Years ago I when I wrote software for a living, I had an argument with a colleague, and I tried to explain to him:
The “supported” closed-source library he wanted to use was pretty popular because it was marketed by a huge company with a marketing department, or because it had a first-mover advantage, or because there were training events and books built around it, etc.
The unsupported free open-source library I wanted to use was the most popular library of its kind in the whole world. And it got to that position without any of those advantages.
What does that suggest about their relative usefulness? The world of open source is closer to being a real meritocracy. The number one app or library is probably number one for non-structural reasons.
I think the main reason most companies choose closed source is because management gets a hard-on for the thought of having someone to complain to. If they can’t call meetings with someone responsible and demand a quick fix, what use do they still have? All you can with open source is fix it yourself or create an issue. Neither requires a manager.
Correct. Also, they need someone to delegate the responsibility to. They are mainly concerned with not being held responsible for any potential fuck-ups. If they can say “the vendor did it” they can deflect the blame. Unfortunately that’s how making a career in the corporate world works for the vast majority of people. You advance by avoiding getting blamed for mistakes, not by brilliance or competence.
Years ago I when I wrote software for a living, I had an argument with a colleague, and I tried to explain to him:
The “supported” closed-source library he wanted to use was pretty popular because it was marketed by a huge company with a marketing department, or because it had a first-mover advantage, or because there were training events and books built around it, etc.
The unsupported free open-source library I wanted to use was the most popular library of its kind in the whole world. And it got to that position without any of those advantages.
What does that suggest about their relative usefulness? The world of open source is closer to being a real meritocracy. The number one app or library is probably number one for non-structural reasons.
I think the main reason most companies choose closed source is because management gets a hard-on for the thought of having someone to complain to. If they can’t call meetings with someone responsible and demand a quick fix, what use do they still have? All you can with open source is fix it yourself or create an issue. Neither requires a manager.
Correct. Also, they need someone to delegate the responsibility to. They are mainly concerned with not being held responsible for any potential fuck-ups. If they can say “the vendor did it” they can deflect the blame. Unfortunately that’s how making a career in the corporate world works for the vast majority of people. You advance by avoiding getting blamed for mistakes, not by brilliance or competence.
And then after they demanded a quick fix it will be swiftly delivered in next decade
A main issue, according to my non-software related work-life experience is also: liability reasons.
Being able to legally blame someone else when shit goes wrong is a very motivating driver for executive decisions.
Many open source have paid support