General discussion

Locked

Open Source - Pros & Cons

By Amit sharma ·
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?
Open Source vs Proprietary, which is better ?
Is compatibility issue be more of my headache later on?
Training my I.T. staff for open source coding is better option or running to the online forums for troubleshooting is better ?
Is Linux/Open source worth a implementation?
What all you say ?????

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Well point by point

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to 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?
**** 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.

Collapse -

Depends

by tagmarkman In reply to Open Source - Pros & Cons

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.

Collapse -

yup it is.

by Jaqui In reply to Open Source - Pros & Cons

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.

Collapse -

Did I understand the question?

by tagmarkman In reply to yup it is.

I'm not sure I understood the question.

I didn't think it was about Linux vs Microsoft. I thought it was about Open Source vs Close Sourced systems. I can have a closed source system without using a Microsoft product. I don't even have to use a Microsoft OS to have a closed source system. I also don't have to use Linux to have an open source system.

Collapse -

On the other hand . . .

by apotheon In reply to Did I understand the ques ...

Microsoft and Linux are the poster boys for open source development and closed source development. They make for convenient exemplars of the relevant cases, although they're not universally accurate examples.

Collapse -

Not sure why you would say that...

by JRod86 In reply to yup it is.

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

That statement can be misleading. I work for a larger firm that has had M$ produce patches specifically for us. We do have the advantage of purchasing large numbers of licenses for multiple M$ products so we may have some leeway. I'm not trying to argue that M$ is any better than anything else, just to state that there are reasons to use M$. I don't ever recally being able to use Adobe/Macromedia products on Linux (I do realize that there are "other" products that come bundled, but I'm not going to advocate those for professional use) but am aware of some movement in that direction. But, until that happens, we don't have the luxury of that choice.

It is not only multimedia development, but that is the first thing that jumped into my head.

Collapse -

multimedia..

by Jaqui In reply to Not sure why you would sa ...

http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3

not to mention the dozens of multimedia developemnt apps that are included.

and acd3d
maya
softimagexsi
nuke

all top end professional 3d modelling / animation apps.

flash has been abused enough, and shouldn't be used.

coldfusion server runs on linux, a few other macromedia products also.

but if you use macromedia for their name, then it is only for the name and you have fallen for the marketing hype.
( 95% of the world do this )
to quote a current ad:
" a world of software runs on windows "

the corollary:
a universe of software runs on linux, irix, freebsd, openbsd, unix

limited choices with windows based software.


the patch issue..
ok, so you get the patch 1 week before public release, yet it is still 6 months after vulnerability found.

open source os, 6 days.

pay rad hat, or mandrake, or debian... they will send you this patch as soon as it's made, instad of making you wait until your update source mirrors it ( at most 6 hours )

or even, since you have the sources, pay a real programmer* to keep your software and systems secured, when a breach is found they go to work on patching it for you.

save money and wait 6 days, or waste money and wait 6 months.
difference in priorities.
don't waste money on a name brand, when viable alternative exists.
my priority


* real programmer, meaning someone who creates applications, not a macro script kiddy for database queries, xcel, ms word...
( no vbscript, no vb )

Collapse -

I didn't say..

by JRod86 In reply to multimedia..

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.

Collapse -

Right tool for the right job

by jmgarvin In reply to Open Source - Pros & Cons

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?

Back to Linux Forum
9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums