http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660@Chris Ortman "If they don't remove the barriers then let them fail. Isn't that just natural selection at work? " True, but that's not for you or me to decide. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment15http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment15Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:30:48 GMTDinesh, Look at the history: RDO ADO ADO.NET DAAB Strongly Typed DataSets Linq to SQL Linq to Entities Linq to Future ? And I don't get the math regarding the cost being the same. Not at all. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment14http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment14Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:30:34 GMTOpen Source or Other way it costs money to do it! I frankly don't see any difference. No one is advocating to reinvent wheel. But to say that OSS has immense business benefits is not true, in my opinion anyways. You said you can use Microsoft methodologies and rewrite every 2 years? That's not true, where do you get this from ? Also are you saying nHibernate will never get an upgrade that's compelling to move to newer versions ? OSS is like paying to "select few" higher rates then market to support the application. Closed Source is supported by "masses". In the end, the cost is the same if you look at business perspective. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment13http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment13Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:19 GMTI couldn't agree more. @haacked >If this is true, it would indicate businesses want to avoid being caught in >that competitive disadvantage, but they may have other significant >barriers to OSS adoption that are difficult to navigate. If they don't remove the barriers then let them fail. Isn't that just natural selection at work? http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment12http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment12Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:32:35 GMTHow do you see a new project becoming one of the top fifty? Isn't there a chance that existing projects that get CPF support stifles anything new? http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment11http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment11Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:12:15 GMTMy comment about what is happening is well resumed in this link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HweU-Nc__HE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HweU-Nc__HE)http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment10http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment10Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:50:06 GMTI think the key part in using OSS is to go through the same selection process as you would using a third party closed source solution, or an in-house built solution for that matter. There's a bunch of well designed OSS projects out there (NHibernate, Castle stuff, some others I can't remember), but there's also a lot of crap (pardon my French). From experience I know it's VERY bad to start using some component, no matter what source, which turns out to be badly designed. It only adds to frustration AND time you have to spend using it, and the nett result will usually turn out negative. This is something I hope the Codeplex Foundation will contribute to: Guide some of the 'lesser' open source projects, so at least the quality will be high. When the quality/stability of a project is up to standards, adoption will probably be easier, which will benefit the project again. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment9http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment9Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:00:44 GMTAgain, you hit the nail squarely on the head. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment8http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment8Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:08:41 GMTI've witnessed the clash of OSS versus inhouse before. However, in our team's case, it was more of a fight based on "not built here" as opposed to legal issues. Thankfully, common sense has now prevailed. I always say the same thing. Whose solution is going to be the best and represent the best value for money? In nearly all cases, an established OSS solution can integrated relatively painlessly. It solves the problem and costs very little in development terms. More to the point, if it is a mature product with a lot of talented contributors (many of which will have become experts in the area), how in the hell can anyone entertain the thought that they can do it better at the first attempt? How can they maintain that it offers the best value for money for the company? http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment7http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment7Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:12:25 GMTMy boss is somewhat paranoid about OSS. He thinks Oracle is going to start suing us if we use MySQL without paying them. Fortunately, he gives us a fair bit of freedom, so we use OSS libraries left and right. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment6http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment6Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:45:34 GMTNo need for me to upgrade MS data access routines in a long, long time. ADO.NET has been working fine forever. One of the joys of working at a lower level. I've been able to crank out projects while everyone else chases their tail every 2 years learning something new. ADO.NET will be around for a long time. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment5http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment5Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:15:58 GMTMaybe the __theme you mention would make more sense if you think of the mission of CPF as not so much "encouraging" OSS adoption, but "facilitating" it. As you point out, "if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of it". If this is true, it would indicate businesses want to avoid being caught in that competitive disadvantage, but they may have other significant barriers to OSS adoption that are difficult to navigate. I imagine CPF wants to help navigate that gap. However, per other discussions, I do agree this shouldn't be the sole focus of the CPF. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment4http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment4Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:28:40 GMTJoe, (Me talking) OSS is safer because a wider variety of eyes see it. Bugs get fixed faster (obviously this varies project to project). Safer in terms of cost. Just a few of mine, more will surely strike me later. http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment3http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment3Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:29:33 GMT"It is easy to show them why OSS is the safer choice." How? http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment2http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment2Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:04:54 GMTI've said it before and ill say it again...I appreciate your honesty and pragmatism. As the primary .net OSS contributor it'd been easy for you to exploit/promote CPF. Instead we get an honest appraisal...thanks. Tim Barcz http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment1http://ayende.com/4205/open-source-development-model#comment1Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:58:10 GMT