Sorry about the late posting - please post by Monday (15th) 5pm of next week rather than Friday as I have posted late.
This week I would like to hear your thoughts on Commercial Products vs Open Source. Read the article at the following URL:
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240088561/Open-source-is-years-behind-commercial-products-says-Socitm-president
Let me know your thoughts on:
The usability of Open Source packages
Their drawbacks and advantages
The role of Open Source in mobilizing new markets in the future.
Any other thoughts welcome. You can refer to the Open Source packages used in this module if you wish.
Paul
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOpen source software is a valuable and necessary incubator for the next generation of technologies and technologists. Its constant churning on the fringes of closed source technologies often takes them in new directions.
ReplyDeleteMany of us have been spoon fed Microsoft products from the time we booted up our first PC and ESRI and Integraph are very obliging with their student licensing arrangements. This is no bad thing. It is safe ground. They provide products we can rely on to get the majority of our work done.
The disadvantage of this is that we are very likely to assume that if it isn't in the ribbon then it can't be done and worse still we are likely to be thoroughly disorientated when faced with anything new or different.
In our new and exciting mobile lives we are more inclined to be adventurous with our selection of software providers. The app and the reviews say all we need to hear and if it doesn't work then so what, spend another 69p and try again.
For the majority of us our requirements will never exceed the ability of our regular software. For some the limitations of this software will discourage us from trying again. But others will be motivated or provoked into seeking bespoke solutions or an open source product that is close to what they want and then tailoring it to meet their new requirements.
Sure there can be usability issues but how many of these are due to the package just being different to what we are used to? Behind the scenes closed source solutions can be less than user friendly for the uninitiated, especially if they are the result of corporate acquisitions. Anybody who has dug a little to deep into Oracle's technology stack can testify to this.
The point I'm trying to make is that open and closed source rely on each other. It is the shortcomings of one that provokes the development of the other. When an open source project reaches a level of maturity it provokes the big corporations to react - Firefox vs IE. MySQL vs Oracle. Linux vs Windows.
If you doubt this then consider the other side of this open vs closed source discussion. Most of the open source software will be developed in an IDE provided by one of the big closed source corporations - XCode, Eclipse, Netbeans / JDeveloper or Visual Studio.
The cons of COTS happen to be an issue in work at the minute. Ever decreasing budgets have forced a review of exactly how many software licences are required in the organisation. In the digital age, more and more tasks require access to computers so a cut in licenses will obviously have an impact on productivity.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I doubt very much that this will see a jump to open-source providers. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. It takes a lot of resources to train an individual on the software packages required to complete their duties, whether that is ArcGIS, MS Office, Oracle or an open source equivalent. Having made that investment in training an organisation wants some certainty that the software package in question will be around long enough to justify the training cost.
2. Most large organisations need to operate 24/7/365. Any down time due to software issues need to be kept as brief as possible. COTS products provide a safety net in the form of support packages that open source can't rival at the minute.
Other issues like interoperability come into play also.
In time the issues outlined in 1. may be addressed by the fact that younger generations are arriving in employment far more tech-savy than their predecessors. This may result in a more flexible workforce from a technology point of view. However, it's hard to see how 2. can change; without profit margins like MS etc how can an open source package provide the same support infrastructure as COTS?
Hi Ciaran, sorry I was unable to reply to you on the last blog. According to my sources all is well in the little geomatic world of DIT, all the lecturers you mentioned are still there. Numbers have dropped though, there are only 14 students in my husband's class, and that's including 2 German Erasmus students!!!
DeleteThere are pros and cons of both Open and Closed source softwares.
ReplyDeleteWhile very often open sourced software has a potentially global developer base given anyone is able to contribute but Closed source software may give the impression of higher quality if you consider that the developers are employed to do a job rather than contribute in their spare time or whatever..
But saying this closed software may not guarantee better quality and support. More eyes seeing the code could spot bug and fix errors much quicker albeit maybe not as quick as the bigger closed source companies fix an issue once their quality control (customers/end users) make enough complaints about a certain issue ;) Perhaps a touch reactive in their approach as to not delay the release of a certain product? What are a few bugs among friends?
I still think generally that closed source will always have a grip on the average end user and I say this because of useability and standardized/unified experience allowing a little bit of knowledge/training to go a long way for example within the MS family of products. Given some reactions i have seen to Windows 8 i think there are plenty who couldn't begin to comprehend using something different never mind something open sourced. Mozilla what?
I think open source software loses ground when it comes to usability. I suspect if the ownership costs of both were studied in an organisation the limits of open source would become apparent. Training, support and documentation are limited with open source. Compare this with the ‘out of the box’ usability of commercial products. Security is another factor to be taken into account, with numerous developers writing and modifying code can a large organisation take the risk with open source? There are advantages-innovation, price, debugging but one has to be weighed against the other.
ReplyDeleteI think there is always a place for both open source and commercial software. As already mentioned, the shortfalls of commercial products drives open source forward and vice versa. I do have doubts about open source software becoming thestandard and suspect it will always remain around the periphery of software implementation. Possibly due to the organic and unpredictable nature of its development.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood point. I think one other thing that open source has the potential to do is force larger companies to release innovative ideas quicker to show they are providing something new. For example as companies usually release new ideas in phases, if open source software is offering a certain functionality for free this may force them to release new products quicker. essentially speeding up the time from development to offering to consumers.
DeleteThere are numerous advanatages to open-source software, firstky open-source software is free to use, distribute, and modify. It has lower costs, and in most cases this is only a fraction of the cost of their proprietary counterparts.
ReplyDeleteOpen-source software is more secured as the code is accessible to everyone. As well as this anyone can fix bugs as they are found, and users do not have to wait for the next release. Another advanatage is that any companies using open-source software do not have to think about complex licensing models.
The main and most noticable disadvantage of open source software is that it is quite complex to actually use, as it is so difficult to use money may be spent on hiring professionals to teach you how to use it, incurring extra costs. Another key disadvantage is that many of the latest hardware are incompatible to the open-source platform; so you have to rely on third-party drivers.
Although open source software has not taken off as some may have hoped, i believe that it will become bigger in terms of computer software, and that more people will succumb to change
Yes Vincent I think as well that in the current economic climate more and more people are looking for cheaper alternatives.
DeleteTotally agree, also it seems that due to budget cuts some universities are using more and more open source software.
DeleteUniversities are likely to have someone on academic staff well-versed in open-source options for their field, and can therefore get the students training just as they would on a commercial software package....but when it comes to workplaces, especially of SMEs: as people have said, not as much of a no-brainer which will be cheapest. Depends on what expertise with open-source your extant human resource has, as it could cost more than the difference just to get staff trained up.
DeleteOpen source authorities have developed a great deal of software over the years.It has gained a reputation for reliability, efficiency, functionality. However most of this software is used by technically able. As Nicholas states there seems to be limited training and support to help those of a less technical background to understand the product and utilise it.
ReplyDeleteFor those able to utilise open source packages there are many advantages. For exmaple, the initial cost, there is less likely that there will be contractually-bound upgrade costs. Open source can be see as efficient in data transferability. As with open source there are greater opportunities to share data across interoperable platforms. There are also increasing opportunities for re use because since open source is free there is a guaranteed freedom to use it in any way.
However, open source does have its negatives. If the source code is made available to the wider community, it is also vulnerable to threats from the hackers. Furthermore, open source solutions may require additional development in the future to enable integration with an existing proprietary environment. This could lead to problems in integrating data from two different packages.
Totally argree with you on the point that open source is more vulnerable to hackers! Is there anything you think could be done to counteract this?
DeleteIn my inexpert opinion, the very fact that it's open surely means there is no way to counteract or exclude hacking.
DeleteOpen source packages are readily available to anyone who wants or needs them. The increased prominence of the internet in recent decades has enabled easier access to open source packages for members of the public.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main advantages of open source packages is that they are free to use, maintain and modify. Further, it is more secured due to the fact that the code is accessible for everyone. As bugs within the packages are identifed anyone can fix these and the package is therefore continuously analysed by a large community of users. The result of this is a secure and stable code. Addtionally, open source packages are not dependent on the company or author that originally created them. This means that even if a company fails that the open source package will still be available for use and modification.
However, open source packages are commonly difficult to use and learn and it may take a lot of effort and learning to become proficient at using them fully. Also, there is a shortage of applications that use both open source and proprietary platforms. This means that a compatability analysis has to be carried out to ensure switching to an open source platform is feasible. Finally, because open source package's code is so readily available to the public there is the arguement that it is under signifcant threat from hackers.
I think inevitably that proprietary, closed source packages will always be the most popular as people tend to trust them more.
However, I believe with the right research people can choose open source packages that are actually better than their closed source counterparts.
While the obvious advantages to open source data are that it is free or relatively cheaper than commercially available data, commercial data tends to be the more user friendly and more trusted by organisations from my experience. I also agree with Lasse in that commercial products tend to have the more efficient after-sales customer service. Having said that, I believe that there is a large upcoming market for open source software provided a set of generalised standards are introduced which would make it more user friendly and efficient.
ReplyDeleteOpensource v COTS packages is very relevant discussion, however I believe a precursor to this question is: What are the user requirements for the geospatial data? (ie: what is the overall objective in the use of the geospatial data an organisation is providing). In answering this question a GIS developer is using user requirements to ‘drive’ towards a specific package and therefore uses technical details to select a package, rather than simply if the GIS package is free or not. This approach does not take into account constraints such as project budgets or if a certain GIS package is used at an enterprise level.
ReplyDeleteThe usual ‘positives’ of Opensource is that the software is free, generally these companies make money via training or installation and is user driven, which in essence ensures ‘bugs’ can be corrected a lot faster than perhaps a COTS company. Often Opensource is much more compliant to OGC standards. There can often be more freedoms to develop software components. Negative aspects can include a lack of user support or the software is not supported at an enterprise level. IPR can provide difficulties in development with a large commercial organisation.
Often a hybrid approach can produce excellent results, a mix of Opensource and COTS packages – I have found this works well while providing OGC compliant Web Services, particularly around the use of complex GML and GIS clients.
I feel that opensource products often allow greater flexibility in incorporating data formats than commercial products. For example I have had a recent experience of trying to open a MapInfo .TAB file in ArcGIS and found that I had to resort to QGIS to convert it to .shp. This is probably a reflection of the competition between commercial companies.( Although I understand that MapInfo can open and export .shp files).
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated the user interface in open source products rarely match the quality of commercial products. I have briefly experimented with ILWIS remote sensing software and found the interface to be much less intuitive than ERDAS Imagine.
However opensource products can allow smaller organisations and individuals to gain access to specialist software products that would otherwise be beyond their budgets.
This is an interesting point about the compatibility of files between different GIS software - I'm sure this will be something we will all encounter in our future careers!
DeleteHaving worked in the IT area in a number of huge corporations, (IBM, BT, Cable and Wireless, Swiss Bank, HP, EDS etc.) over the course of 15 years, I can say that in my experience that managers / directors never take unnecessary risks. Just like in the 1970s when these people would always choose IBM hardware, in the 1990s/2000s they would buy branded (Microsoft) software and stay safe.
ReplyDeleteBut times are changing.
The most important dynamic is adoption, perhaps increasingly driven by security concerns. Have a quick look at this graph. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2035651/open-source-is-taking-over-the-software-world-survey-says.html
Clearly open source is going more and more mainstream, and as people realise that commercial software, at least from American-based companies, is far from secure. (see the problem described nicely here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/nsa-revelations-cloud_n_4226695.html)
It's not surprising to see why. There is evidence even before the NSA story broke that not just enterprises but governments all over the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters) are makeing these cost savings, not just in developing nations. Interestingly, the list above mentions The White House as one of the early Linux adopters. Perhaps they don't consider Microsoft products secure enough. It is intrinsically difficult to build the kind of security flaws allegedly obtained by the US government in to open source software.
Mobile markets don't need to be mobilized, they already are (e.g. Android, the various mobile phone stores offering free software)
ReplyDeleteThis is from my experience of nearly going open source software instead of MS office. I think generally you can do most basic things you can with consumer products but I don’t think the user interface is as good which can make them harder to use. More complex tasks especially in Excel are impossible n open source office programs (but know with my growing knowledge of SQL things can change). Lots of the consumer products do just essentially automate some process and simplify others to increase usability especially noticeable when using Dreamweaver. Despite this I think Open source products have many advantages with the biggest one being cost but Also they are more often designed with a greater emphasis of interoperability allowing them to work with a wider range of programs making the switch between providers easier (you don’t get stuck in the trap of once with apple always with apple unless you change all your devices).
As to the future I think it is going to play a role especially with cloud computing and the availability. However the I believe COTS will remain the main driving force due to the size and power of software companies to develop and innovate new software’s.
Having done a bit of reading in this area for this blog post, I can see the numerous advantages and disadvantages of open source vs commercial products, most of which have been mentioned above. The most obvious benefit of open source is of course it's cost (or lack of) which is a massive advantage in today's economic climate (mentioned by Ciaran). Also the fact that open source software is constantly updated and adapted to user needs is a big positive, however what open source lacks is where commercial software has it's advantages. For example, the extra user support, guaranteed knowledge of intellectual property rights, and a system less susceptible to hacking.
ReplyDeleteThe future of open source looks positive, mainly due to the fact that it is either free or at least much cheaper than commercial software which is what most people go for these days. However, this is in direct competition with the fact that the cost of commercial software is driven by market forces, and ultimately we live in a capitalist society where commercial organisations need to make money,
Another crunchy subject. I have to confess that the environment in which I have worked over the last twenty years or so has meant that I have had limited exposure to open source software(OSS). The ability to hold a company to account if the software that you have purchased doesn't work is something that is missing with OSS; if I'm re-projecting an image I want to ensure that the software is using authoritive transformations.
ReplyDeleteOSS also suffers from a perception problem " if its free, it can't be as good", but if you are willing too have slightly less functionality the absence of cost can be a massive plus point. There is also a worry that OSS is free and easily accessible and can lure the bargain hunter in only to charge once users are hooked. I think MS DOS was provided for free on the early computers for the specific purpose of hooking the designs of the early computers onto the operating system.
On the flip side there are many programmer who don't like the bigger companies and are more than happy to create OSS, and even take pride in it.
I often thought about becoming a consultant but one of the things that kept me on the treadmill was the shear cost of setting it up, this is something that doesn't put me off after my exposure to MySQL and Postgres.
Providing the OSS providers try to keep up with cost based providers for utility then cost becomes less of a barrier to nations that don't have billions to squander on software contracts with the likes of Microsoft.
The advantages of an open source compared to a commercial product are of course as many have mentioned it offers a broad range of functions at no cost, it has been used and reviewed by many organisations so can be trusted to accommodate your needs, is constantly updated and maintained so any bugs or problems are dealt with quickly. Some drawbacks include the lack of one-on one support; it’s not customisable and may be more susceptible to hackers. I think a strong community of interest and innovation through openness will encourage others to create other companies and products.
ReplyDeleteNewcomers to open source must find usability a bit of a lottery. Some are as intuitive as their commercial counterparts, others it's like another language, sometimes it literally is. For this reason I would say an open source creation will not attract the full audience who could benefit from using it. People also have trust for well-known brands over off-the-radar products that may not seem 'legit'. To some, open source software must seem an IT equivalent to pirate radio.
ReplyDeleteSome of that outlook is rooted in security fears, and as people have said, the openness of the code to hacking is notable, compared to nice secure commercial softwares; but on the other hand open source overcomes bugs thanks to a plethora of hawk-eyed users and no official upgrade schedule.
I would agree that looking forward, the cycle will continue wherein open source, through its flexibility and room for innovation, will drive progress in certain IT markets, and within these markets a commercial software with smart simple accessibility will come out on top in terms of popularity. The commercial source's shortcomings and expense will be substituted by those in the know with an open source alternative, and users of this software may well turn up some function which then becomes desirable to the wider IT community. It doesn't seem the IT world would work nearly as well if only one kind out of open-source and off-the-shelf existed.
Open source software is regarded as being reliable and of high quality, with its greatest advantage being how inexpensive it is to use. Development of open source software creates a developer loyalty and thereby reduces the cost and need for marketing. The software is continually analysed by a large community which test and fix bugs, making the whole program more reliable and secure. The collaboration of these programmers also makes the technology more flexible and innovative.
ReplyDeleteUsing open source software also comes with its share of disadvantages. There are restrictions on its use, for example, hardware can be incompatible with the open source platform meaning third party drivers are needed. This can also create difficulty in designing commercially sound business models based on open source software. Open source software has proved to be not as user friendly as commercial software, for example Linux vs. Windows. Lastly, open source software is more vulnerable to exploitation by hackers than closed source software.
I am partial to using commercial software primarily because of its ease of use and also due to the limited experience I have with using open source software. Despite this, I do think that there is a growing market for open source software, especially because it is free/cheaper to use.
The usability of open source data is highly variable as would be expected. Some open source data works very well and others do not. The same as it is with commercial products. I find that open source data can be a valuable tool to work along side commercial products. Such as using QGIS with ARC GIS basic package. However, using open scours products solely dose have draw backs. Tasks can often take longer compared to using commercial packages. For some reason they do not seem as direct. Though this is only my experience of the products I have used. Also when these products become popular they then can become commercial and require licenses etc. this can be for additional add ons or for the full package. Open source products can provide a benefit to the commercial market as there is less financial risk in trying now ventures such as layout design command tasks etc. If these are seen to work well then they can be incorporated by commercial products.
ReplyDeleteThere is the added concern of how your open source file will display in someone else's MS software or other open source software. I worked on a website some time back and the hassle of checking how every edit displayed in various browsers drove me up the wall...
DeletePersonally, I have found open source software recently to be excellent for performing everyday tasks often with less bugs than commercial software. There are obvious initial cost advantages using open source software although less support may cost additional time and cost to resolve any issues. I've been very impressed with the quality of QGIS and the range of functions it offers. Looking at recent developments, open source in years to come could provide solutions for many large companies however, a lack of customer support will always provide a considerable market share for commercial software packages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liam. I have recently worked with a n international company who use QGis as standard. All company laptops and pcs have it installed and all staff use it. Other than getting the heads around not having ESRI ArcGis is play with staff actually enjoy it and obviously for the business it means not needing a huge budget to cover ESRI maintenance. The NICS is actively looking at open source software and how we can start to use it to reduce costs. I investigated rolling I out QGis to my team earlier on this years. For £10k I could have had the whole team fully supported with install, help desk, and updates covered. This versus a cost of over £100k for standard of the shelf software it's almost a no brainer. As such we hope to pilot soon.
ReplyDeleteOpen source software has the advantage that it can be freely used, changed and shared by anyone. It has significantly lower costs,or is free in the actual purchase of the software and licensing . It has the advantage of collaborative participation in the development of it and so could be modified to fit one's needs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the disadvantages are that it could be vulnerable to hackers (as mentioned above) and that significant technical or documentation support is not available to aid usage. There is also the risk of incompatibility with certain hardware.
I believe that there is a market for open source software in the future, however I think that commercial products will continue to dominate the work place due to the reliability and the support that can be offered.
Better late than never I guess :-) Reiterating what many people have already said above, I think there is definitly a place for both Commercial and Open Source products. Having worked on a number of mapping flowlines over the years, there has often been both commercial and open software used hand in hand at different stages of a flowline.
ReplyDeleteAs David points out the choice of software is often related to risk, for example I remember one job where one team did the major edits largely with microstation. But then the QA team had Quantum simply used as a viewer. This made considerable savings on the number of licenses. In many other cases we also largly customised the likes of Quantum or Grass for particular flow line functions ... but much testing and time would be taken before implimentation.
Suggesting an open alternative certainly always goes down well with the boss (as long as it works!), but the reliability and support of commercial software means they still tended to be the meat of the tools I used on projects.
That said over the years there have been shifts in both open souce and commercial products. Open source becoming more complex and the shift of commercial products to more flexible liscensing. For instance pay when needed or for just the plugins/applets used, rather than the big licesnse for all. It will be interesting to see how both software sources integrate in the future.
I agree that open source is a valuable aspect of modern programming, in the past it has been the poor cousin to the larger licensed authors and for good reason, but in recent years the quality of OSS has really improved. So much so that it now provides an excellent alternative to licensed software and simultaneously creates some much needed competition to drive license prices down. I imagine that if someone is starting a business then the ability to reduce costs is very appealing, even if it does mean that they have more user input to accommodate for somewhat diminished functionality.
ReplyDelete