The curious (mis)perception of open-source support
Matt Asay always writes such great posts.
Forrester finds that European enterprises cite support as their biggest reason for not adopting open-source software. This has persisted for years, with support (or, a lack thereof) consistently listed as one of the top reasons that enterprises throughout the world avoid open source.
The ironic thing is that open-source companies primarily sell support, not software. So…while proprietary-software vendors sell licenses with support as an afterthought, enterprises don’t seem to question that they’re going to get support. At the same time, open-source companies sell support with licenses as an afterthought…and enterprise buyers worry that they won’t get support.
…
I’m just suggesting that stifling your company’s open-source adoption because of a perceived lack of support is silly and outdated. Welcome to the 21st Century. Open-source vendors provide support as good or better than their proprietary peers. Really.
When I teach my open source classes I always focus on this detail because I know that people worry about the support model for open source software. There is also a discussion going on a mailing list I subscribe to about this very topic.
If you’ve heard this as a reason for not using open source in your organization how would you recommend someone like me educate people that this is a mis-conception?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
You made my day, Nicole. Thanks for reading.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
As you know, Nicole, I have been one of the people that questioned the support for open source software. You and Matt make some good points here that are starting to make me think differently.
I think one of the reasons that the lack of support argument is going to continue to exist is that open source gives off that aura of something that is just for hackers. I mean, I installed Red Hat 5 (I think it was 5, but this is just off the top of my head) and then spent a couple of hours trying to make it recognize a USB drive without success. I hear Ubuntu is better for regular users and I may give it another shot, but Red Hat was a very successful piece of open source software and I couldn’t make it do a lot of simple things, at least not easily. That is the perception that you’re fighting against, the perception that open source is hard unless you’re a programmer.
If you’re marketing to a general consumer/library you have to present the piece of software as a product that works well as is. Sure, sure, you can add all of the fun tweaks to get it to do amazing things, but if I install this catalog on my servers today I want at least basic functionality tomorrow . . . or in a week if I’m being generous. If you show me you’ve got that, then your foot is in the door.
You may not even want to advertise your software as open source. Just call it free and mention on your licensing and about pages that, oh yeah, btw, this is open source for all you software gurus out there. I think that’s key. Open source sometimes equates to half finished or un-user friendly and if you can fight past that stereotype then you’re making giant leaps in the right direction.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Alex,
Those are some great points. When I go out to teach what open source is I show a wide range of software products to the attendees. Among those products I show Firefox and Thunderbird, both open source and both work once installed.
The problem is that you’re talking about installing an operating system without asking for help and the ILS is along that same scale. I’m not saying that you can do it yourself, I’m saying that there is support out there for people without server and programming skills.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
My thoughts are similar to Alex’s. Maybe when people say support, what they mean is product development support. Customer needs are continually changing and the ILS software has to change to meet those demands. If you don’t have a programmer on your library IT staff, and your software vendor isn’t doing product development, you are left dependant on other libraries’ IT staff to develop your ILS. I think that makes people uncertain about the sustainable future of an open source ILS.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jill, I’m not sure I understand. In the case of the open source ILS, your vendor is doing product development - and providing general customer service and help desk support. The difference in the open source model from the model libraries are used to is the fact that if they need a feature developed they can ask their vendor to create it for them (for a price) or they can take their idea to a contractor and they can program that piece for them. With your proprietary ILS you get the upgrades that the most people want and if you want something special you don’t have access to the code so you can’t ever get that feature.
As for the sustainable future, only time will tell - of course I believe it’s the way we’re moving - but even if you don’t - if you’re in the market for a new ILS anyway, why not try one where you get complete access to the data and code so that you can always take that with you should you have to move again?