by IT megavendors until at least 2011.
Recommendations
- Look for opportunities to integrate dynamic programming languages into software platform investments (for example, .NET and Java).
- Consider dynamic programming languages for projects where .NET and Java are overly complex for project design goals; however, do not assume that dynamic programming will replace investments in established software platforms, such as .NET or Java, in the near future.
- Explore the merits of domain-specific languages and metaprogramming techniques uniquely enabled by dynamic programming languages.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | December 8, 2008 | Comments Off
We’ve just published a research note that has some key predictions for open source over the next several years. It’s only available to Gartner clients but here are some highlights…
Key Findings
- By 2012, at least 50% of direct commercial revenue attributed to open-source products or services will come from projects under a single vendor’s patronage.
- Through 2011, less than 50% of Global 2000 IT organizations will have implemented a formal open-source adoption and management policy as part of an enterprise software asset management strategy.
- Through 2013, 50% of mainstream IT projects using open-source software (OSS) will not achieve cost savings over closed-source alternatives.
- Through 2013, 90% of market-leading, cloud-computing providers will depend on OSS to deliver products and services.
Recommendations
- Expect vendors to play an increasing role in the governance of many market-leading, open-source solutions during the next several years.
- Move aggressively to establish an effective enterprise adoption policy, and bring OSS under asset management controls.
- Do not expect to automatically save money with OSS or any technology without effective financial management. Do expect to carefully manage open-source solutions in the appropriate scenarios to realize total cost of ownership (TCO) advantages.
- Manage cloud-based software strategies and open-source strategies together for maximum effect. Look for synergies between both, and the ability of OSS to move your workloads to the cloud.
The ‘meat’ behind these findings are in the note.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | December 5, 2008 | Comments Off
I’ll be in sunny Las Vegas from Dec 8th to the 10th at Gartner’s AADI conference.
The high here at home was 20 today so I am LOOKING forward to the Nevada desert right about now.
I’ll be doing two presentations on AD and one on OSS plus an OSS user roundtable (link above).
If you are attending then look me up and we can talk shop. Also if you do attend and have question related to one my presenations, post it here as a comment and I’ll address it for you.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | November 21, 2008 | 4 Comments
Its been two years since Novell and Microsoft cuddled up with one another.
The agreement covers a range of technical initiatives such as increased interop between Windows and SUSE Linux for virtualization, server manageability, and even document compatibility. On this anniversary they’ve announced additional server management technologies and an official beta release of Mono’s Moonlight (the Linux Silverlight client). Good stuff all around.
But depending on which side of the hype you fall on, the agreement has either been landmark alliance that has made Windows and Linux work better together for the benefit of most everyone in IT. Or it has been a marriage made in hades wherein Novell sold their soul to the “empire” for shiny babbles and a spiked collar.
Much of outrage from the OSS community has been centered not on the technical partnership (that stuff is generally good for everyone) but rather on the software patent deal struck between the two companies as part of the overall agreement. After two years that firestorm has not abated.
The short story is that as part of this deal Microsoft has agreed not to sue Novel SUSE customers for potential Microsoft software patents that Linux *might* infringe upon.
The problem is…
It only applies to Novell customers. To the community Linux is Linux. By holding out one distribution for special privilege it creates an unlevel playing field and in the community’s eyes damages the ‘unified’ front presented by Linux. In other words, if I’m an IT shop that wants to deploy Linux and I choose Novell over Redhat for this reason then Novell has created an unfair advantage.
Secondly and most importantly, Microsoft didn’t actually say which of its patents are violated by Linux. This of course sparked outrage among the community who’ve cried “tell us about your *expletive* patents and we’ll fix them!” It was later leaked that Microsoft believes various open source projects (a list that includes Linux of course) violate over 200 of its patents.
But of course it doesn’t work that way. Microsoft doesn’t want the Linux community as a whole to know the details of these patents for one simple answer.. it doesn’t want the Linux community to fix the infringements. Where’s the $$$ in that?
On an aside keep in mind that many patents cannot be fixed by coding around them. Unlike copyright infringement many patents infringements can only be remedied by removing the feature altogether. So fixing patents through code is wishful thinking.
Instead of disclosing these details to the whole world, Microsoft wants to talk about the patent details behind closed doors with lawyers from Linux vendors under strict NDAs. The simple strategy is to show the other guy your patents, convince them that they are valid, and strike a deal that makes it cheaper to license them rather than face the cost of potential court expenses.
So when Novell agrees to a patent deal you can bet they’ve looked long and hard at Microsoft’s secret box of patent goodies and decided its in their best interest to write a check.
But this is way the patent game works. All vendors do this.
We can argue whether software patents are good or bad but all major software vendors leverage them. IBM alone makes over $1 billion a years in patent licenses alone. Its big business. There’s been some recent court activity that seems to show some reform in this area. I would personally love to see software patents stricken from the industry but until that happens vendors are going to leverage them for fun and prizes.
The mistake that Microsoft made here was underestimating the tight relationship between the open source Linux “community” and commercial Linux vendors .
Microsoft’s whole point is that if you are a vendor making money with technology that violates one of their patents then you should pay them. That’s the same message you’d get from IBM, SAP, Oracle, or hundreds of other IT vendors.
To Microsoft, the fact that Novell is selling an “open source” product is meaningless. But to the community Novell is just another member of the Linux family. When they break rank make a deal like this, in the mind of the community it weakens the Linux value proposition as a whole. They don’t like that. It makes Linux seem legally risky. They don’t like that either. And last but not least they just don’t like software patents. I don’t blame them.
The mistake the Linux community makes here is not accepting that there are a set of rules that apply to the members of the commercial software industry — these rules good or bad include patents. If a vendors is selling an open source product they don’t get a free pass because its “open source”.
In other words when the goals of commerce and open source collide the guy with shareholders is going to pay more attention to the commerce side of the argument. If its cheaper to sign a patent deal than to go to court then the lawyers are going to exactly that.
Keep in mind that Microsoft hasn’t actually sued anyone over Linux patent infringement. And I don’t think they every will. IMHO its an empty threat.
In this case, my guess is that Novell *really* wanted the tech interop relationship and comarketing and the patent issue was a deal breaker for Microsoft. On the other hand, in two years we haven’t seen a lawsuit against Redhat and we never will.
In the end we need to see some explicit policy from Microsoft similiar to what they’ve done with their open specification promise. They need to create a specific patent covenent with the Linux community that says individuals or companies wont get sued for using Linux EVER. On the other hand, commercial vendors selling or embedding Linux in their own products are fair game.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | November 19, 2008 | 1 Comment
I cover the broader subject of the open source software model at Gartner. Toward this end, I get inquiries related to things like general adoption challenges, business models, and risk factors.
One area of concern that comes up regularly in client conversations is the relationship of open source and intellectual property and licensing. This becomes tricky territory and I quickly pull out the standard IANAL (I am not a lawyer) caveat; but legal issues are integral elements any serious discussion of open source within mainstream IT organizations. As a result I’ve learned more about patent, copyright, IP issue in the last 10 years than I’d ever imagined or wanted.
There are LOTS of good books that cover a wide spectrum of issues related to open source software but I’ve run across a few that are quite good at distilling the complex subject of intellectual property.
Here’s just a short list. If you are a IT professional involved in the use or development of FOSS then these should be on your bookshelf. If you are a developer, get your boss or corporate legal counsel to read them (easier said than done i know).
Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law by Larry Rosen.
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing by Andrew M. St. Laurent
These first two are just slightly out of date because they dont cover the GPL3 but they have tremendous value nonetheless
Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code by Van Lindberg is the latest book I’ve come across and does a fantastic job of addressing general IP issue and then applying them in the context of OSS.
Have other recommendations? Post them here please.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Mark Driver | October 10, 2008 | 13 Comments
The Merb framework for Ruby has reached the big 1.0 with an impressive list of features. If you’ve never heard of it, consider Merb a second generation Ruby framework that takes many of the (sometime painful) lessons learned in Rails and applies them to a blank canvas.
I’ve predicted in Gartner research that the Ruby developer community will reach 4 million programmers by 2013. The framework that captures and retains the bulk of these developers will be a big deal. Until now Rails has been the only game in town. That’s about to change.
<back story>
Everyone in the Ruby developer community is familiar with the growing pains of Rails. Scalability questions continue to run rampant as both the framework and the collective RoR community mature over time in real world test cases. Moreover, there are some who just aren’t happy with the close knit community of developers who are evolving the core framework.
This is nothing new. Nobody gets it perfect the first time. We should expect RoR to go through the standard maturity curve and be suspicious if it didn’t. Many argue that Rails will navigate this trial by fire and emerge as a strong and solid foundation for the long term efforts of the larger Ruby developer base.
Others however insist that Rails will be burned to a crisp. They argue that Rails represents is a genetic dead end (Cro-magnon Ruby?). This camp insists that the design defects in Rails are so innate that, while it looks really nice on the surface, the framework lacks the fundamental DNA to stand up to real world heavy lifting.
I’m not expounding either position here. I’ve worked with Rails. I like Rails very much. But then again. I depend heavily on discussions with real world mainstream IT shops to determine when and if a technology has completed its trial by fire.
Toward this end, virtually all the mainstream (Gartner calls them type B) IT shops that have dabbled in RoR so far have built relatively small to medium sized “line of business” solutions and prototypes. They like Rails as well. But all are concerned with safe investments as well. In other words, as an IT manager what happens if my only RoR expert gets hit by a bus on the way to work?
If you develop RoR applications I’d love to here from you. Post a comment here or email me directly at mark.driver@gartner.com
I believe the final chapter on RoR is far from complete. It is clear however that Rails has a long way to go before we can consider it mature for what Gartner calls “systematic” development efforts (large, mission critical, long life cycle, bet your business) beyond the bleeding edge dot com types.
</back story>
So now we have Merb as well. There are other contending frameworks but Merb has a pedigree and some very solid design elements (thread safe yeah!) behind it that might actually be able to give Rails a run for its money.
Personally I’m torn. On one hand Ruby needs consistency in order to reach a real critical mass. One framework to rule them all has its advantages. But choice is good as well.
IF we are gong to see Merb make a real run at Rails then we need…
1) some high profile early adopters to show that it works in the real world
2) solid code examples and documentation for configurations, etc.
3) lots of cool plug-ins
4) good support from tools. Ideally some nice Eclipse plug-ins but also direct support from both 3rd Rail and NetBeans (both solid Ruby IDEs)
5) good books from good publishers; I’m talking to you Addison Wesley and O’Reilly.
6) some buzz from the trenches. Have you switched from Rails to Merb? I’d love to hear from you (see above).
7) inally given the significant head start that Rails enjoys, Merb must prove itself significantly superior to Rails in order to close the gap and take the lead. “As good” wont do it. It’s far too late for that. Merb must demonstrate clear and irrefutable advantages to create enough of a gravity well to draw away the hordes of developers who have committed considerable blood to the Rails cause to-date.
Bottom line:
Are you a RoR developer or the manager of a RoR developer? Then you owe it to yourself to check out Merb and keep an eye on it. You might like what you see enough to make a change. You probably won’t today but you may change your mind over the course of the next 18 months.
In any event, don’t assume the considerable early momentum that Rails has enjoyed as the first “killer app” for Ruby will translate into long term success. Take a good look at both frameworks and expect continued changes as they both evolve over the next couple of years.
Category: Uncategorized Tags: appdev
by Mark Driver | October 9, 2008 | 50 Comments
I’ve often referred to Smalltalk as the ‘Latin’ of modern OO languages. Most owe a tremendous debt to Smalltalk but the language itself has been relegated to a small niche of technology elites for several years now.
Here a simply equation. In terms of mental fortitude…
1 Smalltalk developer = 2.5 C++ developers
1 C++ Developer = 1.5 Java developers
in other words…
Smalltalk is a meal with a fine Bordeaux and a petite filet mignon
Java is a meal with a cold beer and t-bone
So Yeah.. I said it. Smalltalk is making a comeback.
(pausing to wait for reader to regain consciousness)
There are few reasons for this but a couple come immediately to mind…
Smalltalk was ahead of its time — not only in developer skills and techniques but also in hardware support. Many early Smalltalk systems simply didn’t scale well. Today Moore’s law has fixed the hardware issue and developers have (in general) finally gotten their heads around OO concepts.
Smalltalk tools and platforms had a heavy lock-in factor. Lock-in related to tools and technology supporting the Smalltalk language pushed many towards things like C++ and eventually Java. Today open source Smalltalk projects have significantly reduced the perspective and reality of Smalltalk vendor lock-in.
It’s been said that a “rising tide lifts all ships”. I can see this clearly in the relationship between Smalltalk and hot topic languages such as Ruby and Python (to some degree PHP here as well). The significant growth that we see among these languages is also causing a few to take a second look at Smalltalk as well.
Its somewhat funny to consider that a new generation of developers (post C++) consider the features in Ruby to be bleeding edge when in fact they are mostly retro features of things that Smalltalk has done for decades. The challenge of course is that languages like Python and Ruby have the heat needed to create a strong momentum. Smalltalk enjoys the benefit of association but not enough to transfer that heat in large volume — at least not yet.
So I’m not suggesting that we are going to see a massive renaissance in Smalltalk use in the near future. Today I still have a hard time recommending most mainstream IT organizations invest heavily in new strategic initiatives with Smalltalk. However I *am* seeing an up tick in the role that Smalltalk is having among certain communities of developers.
There is a chicken and egg problem here no doubt. But as an analyst I have to balance the “what is happening” with the what “should happen”. Yes its a fine line.
Put it this way. I see *enough* momentum in the small spark of the developer universe that is the Smalltalk niche to suggest that we might see some smoke and maybe even a small flame in the near future.
Bottom line:
1) If you have investments in Smalltalk consider the risk of the language to be lower over the next 3 years than the last 3 years. Smalltalk is cool again. Is it the start of a long term trend or a fad? Yet to been seen.
2) If you are BIG fan of dynamics languages (closures, meta programming, and all that cool stuff) then consider giving Smalltalk a look. You might like what you see. Its like Ruby but with bigger muscles. You think Rails is cool? Check out seaside.
In the end we’ll see a up tick in Smalltalk momentum over the next few years. I’m not entirely sure it will be enough to change the long term trend of a declining developer base but I does my heart good to see a “members only” jacket come back into style nonetheless.
Category: Uncategorized Tags: application development, smalltalk
