The relative strengths and weaknesses of various open source and proprietary technologies continue to be hotly debated by the supporters of each camp, but clearly opinions are biased and statistics about total cost of ownership are open to manipulation.
Another problem is that comparisons are often inappropriate. "Always make sure you are comparing apples with apples," advises Ricardo Varela, who works as a researcher at the University of Seville in Spain, specialising in distributed systems.
Varela`s advice may seem obvious, but it seems that inappropriate comparisons are common. For example, Linux is regularly said to be "cheaper" than proprietary alternatives like Microsoft`s Windows, but Varela says such comparisons usually do not take into account the significant cost of Linux training, management tools, and support.
These often inappropriate or inaccurate comparisons have given rise to certain views that influence the way people think about open source and proprietary systems. Consequently, these views, or "myths" as Varela calls them, also influence decisions made about buying particular technologies.
Varela points out that while open source software is not anarchic, based on volunteer work, or synonymous with businesses losing money, it is also not true that open source is always cheaper, more secure, and has more support available through the open source community.
And the winner is...
As a technologist, Varela is able to make detailed comparisons between the various open source and proprietary technologies such as Linux and Windows. The depth of analysis and comparison is staggering, but which one does he think is better?
"There is no absolute winner," he says with a grin. From a technology point of view, it seems that for those in the know, it is more appropriate to talk about differences in approach than to say one is better than the other.
Varela provides a refreshingly neutral perspective that there are many "cool technologies" on both sides.
Getting real about the open source versus proprietary debate involves realising that challenge is to business to gain insights that go beyond the myths and then, based on those insights, to decide which is the most appropriate technology to meet specific business needs on a case-by-case basis.
Having said there is no clear winner, Varela does concede open source tools have a bit of catching up to do when it comes to developing applications that use Web services.
Like many local software developers, Varela says it is likely that future Web-based applications will be designed around the Web Services set of specifications, as defined by the independent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Web Services standards have been agreed upon by most of the world`s major software development companies. Varela says this is exciting and important because this kind of agreement, collaboration and co-operation has been relatively uncommon in software development history.
With Web Services clearly on the horizon, open source and Microsoft developers have a whole new set of capabilities to look forward to in PHP5 and ASP.NET 2.0 respectively. However, Varela says it could be argued Microsoft has the upper hand for now.
This advantage, says Varela, is derived from Microsoft`s early initiative in adopting the W3C Web Services standards and being more in step with business requirements through a large number of partnerships.
ASP.NET is also obviously integrates very easily with other Microsoft technologies found on most desktops around the world.
Although there may be no clear winner from a pure technology point of view, there is obviously advantage in having better marketing strategies and strategic partnerships, particularly as business and business imperatives increasingly become the drivers of the software market.
Perhaps the criticism of open source for lacking a good business model is justified after all? Technology aside, it cannot be denied that Microsoft has a successful business model.
And the answer is...
Perhaps the criticism of open source for lacking a good business model is justified after all?
Warwick Ashford, technology editor, ITWeb
As a technologist and not a businessman, Varela says the answer is clear. Publishing universally agreed specifications is much more important than publishing source code. "Availability of code can lead to some funny hacks," he laughs.
Unambiguous specifications in the form of standards are key, Varela says, pointing out that the Internet owes much of its success to standards like the hypertext transfer protocol (http).
Adherence to standards means Web pages can be accessed by a variety of different Web browsers. Similarly, standards will make Web Services universally accessible.
Varela believes that the real answer lies in publishing specifications because once standardisation is achieved, many of the arguments for and against both open source and proprietary approaches will become irrelevant.
It makes sense that technology should be guided by standards that enable interoperability rather than by myths based on inaccurate perceptions, doesn`t it?
Accepting this means it is time to get real about the open source debate and concentrate on issues that really matter.
Share