Open Source - Pros & Cons

Open versus closed which is better.
Depends

Is using an Open source application really worth ?
Or in later stage i'll find myself spending more of my time in troubleshooting those open source projects?
I've spent far more time troubleshooting closed than open source, though to be truthful I've dealt with more closed than open.

Open Source vs Proprietary, which is better ?
Is compatibility issue be more of my headache later on?
That some sort of joke ?. You ever upgraded an ms product ?

Training my I.T. staff for open source coding is better option or running to the online forums for troubleshooting is better ?
You lost me there. Open source coding is technically no different to closed source, except that your code is peer reviewed, so 'mistakes' will be visible outside your organisation. I use online support for closed source anyway, more likely to get a useful answer and I'll certainly get one quicker in most cases.

Is Linux/Open source worth a implementation?
Hell yes, you only have to look at say the quantity of LAMP (Linux,Apache,MySQl & PHP) solutions that have been implemented.

P.S. Some open source is flawed initially but if it's a worthwhile application, it will be improved by those who want to use it. Closed source can be equally flawed, but it will only be improved if people want to buy it.

I suppose my own personal bias as a consumer of software has crept in here, but as an employee in a firm that produces closed source, I'm well aware that the way to keep my job I need to produce high quality, supportable, value adding applications. If I don't do that then bye bye business and bye bye job, because the open source boys will if they deem it worth their while to compete, they are not constrained by 'business' requirements that inhibit said goals.

As a user the only distinction between open source and closed source is a cost benefit analysis. So it's simply the best fit versus the value it adds to your business. Upfront, hidden, indirect and deferred costs abound on either side.
Assesing these objectively as opposed from some dogmatic preference is the way people should go.

Personally I feel open source came about from a greater general technical awareness in the community coupled with an appalling lack of quality/value in the offerings from closed source vendors.

First, I think you have WAY to many questions for one topic post :)
The Pros and Cons of open source go sooooo much deeper than those questions and often lead to a debate that would strain even the Titans.

Open Source vs Closed Source (if that is the question).
It really depends. I don't think either solution is perfect and the best fit is different depending on the consumer.

"Is using an Open source application really worth ? Or in later stage i'll find myself spending more of my time in troubleshooting those open source projects?"
It depends on the acceptance of the project, the quality of the code. Although, open source allows the user to modify the code, someone has to know how to code and be willing to modify that code and in some cases that change must be accepted by the rest of the community unless you don't mind remerging to the new changes. However, the open source movement works because it can and does produce very good reliable products (this is the acceptance part) freeBSD, Apache, Firefox... these are all great opensource projects that I swear by. However, close source is no walk in the park either, I can't tell you how many bugs that I have found, that I could have easily fixed that I have to wait for the company to do... that drives me beeeezerk.

"Open Source vs Proprietary, which is better ?"
That depends, what do you mean by "better"? Quality? Speed? Performance? Features? Productivity? That can be a product by product comparison.

"Is compatibility issue be more of my headache later on?"
Although this can be a product by product comparison, I would have to lean toward open source on this subject.

"Training my I.T. staff for open source coding is better option or running to the online forums for troubleshooting is better?"
I don't think that is a direct comparison. How is close source different?

"Is Linux/Open source worth a implementation?"
Depends on what you are doing. For me, the answer is a definiative "YES". But that is not true for everyone or every company and in some cases it can be counter productive.

I really feel that whole open source pro & con question needs to be flushed out quite a bit. After that, I think the answers can be a little more elaborate and definative.

well it is worth it.

open office, 99.5% compatable with m$ orifice. ( loses on vbscript macros )

security, far more secure with open source than proprietary systems

stability.
open source applications tend to be fixed far faster than proprietary applications.
security updates are a good way to track this, ms takes up to 1 year to get an update for even critical vulnerabilities.
the open source systems are usually fully released with updates in at most 6 weeks. generally only 1 week until patch is released, the rest of the time is distro testing of, then packaging the patch.

the drawbacks, at this time.
the complexity of the open source os.
lack of support from hardware vendors ( drivers have to be developed by open source rather than hardware manufacturer )

since my entire network is 100% open source, and nothing that is microsoft, and I haven't had any problems with security, stability, SPYWARE, ADWARE or VIRUSES, I would have to say, any company using ms os and ms based products deserves downtime. linux has been out for 10 years, they have had ample opportunity to switch, since they haven't they have chosen to support video gaming on company systems, to support network downtime, to support spyware, adware and viruses.

there is not one good reason to use anything that requires ms windows, or that has the ms name on it.

While anyone here will tell you I am no fan of MS, I do see applications for MS server and desktops (great...now deepsand knows!!! ;-) )

1) Yes and no. Generally, closed source means you are stuck with what you get. In the open source community there are modifications, patches, and add-ons that can add to the functionallity of the application you are using. A prime example of this functionality is Snort.

Now, the problem lies in the auditing. Some auditing doesn't taked into account (FL)OSS (eg the FLOSS model). If your information security department doesn't like FLOSS, then don't go down that road yet.

2) Nope. (FL)OSS will be no different than closed source. Now keep in mind with open source you can actually fix and tweak things you can't with closed source.

3) Which is better? It depends on the application. What do you want to do. I prefer open source, but that doesn't mean it fits in ALL boxes.

4) I don't know what you mean by "compatibility issues."

5) I'm not sure what you mean with training either.

6) Yes it is work implementing. Apache is FAR more secure than IIS. Also if you implement LAMP, you will notice that you have fewer problems across the board.

Now what it really boils down to is:
1) Will you get the training to be a good admin on any given system?
2) Will you maintain the system properly?

that Microsoft was any better the Linux. All I said was that there are reasons to use it in an enterprise situation. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm actually glad you posted the info you did, because I can go home to my personal PC and test it out. Then I'll come back and report whether or not those are professional grade applications.