Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Joe Butler Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 09:54 pm "MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message news:tqadnefklo61aKveRVn-hg@io.com... > In article <433658fe$0$25464$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, > Joe Butler wrote: > >Perhaps you could give an example of a closed source application that "makes > >it a lot more difficult to switch [to another] vendor [compared to the open > >source version]" > > WordPerfect Rubbish - we moved from WordPerfect to Word with only minor issues. > Lotus Notes I can't comment on this. > Visual Basic That's a propriatory development environment for a propriatary language. What exactly are you expecting here? You got burnt over Visual Basic, didn't you. You presumably chose it because it gave you an advantages at the time - now, for some reason, you feel bad about it. > Office Open Office seem to be able to manage Office documents. The Office file format (Word at least) is publicly available from Microsoft. > ... > > What all these have in common is that they're closed source, closed format > applications that are used to develop large amounts of 'content'. For > example, If I spend $2M developing a system built on VB6, that makes it > $2M more difficult to switch away. So, if you choose a propriatary development system and language, that's your choice. I develop with Visual C - I've never felt locked in, and don't recall having any major problems or even any annoying minor problems. The problem is, that if you chose to use Visual Basic, it's highly likely that you didn't have the skills to use any of the non-propriatary alternatives. If that is the case, then you actually made a heavy overal win. If there were no Visual Basic development environments (or VB programmers available), you wouln't have had a $2M system to produce as an example. > Office is a bigger example (although > I'm not so sure what the impact of Microsoft's XML file formats will be). If there are freely-available XML and open document format parsers available, then even smaller companies will be able to work directly with Office (and other) docs. If there are not, then the open document format looks like a formidable specification to get right (for a small company). > Every document developed in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. makes it more > expensive to switch away to something else. Not really so, is it. You probably don't realise that you can output most of these documents as alternative formats which can then be read by other applications. Also, any entity that really wanted your business would make it a priority to seamlessly deal with Office format documents. > A company can't effectively > switch away from Excel and Access without paying the possibly huge costs > of reworking all the possibly thousands of little in-house tools developed > using those products. So, if it's cheaper to stick with the product, stick with it. If it's cheaper to switch to an alternative, switch. I can't see the problem. If you had propriatary database front ends from open source vendors, you'd still have the problem of needing to re-write all the front-ends and tools if you want to switch. At least with, say Access (and I think Excel too), you've got the ODBC layer that would allow your data to be accessed by any application that can make SQL calls. > > >If you get software from a closed source vendor that becomes problematic, > >you probably still have the option of moving to another system. > > Not without facing the costs I mention above. > > >There are > >likely to be very few systems where a transfer of data is impossible. > > It's not just data: it's logic, training, business processes and dozens of > other dependancies on legacy tools built into the organization. So, that's the whole point - do an analysis and find out which is the cheaper solution. It's either move or stick. I can't see what all the fuss is about. Basically, you are saying, "In the past, we had a real advantage in using all of these productivity apps. We got stuff out there and it worked. Now, we don't like MS, so we want to switch to something else. Ohhhh... It's all Microsoft's fault. They should never have produced binary-type file formats when 4MB, 16 MHz PCs were the norm. They should have produced a whopping open file format with loads of redundant data to be swapped in and out RAM everytime I wanted to quickly see what was in a document". > > > If, > >instead, you are using an open source system that becomes a major problem, > >you are now reliant on the 'community' still being around and giving your > >problem a high priority on the fix list. > > That't the 'free' solution. You can also hire someone to do the work for > you. > > You're not likely to pay for a full development program, but you might > well pay for key bug fixes, essential features, etc. > > > If the project is dormant, you've > >now got the problem of finding a developer that can fix the problem > > If the closed source project is dormant you have no choice at all, except > to pay for the costs of a rewrite, or switch, etc. > > >(at a cost - that's one of the OSS 'community' dogmas, remember) > > It can be about taking on personal responsibility. If you want a feature > or bug fix, you can always take it on yourself or pay someone else to do > it. The fact of the matter is: the vast majority of software users are technically clueless. The costs involved, for them, of switching from one system to another, I belive, may very well be comparable to obataining a single satisfactory bug fix for any major problem that does not have a workaround accessible to the user. > Closed source restricts you to making possibly impotent petitions for > help from someone else. Perhaps. But this is not the only factor to consider. .