Ask Slashdot: Does your Employer have an OSS Policy? 150
osjedi submitted this tidbit for your toughts: "I have heard from a few people that the companies they work for have issued a statements to the IT departments stating that they are forbiden to utilize any open source software. Obviously this is short-sighted. I would be interested to know from fellow Slashdoters what stance (if any) their employer has taken regarding the use of OSS. I would like to compile a list of the companies forbiding the use of OSS. It would be fun to create a "Open Source Users" stock index, and a coresponding "Open Source Refusers" index." It would be interesting to know which companies actively promote Open Source as these might be good places for those OSS Coders who are currently looking for day jobs. What do you all think?
My experience with OSS at the Workplace (Score:3)
I work at Ericsson US (our design center is based in Richardson TX) and they are just beginning to understand the benefits of Linux. I installed it on my workstation, and use it here and there to get stuff done. We are split between NT and Solaris (with the NT people pusing it slowly but surely to replace Solaris), so I can't really use it for everything.
The main problem is, many people (my group included) see Linux only as a cheap way to breathe life into older hardware. While we all know that Linux can run reasonably well on older machines, we also know that it just rocks on modern stuff. However, our design center is of the belief that if we want to run Linux, lets do it on some old hardware so we can save money. They aren't really looking at Linux as an alternative to other solutions with the same hardware; rather, they are looking at Linux as a way to put off buying new hardware.
I see this as a problem in the community at large; many times we emphasize the ability of Linux to use legacy stuff. Perhaps we should put more emphasis on just how awesome Linux is on modern stuff.
On a side note, I am definitely glad that my employer sees Linux as useful. Count Ericsson among the Enlightened
Moving a new platform in (Score:1)
Cheers,
WFE
===========
Black Listing (Score:1)
Ah yes black listing. Rarely popular, but as nearly as effective as boycotting in bringing about change. (The list of companies that embrace OSS would be a welcome document for many people, such as investors and job seekers.)
Mandos
Re:Anonymous Replies (Score:1)
big companies need vendors to beat on (Score:2)
A lot of companies are scared of OSS for a legitimate reason: They need a vendor to answer for any problems.
First, I don't believe in this, so don't hurt me. I'm just trying to get you into their head so you can understand a non-OSS policy that doesn't need a religious foundation.
For OSS: You can change the code yourself (or audit it) when there are problems without waiting on the vendor.
Big company: Then we have to train people to know the code. And we feel obligated to audit the code to gaurantee some hacker (sic) didn't put a back door into it. Training is expensive.
For OSS: Outsource your OSS support to a third party company. In other words, get a Linux support company to support your linux boxes.
Big company: If they didn't write the software, how can they know it well enough to fix it? Linux support companies are too small to handle our large accounts.
The company I'm currently working at kind of treat their vendors like black boxes. They send money and out pops a product. They aren't equipped (logistically and mentally) to dig into the code. I'm not saying that you have to dig into code to run Linux, but if something happens, a big company is not going to be content sending email to the package maintaner.
The building I work in has more SUN guys (100 or so) crawling around supporting our SUN boxes than RedHat has employees, I think. So, I think the large company mixing with a small company thing is a legitimate argument.
That said, having a strict non-OSS policy is stupid. That just falls into the "don't limit your options" category. My company has a come aways in the last couple years. Perl (gasp!) is being used and I know of a Linux box and someone hacking with MySQL. I see these as cracks in the non-OSS policy and instead of leaving the company, I'm staying to widen these cracks.
OSS (Score:1)
"Someone to sue" doesn't make sense to me (Score:1)
My employer... (Score:2)
Last year we went from UNIX and VMS to NT. All workstations were removed from our desks. They were usally Sun SPARCstation LXs, 10s, or 20s or SGI Personal Iris 4D/30(/35), Indigos, Indys, or Indigo2s depending on the dept. and the job you did. The SGIs were generally used in the mechanical engineering departments and the Suns in the electronics engineering departments. Now everyone is stuck using Windows98 with crummy design tools. This cost a fortune... trust me. The place is horridly unstable and we have problems all the time. I'm on the system administration team and let me tell you it's a nightmare. We replaced 3 VAX 6000s,7 Sun 630MPs, and a Challenge S with NT. That in itself is disgusting. We are forbidden from using any OSS. They claim it's unreliable and unstable and there's no one to sue which is basically what my supervisor told me. The place is Unix free now. The management claimed they needed a "solution" to the aging computer equipment we had here... so they in their infinite wisdom *cough* went totally microsoft.
The part that really jerks my chain today is that when they got rid of the old equipment they had it crushed and shredded. No one was allowed to have any of it. Knowing what happened to all those workstations and servers is sickening. I don't know why did it either. Selfish assholes.
Misc. thoughts. (Score:3)
"No Linux"
Also, the entire phenomenon doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do with Linux and/or OSS. I once worked for a hugemongous company where the computing was mostly split between one mainframe per site vs. many departmental VAXen at the site. There was a never-terminating feud between them what wanted to get rid of the mainframes and them what wanted to get rid of the VAXen. (Among the support staff it was mostly a matter of friendly badgering, but among management it was apparently a matter of making and breaking careers.) The policy swung back and forth every few years, apparently as a function of who was retiring and who was moving up to fill the void.
To elaborate on what another poster said: corporate bureaucracy is a pyramid. Five people want to move into that single slot above them. If you do what all the others do, you've got 1/5 chance of success. If you do something different, you can avoid the luck of the 1/5 chance, and rise or fall depending on how your decision works out. This undoubtedly accounted for a certain number of managers who pushed their company to all-NT, and will undoubtedly account for a certain number of managers who will push their company to all-Linux. In other words, sometimes it's a matter of internal politics rather than of technology.
Never underestimate the power of salesmen bearing expense accounts. I've seen some incredibly stupid decisions made by people under salesmen's thumbs.
The license worries may be based on lack of knowledge, but they aren't entirely unreasonable for all that. The Software Pwhatever Association has companies terrified about getting keelhauled over unlicensed software. (Irony is, the SPA behaves rather like pirates when they do catch an offender.) The only solution here is educating decision makers about the GPL and other OSS licenses. This should happen automatically as they start seeing their peers in other companies adopt OSS, but it would be nice to get a favorable precedent-setting court case or two behind us. (IANAL, but the good thing is, apparently, that the more companies start using OSS, the less likely it is that a court will strike the GPL down as a quirky, unsupportable document. The fact that Fortune 100 companies are buying in to it more or less gives it a Common Law status. Also, if big companies rely on OSS, it will be easier to raise money for any defense funding that may be needed in the future.)
A number of posters have indicated that their management has swallowed the FUD hook, line, and sinker. This is another problem that should evaporate as more and more companies publicly acknowlege using OSS. How will the PHB reconcile "hacker's toy" with "Boeing uses it to design airplanes" ? (I'm sure the true PHB will pop his head into the Management Zone, but lots of other bosses will undoubtedly snap out of it.)
BTW, thanks to everyone who has posted. This discussion has been a really interesting peak behind the curtains.
Even Windows includes free software (Score:1)
eg at ftp://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/ping.html (I didn't get a response from there just now, but it's cached at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:281918&dq=ca
Re:My employer... (Score:1)
Yeah! (Score:1)
_Deirdre
"But we want to change the license!!" (Score:1)
But the policy also stood that as soon as it entered the building, it wasn't allowed to leave it in any form whatsoever. In short, they wanted to change the license on everything to 'This is ours, you can't even look at it.' When I gently explained to them on Monday when I gave notice that I would be copying many patches and modifications that I made to floppy disk, they were livid. "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! NO NO NO! YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ANY LINUX THAT CAME FROM HERE!! ANYTHING!!!"
Now, pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I'd say that's overstepping their bounds a good bit, considering the fact that with their approval, I burned a Debian 2.1r2 CD for home so I could upgrade my system more easily than 'apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade'. (I'm on 56k.) Seems to me they're basically saying "we're nullifying all licenses and replacing them with our own." They told me I wasn't permitted to use software that I had brought in from home ever again, stuff that was licensed under the GPL and developed outside the company/state/COUNTRY. I politely told them that I wished them luck in enforcing that, but that would not be happening. Non-competition agreements are illegal. (they wanted me to sign a 4 year non-competition agreement.) Now they want me to obey verbal orders that effective immediately, I'm not allowed to work period because they have a copy of this software package? HA!
Needless to say, I took it all with me. Both the software I developed at home, and the software that they used. And if they want to try and sue me, I say go right the fuck ahead. The case would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat. Just because they own a copy of something doesn't mean they own the copyright and licensing rights.
Of course, the people there were so incredibly stupid, I'm amazed they know what a virus is; they spread Melissa all over the place on a weekly basis; they spread macro viruses in every direction with every email. They barely knew how to double click.
And that was the technical staff. I show them a bash prompt and they ask me what's wrong with the server, and when will it be back up. And these morons want to do a nation-wide network with ciscos and descends and other items not suited for the task at hand. Not to mention running every NT machine they have on a single license for client, and a single license for workstation. There's three NT applications in the whole company that are legally licensed. And NT isn't one of 'em. And they think it's perfectly fine. Gods.
Leaving those people was the best move I ever made. Anyone who thinks that just because it's in their building, they own the entirety of it, no matter what it is, shouldn't even be allowed to hire employees. Gods.
I'm posting this anonymously simply because I want to see my last two paychecks. They owe me something to the tune of $1500. And something tells me I'm probably going to have to take them to court to get it.
Open Source OK for Flight Management (Score:3)
We develop Flight Management Systems for various types of aircraft (if it's bigger than a Cessna, odds are the pilot isn't really flying the plane, after all). We've been a VAX/VMS shop for a long time, and we still do a fair amount of devel on that platform, but with the decline in PC prices and the increase in PC power, we've been searching for a new approach.
Of course, the powers that be decided the future was in a Microsoft solution, but a number of us lowly engineer types were too revolted not to try and find something else. Solaris was the first choice, but since we write the majority of our code in Ada (no comments from the peanut gallery), we were limited in our choice of compilers between one by Rational and one by VADS. Well, neither of these produce very good code on the PowerPC considering how expensive they are.
Too hasten to the point, someone had the bright idea of trying a GCC cross-compiler with NYU's Ada front end, GNAT. You wouldn't believe how much better code it produces (30% - 50% better) on our benchmarks. Now we're looking at a linux based development environment to go with it.
I just goes to show how sneaky you have to be to get management to even try open source stuff sometimes. First you let them spend a pile of money on a poor solution, then you step in and replace it with a vastly better solution for -- what was that price again? -- oh, yes, for FREE. The suits are usually in such hot water at the time, they can't do anything about it anyway.
All right so I said more than I had too, but it's a kind of interesting story, isn't it?
wsh
Re:What? (Score:1)
Large Credit Card Company (Score:2)
They're so strict that they have even banned perl because Sun/HP do not "officially" support it. Of course everyone in the UNIX department uses perl anyways
This is probably confidential info actually, but they turned me down for a job, so I don't care
Our stance (Score:1)
This small "test" showed the higher-ups that Linux was capable, and that we were capable of supporting it. Because of the success with this, Linux is an officially supported platform here. We are preparing to put up a news server running Linux. We have a test Linux machine with Oracle installed which we hope to devote time to shortly. And I'm playing with some of the CD writing software for Linux on another machine so that anyone in my area that needs to burn CDs can do so. I'll probably have a document scanning machine in place within 6 months also.
Hope this provides you with a little encouragement.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Score:1)
This ban is rarely heeded.
My opinion on this is intentionally not stated.
--
Obscurity or Math? (Score:1)
They say that "Linux is too insecure" because "Anybody can find holes in it by looking at the source, you gotta download new patches every week!" I did try to explain to one of the guys, using the analogy of cell phones. There are 2 ways to secure cell phone transmissions. One is to encrypt them. The other, more common one, is to make FM receivers on certain bands illegal! This despite the fact that any skilled person can make a radio, and plenty of old TV's still out there receive these signals just fine. All you do is send some poor kid to jail every now and then for being curious. He agreed that mathematically secure is the best security of all, but still said that obscurity is the best that they can do - nobody can catch all the bugs! Too much work! So our departmental servers will run on IRIX for quite some time.
By the way, these people are pretty BOFH-ish. Six months I've been BEGGING them to get this one program I need on the departmental server working again. They won't do it. The libraries aren't installed right, and I don't have privileges to mess with anything. Isn't this the sort of thing that the microcomputer revolution was supposed to end forever? Screw you gaaahss, I'm going home.
Okay, let's talk about accountability. (Score:1)
When (notice I don't say "if") their product fails and costs you money, you have NO recourse against MicroSquish.
Historically, MicroSquish's policy w/r/t bug reports (including security holes) is to deny the problem, blame it on someone else, claim that the administrator isn't using it right, and then finally sell you the bug fix in a bundle with 500 or so new bugs and call it an upgrade.
Compare this to Open Source software like Linux or Perl: The developers read the newsgroups and mailing lists, and bugs are reported and typically fixed within a week of the initial report.
Unlike the anonymous herds of children mangling code in Redmond, OSS developers care about what they do, because they know that their reputation is at stake.
As soon as Linux has a GUI and development environment that measure up to NeXTSTEP, I'll drop Macintosh and MicroSoft once and for all.
-jcr
Stakes are high... (Score:1)
But what of the corparate software buyer, what does he or she have to lose turning to open solutions ?? Isn't the software cheaper... better.
Well I guess I'd miss the wining, dining and junkets to that little conference in the Caribbean. Never under-estimate the power of a few rounds of golf at Pebble Beach.
The answer is we of the open world need to add something... like 'Open Perks'!
Made in the Dark
First there was need, then specification, then a pair of tickets to the the Cetics game...
OSS Predujices (Score:1)
He even installed MS Proxy server/client instead of a good old run-of-the-mill gateway. In fact, he REMOVED our gateway to do this. Of course, it offers NO MORE FUNCTIONALITY than an IP masquerading gateway. Of course, Micro$oft didn't bother writing a client for anything non-windows, so all the linux boxes have no net access. Yup.
Although, recently he's been softening up... I think it's partially due to my badgering and partically due to positive press. So my suggestion to you for losing clueless OSS policies based on M$ FUD is:
-print up positive article, post them where people will read them.
-exthol the virtues of linux, with figures to back it up.
-calculate your overtime fixing stuff that breaks because it's a crummy product, add it to your real-world cost. That's a biggie.
The result of this is we're keeping the damn MS proxy server, but we're also installing a gateway. Linux is also installed on one of our main server boxes. It's getting better
Afraid to ask (Score:1)
Our I.T. department is a different story. The less they know about what we do and how we do it, the happier everyone is. Asking them about OSS would be like waking up a dragon to inquire if it wanted its claws painted a nice pastel pink. The answer might well be yes, but do you really want to know that badly?
It's politics, not support (Score:1)
If the whole "no OSS" thing were about support, then that'd have to mean "no MS software" as well. Because I haven't seen anything approaching a usable level of support from MS w/o paying unreal amounts of money.
Threat to/from OSS (Score:1)
Thankfully, calmer heads prevailed. It was pointed out that this was more of an administration issue than anything else. Some otherwise PHB-like people seemed to back this up and no policies were forthcoming.
Of course, this did bring up the issue about how "safe" a Linux installation was for the average office worker. I've talked to other folks within the local IT community and some discussion towards an "approved, managed" Linux installation was done. I would much prefer this direction than the PHB-spawned alternatives.
Re: (Score:1)
Not necessarily shortsighted (Score:1)
I work for a subsidiary of a large blue software company. We are crazy about Linux. We release products for it. However, one has to be VERY careful legally about source code.
Using an open-source solution as part of a shipping product can be a dangerous thing, as we have no guarantee where the code came from, whether it violates patents, or whether it was blatantly stolen from someone else. By shipping it, we would open ourselves up to potential lawsuits if the above scenaria were true, and for those who scoff at that, trust me, our parent is a very big target with very deep pockets; there are those who would try.
The other potential problem is tainting of developers; if we develop a closed-source program but I've looked at the source for a comparable open-source program, I'm jeopardizing the legality of our project.
In light of the points mentioned above, our particular company has a very specific software acquisition policy whereby the legal team will approve specific downloads, especially those relating to our line of work.
Please don't get me wrong; I live for open source software and have contributed to oss projects during my free life (before IP kicked in). However, labeling companies as lame or bad because they have a legal and financial responsibility to be careful in a potentially dangerous area is just foolishness. So many were quick to jump all over this topic, and those same people obviously have no idea what kind of issues actually surround software acquisition and use in the real world.
I'm management and some of my staff refuses OSS (Score:1)
Oops, sorry, wrong web page.... :-)
Anyway, I have the opposite problem. Some braindead staff that give *ME* shit for suggesting the use of certain OSS packages and OSes. There's one of them who is a real Microsoft flunky let me tell you. He's going to pop a cork when I suggest we start support Star Office soon! We regularly get into arguments over *NIX versus NT.
Anyway, we do (and have since the beginning of IT time) used OSS software heavily. One thing I love about it is often not mentioned, and it's not the saving of cash. As a college, we get some insanely low pricing from Microsoft through their Select 4.0 program, like Office Pro (not upgrade) for less than $50, so license costs aren't as big of a deal with us as if it cost us a few hundred a pop.
But I don't care about the money for desktop software. It's billed to someone else's budget. What keeps me up at night is the difficulty in keeping accurate track of installed software with restrictive commercial licenses which make management of licenses a real hassle, let alone the legal liability issues for ME as the big guy if those ass holes at SPA come knocking at the door. Funny how corporate officers of companies are never criminally liable for actions of their companies but *I* have to be criminally liable if some idiot sneaks an install of some commercial package onto their office PC. But I'm ranting...
So, best of "free" software (not just OSS) is that I can just install it as needed where needed and not worry about keeping strict track of who has it and who paid for it.
But, back on topic, the idea of an OSS user register is great, but is not going to be easy to compile. As we've seen from previous posts, most people post AC and won't name names.
As for *my* employer, you can certainly figure it out with a click or two, else you're a total idiot!
(And no, I am not speaking for my employer in this forum....)
Re:"But we want to change the license!!" (Score:1)
(You can do this anonymously, with SPA at least.)
Unisys (Score:1)
We are a Pro-OSS house. (Score:1)
You can look at us at www.FlyingCroc.com [flyingcroc.com]
Just a hint, if you apply for one of the "Technology" jobs, you have a better chance if your resume is in plain ASCII :)
Misunderstandings and Blacklists (Score:1)
Before encouraging the creation of an OSS blacklist and/or OSS enemies list, make sure the information you have is correct. No company would prevent the use of OSS software is non-development departments unless they produced software of simlar function internally.
GPL software has and should be prohibited when proprietary software is being developed. There are a few lazy programmers in every company and the co-mingling of GPL source and proprietary source is not in a company's best interest.
FedEx (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft people speak up!! (Score:1)
The only problem I ran into with alternate OS'es was the fact that BeOS DHCP doesn't work with the internal MS DHCP servers.
Solution to the problem (Score:3)
This is a quite disturbing idea, but is also quite easy to solve -- in concept, at least. Compile a blacklist of anti-OSS/Linux companies. Give the list a prominent position on Slashdot. Mail the list around to opt-in participants on a weekly basis. Encourage mirroring and reposting of the list. I'm sure open source developers would be willing to participate -- Apache, PHP.net, OReilly.com, Perl.com.
What this will do is prevent talented inviduals from applying to the blacklisted companies. This scares the heck out of recruiters. They ability to attract new talent is based largely on how well the environment will suit their needs. And something this drastic would certainly attract mainstream media attention in fairly short order.
Perhaps even Microsoft-only shops (no Solaris, Mac, Apache etc) would get dinged even more.
But there would be some things to consider:
1) Need to verify and rate the claims of anti-OSS situations. Moderators would be a must. Abuse of power could potentially be a problem.
2) Make it clear that this is a positive thing. Explain how companies can take advantage of the benefits of open source, and get themselves un-blacklisted at the same time.
3) Make it clear that you don't have to use
4) Possibly inform/advocate OSS software that has commercial software qualities -- support contracts, shrinkwrapped packages, established support sites, sample code. Anything to ease the transition.
I would be willing to lead this charge. If anyone is interested, contact me. Maybe we can start a list to discuss our options.
Finally, I wonder how many of these companies are using open source software and don't realize it? If they're using Apache, Perl, Sendmail -- they're at least part of the way there, right?
More statements on company sites noting the use of open source software [maxify.com] couldn't hurt, either, could it?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
It's Arbitrary (Score:1)
Duh. (Score:1)
Hey! There's always NT and IIS.
My cat likes cat food (Score:4)
to be why would a company have a "no OSS" policy?
However, the thread quickly degenerated into
"I use Perl and it works, NT sucks, blah blah blah"
There were a few posts that mentioned what is the probable reason (IMHO) for the no OSS policy. A no OSS policy means that you have to get approval to install software. This lets legal check the license and avoid any problems where someone installs something that is not freeware in a corporate setting (Applixware anyone?).
BTW, the subject was a poke at those who quickly
took this thread off topic. Why not post some relevant comments about how to create a business case to get OSS software approved?
No across the board policy (Score:1)
Re:big companies need vendors to beat on (Score:1)
Why OSS can't make it into the mainstream. (Score:1)
(I really should post this anon but..)
OSS can't make it mainstream because it just dosen't make enough work for people. With 98 and NT on the desktop and for servers you're practically guaranteed that your tech and MIS guys are going to have something to do every hour that they're willing to contribuite. With OSS they just sit there and live the dream of a future with less work. Unless they're good enough and motivated enough to hack on the software and improve it.
One of the companies I've worked for has been running an SGI (not quite OSS but they're coming around) since 94 and a linux box since 93. The only time either of them have been rebooted (other than kernel upgrades..and that linux was still running a pre 2.0 kernel last time I checked) was when they had to be physically moved from one room to another! On the other hand at the proding of the marketing manager MIS tested the viability of moving the website from that SGI to an NT server.
The NT server required constant babysitting. Several reboots a day because it would hang, and nothing but broken promises when it comes to the ease of developing web based applications. The day I tought the admin of that machine how to program in perl for the SGI he practically unplugged the NT machine and started filling out the return forms! He coulden't belive how much simpler it was. Of course he came from a tradional CS background rooted heavily in Unix.
Then again even the desktop designer who came from a Mac background and was a diehard GUI fan admitted it was easier than working with ASP on the NT machine.
Ok, I'm rambling and not making sense anymore (or so I'm guessing) so I'll cut it short. Bye bye karma for this one.
OSS is fine but no Linux (Score:1)
Boycott? (Score:1)
Rule 1. Must use an open source operating system [preferably Linux thow BSD works really well just hard to find an ISP that uses it]
Rule 2. Small ISP.. It's a support issue... Usually Linux/Unix questions get forwarded to a SysAdm on a small ISP and go unanswered on a larg ISP. At least thats my limited experence.
I would recomend NOT doing busness with a company that forbids open source. Now if a busness allows open source and dosn't use any OSS thats ok as long as the people responsable for picking the best solution are allowed to pick the best solution reguardless of hype and fud.
Simply put the consummer shouldn't pay for the short sightedness of a manager who really shouldn't be interfearing with the jobs of the people who accually know what is or isn't reliable.
This reminds me of other situations where an expert is told how to do his/her job by someone who dosn't really know that job.
Anyway I think it's a good idea to get busnesses to sign some sort of agreement saying they will NOT ban open source software and avoid companys known to ban open source software.
OSS Supporter: Webb Interactive Services (Score:1)
Our press release is here [webb.net], and we have an additional page of background information here. [webb.net]
Eric
--
"Free your code...and the rest will follow."
Why We Use OSS (Score:1)
I work at an Internet banking company with a technically strong and extremely clueful development team. We use open source software in as many roles as possible, and mandate its use in any security-critical role unless no suitable open source product is available.
The reason's not hard to guess: We must assure ourselves that anything we use, we can examine from source to determine security risks. We've been known to submit bugfixes to Perl, NetBSD, etc.
To hell with crackpot theories of avoiding liability -- we're trying to avoid getting hacked in the first place.
--
Speaking as an Employer... (Score:2)
The point is, companies that do use free software should recognise their debt to the Free software community and contribute back to it. Human nature being what it is, though, I suspect a lot of companies will just take take take and not Do the Right Thing and give the appropriate amount back to the community. We do what we can, because we don't want to live in a world dominated by BSOD's (I hate to think how much of my life has been wasted because of Microsofts policy of shipping shoddy code).
Also as an employer, when we're hiring coders (which we always are, so mail if you're interested) we'd take people with C and Linux over someone with C++ and MFC anyway....
It might eventually happen the other way.... (Score:1)
A vast amount of users use windows at home or in their past jobs. They almost invariably believe that they would prefer to be using Windows. One major reason is becouse they feel that they can 'control' windows. With its fonts and screen colors. Whereas Unix is 'unfreindly'.(We all know this should be falshood if the admin is worth his salt)
Some of these companies that use Unix primarily, both as servers and workstations, select there IT members based upon there abilties. But they also decide whether these would be IT's would 'give the party line' (Unix) or whether the prospective employe think the company should do something diferent. Like Netware or NT, in which case they are not hired.
I see this as evidence that the people in control wish thier technical crew to preach the party line no matter what it might might be.
Becouse Unix is, at the moment, on the defensive this means this is very important to Unix biased IT departments.
In the future, I believe that it may well be the NT biased departments that may well be on the defensive and holding tooth and nail to thier NT boxes and banishing anyone who speaks heresy.
Or maybe that is what we are already seeing......
Opening at an OSS friendly company (Score:1)
Anyway, we have an opening for a full time developer. If you're in the Boston area and you have have experience with Java, SQL, and Unix/Linux and an interest in statistics email me with the URL to your resume.
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? (Score:1)
company would have a policy *against* OSS. I'm
used to having an official policy that we'd
always use OSS options whenever feasible.
But I've only worked in web-related start-ups, and
under those circumstances you have some special
development priorities:
partially because business directions change
so quickly, so tools better be modifiable.
first prototype, and then on to the release.
You'd better not be waiting for that vendor
to fix that bug; you only have 48 hours left.
doesn't do what you want; the lack of licensing
costs makes it cheaper to try out a few.
license is better. Development costs typically
swamp this, but every bit helps.
Of course, these rules also tend to guide us to
use other rapid-development tools like Java and
Perl. When development time and development costs
dominate, these things are vital.
Also, if you're planning on releasing your mods
and original software when you write it, it makes
re-usability between projects easier. Let's face
it: start-ups don't have a 100% success rate.
If you can easily make your next attempt more
likely to succeed, it can be great in the long run.
As I'm less familiar with other domains of
business, I won't speculate on OSS importance
there. But it's great when you're small and fast.
Microsoft is refreshingly zealot free (Score:1)
I've been at Microsoft for almost 5 years now, and I've never seen anyone take an anti-OSS stance. You use the best tool for the job. Since my fingers were trained to use emacs before coming here, I still use GNU emacs (there's a good NT port of it).
The group I work in (in Research) consists of almost all former Unix people. Some people still have a free unix box of one sort or another, but most just run NT because (as long as you're not a zealot) it can run all your unix stuff just fine. I can't think of a unix tool I want that isn't available for NT. And contrary to slashdot FUD, NT 4.0 hasn't crashed on me since I installed it... several years ago. (I'll admit 3.51 crashed on me once or twice)
The one thing we were told, however, was not to look at the mozilla code after Netscape freed it (we can run Mozilla if we really want to - yeah, right, like we would - but we can't look at the source). This is because the lawyers are worried about Netscape suing us or something. I can understand this policy.
Oh, and the usual disclaimer: this post is entirely my own personal opinion, I don't speak for Microsoft.
Linux works here (Score:1)
Re:It might eventually happen the other way.... (Score:1)
"VNC - it does *this* - and you mean it's FREE?!"
"Of course! What else would I be doing downloading it?!"
Talk about a meeting of the mentalities...
Industrial Action (Score:1)
find any use of OSS software by the organisation
(either internally or externally) and disable it:
Bind, sendmail, apache, squid etc.
Bean counter: why did my email bounce?
IT person: your mail would have been accepted
by an OSS product, which we are not allowed
to utilize.
Bean counter: why can't I surf the web anymore?
IT person: all of your hostname -> IP lookups
were being served by an OSS product, which we
are not allosed to utilize. Sorry.
Wait 7 days. Policy will change.
FORE Systems is OSS friendly (Score:1)
A number of OSS projects have spawned from the company. One of them is CONS [dsmit.com], a wonderful replacement for make that we use internally for many of our projects. Another one is the Net::SNMP [cpan.org] Perl module.
Please note the license terms for these packages. They have the usual "use at your own risk" licenses.
Re:Even Windows includes free software (Score:1)
Re:Okay, let's talk about accountability. (Score:1)
With that, you have a GUI that measures up to Next, and a development environment that should be close, though some tools might be missing, I don't know what NeXT has/had in the way of tools that isn't being cloned.
Microsoft may be doing direct Fudding. (Score:1)
Open source: We love it. (Score:1)
In October, I'm going to work for Vovida [vovida.com], which not only uses open-source software but makes it, exclusively. If you're interested in Linux telephony, you should check them out.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
So let's give companies a really easy way to get off the blacklist: they can put an "Open Source Friendly" icon on their web page. I'm imagining something like a penguin holding hands with or hugging a baby gnu (the BSD daemon won't go over with the Christian Right, sorry), with a caption reading "Open Source Friendly." The icon links to *OUR* page, which explains the pledge that the icon represents.
I think that this will work wonders. Recruiters are extremely sensitive to issues like this, and "Open Source Friendly" (and the icon) will start appearing on recruitment advertisements very quickly. Hiring managers will quickly learn that if they're not "Open Source Friendly," their chances of filling positions will decrease dramatically.
I volunteer to draft the wording of the web page. Anybody want to host it? GIMP the icon?
- Eric Strovink
strovink@acm.org
Re:big companies need vendors to beat on (Score:1)
Big Company: Can RedHat supply 100 people to this one location, without having to wait a year them to be trained? Do they have a long term reputation for reliability? RedHat just IPO'd a couple months ago! How can they be relied upon. They are a babe in the woods compared to SUN.
Re:No across the board policy (Score:1)
Re:big companies need vendors to beat on (Score:1)
Yeah, there probably will be a shortage of Linux developers. But I don't necessarily think anyone here needs to be too upset about that...
Some companies are the opposite (Score:1)
Re:We are a Pro-OSS house. (Score:1)
Use the best tool for the job (Score:1)
that uses Unix boxen (commercial and Linux) extensively, the company uses mostly
Monoposoft Windoze.
I recently proposed to the IT Director that we put Linux servers in at all of :-).)
the presently Windoze-only sites for file and print sharing and for email
servers. I explained that this would be relatively inexpensive and that, in my
experience, the servers would be fast and reliable. I also illustrated how I
could easily remotely administer the servers. Even from home or on the road.
Including software updates. Without reboots in the vast majority of cases.
(That one really got his attention
Then I showed how, if the WAN link to a particular site went down, I could dial
in to the server on the far side--allowing me to take a look at the problem
from both sides. And if the down-time was projected to be long, could easily
reconfigure the mail servers at both ends to use UUCP to get the mail flowing
again. I easily got permission to "trial" the solution at one site, to start.
Then when, as the result of Yet Another Windoze Problem, he recently grumbled :-) and :-).
about PeeCee down-time and hassles, I asked him "Do you really want to know how
to seriously reduce our IS costs?" He gave me kind of a side-ways look
asked, "Yeaaahhh??" "Get rid of the damn Windoze PeeCees all over the place!",
sez I. Reaction? Let me put it this way: he did not immediately dismiss the
notion out-of-hand
Why is all the above credible to management? At the site with extensive Unix
use the vast majority of support calls are Windoze PeeCee related. In
comparison: better than 50% (conservative estimate) of the users are using Unix
full- or part-time. And all of the truly complex, intensive work is done on
the Unix boxes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the light. And my
IT Director is one pretty sharp dude. One not averse to "thinking outside the
box."
Needless to say: at the site where Unix is used extensively, quite a number of
open source tools are used on a daily basis.
My feeling is that any manager that blindly commits to any particular solution,
regardless of the evidence, is not doing his or her job. IME, this is
particularly a problem with the Windoze Everywhere mindset: it ignores reality
in favor of dogma. Luckily for me, it would appear that my management is not
hopelessly mired in such narrow-minded thinking.
Indigos ruled. (Score:1)
it came to seeing who could swap the motherboard,
powersupply, and disks fastest. 60 seconds vs.
"you've got you case open!"
And if we want to remove the hard disk, and
toss our systems down a flight of stairs (or maybe just push it off a tabletop) and then put the disk back in and see which one will boot, I'd put my money on the indigo there as well.
cliff
Re:"But we want to change the license!!" (Score:1)
As long as all the work done is in house, and it isn't being resold, or sent to customers, you can make any changes you'd like.
I'm kind of curious what would happen if you did take a copy of the modified software.. I doubt they'd be able to sue you, since they dont' own the license... But I'm not really sure, since they are simply in house changes.
Re:I am the boss and I use Linux (Score:1)
--Z.
Zontar The Mindless,
Re:My cat likes cat food (Score:1)
We had two Linux boxes running in our office. One for standard ail and dialup, and another running an important application related to our mission.
My computer supports open source... (Score:1)
clueless managers: using the system against them (Score:1)
I've managed to "subversively" introduce linux in a number of odd capacities, without opposition (because he doesn't know what he's talking about).
My advice is this: if you can think of some service your company can use, that they aren't using because of whatever reason, look at what linux can do for you. then just install it.
I happen to be a little lucky in this regard since we have a lot of older machines laying about (well, we did), and I have a lot of decision making power (see regarding clueless boss).
How is this different?... (Score:1)
You give a much worse solution - a _small_, _inexperienced_ company (IPO'd just now) will solve _everyone's_ problems, if only they'd move to Linux. Thanks alot, I'd rather stick with that big black box (Sun/IBM/whatever's working right now). Remember - the right tool for each job, and if Solaris is working for them right now, why should the organization move to another platform (and shift their support paradigm ever so slightly)? Just to feed some movement that isn't really generating any revenue for them? Don't kid yourself; the "savings" in moving to Linux will easily be swallowed in the costs of adapting it (not to say retraining all those admins, downtime due to misadministration etc.).
I'd quit if I were you. (Score:1)
(Unless, that is, you want to continue working in a "Unix free" environment, in which case stop bitching).
Re:No across the board policy (Score:1)
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
Do you guys have any idea the level of liability that would exist if /. were to host such a site? That is just not a good idea, IMNSHO.
Better idea - Put up a list of OSS friendly sites, and provide a way for them to get ON this list.
Please - let's accentuate the positive in life, not the negative..
But they already use OSS, and don't know it! (Score:2)
Here's a good writeup of a world without free software [netaction.org].
Moderators: why only 1??? (Score:1)
Re:big companies need vendors to beat on (Score:1)
Oh, three years from now... Of course, in the computer world this is an entire generation.
I agree though. In 3 years there will be plenty of companies ready to take on support contracts, even those with 100s of personel involved. Actually, I think there are plenty of companies ready for mid-size contracts, 10 or less dedicated people, today. The problem is that htey haven't been around long enough and proven themselves enough for Big Companies to deal with them.
Now if SUN, or more likely, IBM, starts contracting Linux support...
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
What does active promotion mean? (Score:2)
From what we're hearing in this thread most companies will allow OSS to be used. Is this what is meant by "actively promote Open Source"?
It seems like there are several overlapping types of "active promotion" that would be possible.
An organization tolerates the use of OSS. From what we're hearing, this is most organizations.
An organization actively encourages OSS to be used. Such an organization would have a statement of policy which encourages and fosters OSS use and development. This would be similar to what the Clinton Administration has just announced [slashdot.org] (This link is the Slashdot story that references a story in Federal Times Online, the "topstory.html" link at Federal Times Online that it refers to has changed and this story doesn't seem to be referenced in their on-line archives. Is this story still on-line anywhere? I couldn't connect to whitehouse.gov this morning to check there).
An organization not only encourages OSS, but releases software that they have developed as Open Source, or perhaps unencumbered Freeware that could be re-released as Open Source when modified by the Open Source Community. There are many examples of companies like this, IBM, SGI and Cygnus come to mind immediately, but there are certainly a lot of others. There are many issues related to almost-Open Source releases, software essentially Free-to-use and modify, but you don't have the same license on the modified software that you had on the original. This is the model with Sun/Star Office/SCSL. I'm not sure if this is "active promotion" of OSS, but it's in some ways supportive of the goals of OSS.
Organizations that release only Open Source. These are relatively rare. The Linux distribution vendors (RedHat, SuSe, et al) are examples. The FSF is the archetype.
If you wanted to promote OSS through investment funds or boycotts, you would have a lot of different things to consider.
Some seem to believe that OSS is not only the most socially conscientious, but also the best business model. The idea is that a company that releases only OSS is going to be the best able to support it and will be the best able to take advantage of any community modifications that are made. Such a company gets the best software to sell, and has to keep sharp in it's support and updates or it can be overtaken by others with the same business model. At this time, this would be a somewhat speculative investment, I think, as it's largely untested as a business model.
I note Cygnus seemed to have has as their original business model to only support OSS, but lately they have been making Closed Source releases. This may be saying that Cygnus has determined that supporting OSS only is not a good business model, or it may just have been due to insecurity in Cygnus' management with the business model. I'd sure like to hear something from "the Open Source leader" (which is what Cygnus calls themselves) about this. Of course, if Cygnus learned this through market research, they may not be willing to share their analysis with potential competitors.
A different case can be made for investing in only those companies that allow or even actively encourage the use and release of OSS. This is a risk-adverse investment policy based on the observation that if an organization is unwilling to take advantage of the great store of value in OSS, then they will not compete as well.
Similarly, an OSS coder may have a difficult time finding employment at the "purist" OSS supporting organizations - those that only develop OSS software - the FSF and Linux distribution vendors only have so many jobs available, after all. Perhaps in the future, there will be more such options. Today, such a coder may wish to set their standard at no "OSS forbidding companies" (of course), or somewhere between this and the "pure" OSS supporting organization.
This brings up another potential competitive advantage to a "pure" OSS supporting organization. They might have more qualified applicants.
My Company (Score:1)
Re:It's politics, not support (Score:1)
My take on this disparity is that the word "support" means different things to executives and technical people. To the executive, "support" means "there is a phone number I can call about problems". To the techie "support" means "I can get the information I need to fix the problems I encounter". As I'm sure most of you know, the first doesn't necessarily imply the second.
Ben
OSS policy at Enhanced Software Technologies Inc. (Score:1)
Of course, we're rather unique in that our workstations are Linux and our main servers are Linux (there's a database server running SCO Unix, but it's being phased out at the end of the fiscal year when we switch accounting software). Well, my own workstation dual-boots Linux and FreeBSD, but hey, somebody has to do it :-).
-Eric
What commercial software includes OSS software? (Score:1)
What about a system using the offical version of RedHat Linux that was purchased for $50-100? Is this considered commercial because it was paid for, or is it considered OSS?
I'm thankful I work for a company (a fairly large CLEC located in the midwest) who doesn't have any such policy. And if they tried to implement one, the network infrastructure would be down in a matter of minutes. Shut off the DNS servers, they're running Linux and BIND8. Shut down the web servers, a good chunk of them are using Apache. Shut down the email servers, because last I checked both sendmail and qmail were OSS. Any companies that do this have got to be just WANTING to shoot themselves in the foot, both technically and economically.
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
As preferable as it would be to focus on the positive, that's not really going to serve the purpose in this case.
I'm sure we'd have no problem gathering up 350 pro-OSS companies in a few months' time. But no one would really read that. How much good would it do if police departments only kept records on law-abiding citizens? That's the wrong way to approach the problem.
It's going to be far more useful and effective to have a list of say, 15 anti-OSS companies, rather than 350 pro-OSS companies, although the best situation is to have both.
There are five interested individuals so far (including me).
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Open Source OK for Flight Management (Score:1)
to develop a lot of critical systems. It is
commercially supported and continuously improved
by Ada Core Technologies (including PPC cross BTW). GNAT is free software, but support for
it is not free (like it ough to be!), and this
makes perfect sense in the Ada world where
support for tools used to develop long lived
critical applications is paramount.
BTW, the latest commercial ACT demo took
place in Brest (France) and there was
a highly succesful presentation of the GtkAda software (Ada binding for GTK) that some ACT
employees help to develop.
ACT web site: www.gnat.com, in Europe: www.act-europe.fr
Disclaimer: I worked on GNAT a while ago, and
I use GNAT with support from ACT at work.
Re:My cat likes cat food (Score:1)
very large corporations likely to have these
debate-inspiring "no OSS" policies.
Approved by whom? To what extent (written,verbal,implicit understanding)? How does the approval get recorded for use during an ISO 9000 audit? Does this jive with our system architecture plans?
These are all things that large companies do (very broad generalization
You'll save a lot of ink if you say "No software that IT (or MIS) doesn't install. In God we trust, all others bring facts and data."
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
I suppose my main problem is that I am against blacklists as a rule. They can (and tend to) get very out of hand. There is a huge stigma connected with them, and I'd just rather not see one associated with the opensource community.
Also - If I could go to my superiors with a list, and say look - THESE people use Linux/perl/gcc/etc., why don't we? Insofar as being used for a Professional purpose, that would be much more handy.
Imagine going to a meeting, suggesting a OSS product and having someone whip out "The List" - and saying "Well, FORD doesnt use any OSS, they do pretty well. We will adopt the same policy"
No Thanks!
Re:Microsoft people speak up!! (Score:1)
-=>W=-
Amazing that noone has pointed out the obvious... (Score:1)
Let's say your business hinges on a piece of software.. lets make it Apache... to make it work (luckily it's OSS) you have to patch it to do something it wasn't designed to do. You decide to save space on the server because you're running out of it and delete the modified source. Of course, you know what you did and can do it again if you need to.. No big deal. Well, a month later you decide that this great job offer somewhere else is too good to pass up and you move on. Three months later a new version of Apache comes out and the company tries to upgrade to it.. (there was a security problem in the old version or something... they just need to upgrade...) They upgrade and it doesn't work.. Why? "What did we do to make it work before?" they ask. Well, they have to start from square one and develop the patch for it all over again. On the other hand, if you had not had the source, you wouldn't have patched it, you'd just have made a program outside of it to handle the special feature that you required. When the new version comes out, it's backwards compatible with what the original Apache group made before. If you start patching kernels and doing special stuff, the company starts to hinge around the people that know what's been changed, how it was changed, and why. With the high turnover in Techies, companies are leery about putting that much responsibility on an employee that could just up and walk out without so much as 'goodbye'.
Thoughts?
-- dijit
tobkin@tobkin.com
Re:Afraid to ask (Score:1)
I have a policy whereby people shouldn't install things outside of their abilities. In other words, if you're gonna dig a hole, you better be able to get back out. If you can't, then it is *YOU* who are responsible for the wasted time, not me as the IT manager. I did my job correctly.
This works out well.
See, if Johnny X. Engineer installs a demo package of some EMI analysis software or something, to evaluate it, and, through his answering an install question incorrectly (innocently, though, he didn't know better), he blows up his machine... it's not my fault.
Now, his boss will say 'Hey.. why did you blow up your machine?' and he'll say 'I was evaluating that package, and I clicked the wrong button.. sorry boss' and boss will most likely be happy, or give him a better way to do things.
If Mr. NT Programmer installs pr0nviewer '99 on his machine, and it blows up, again, it's not my fault. It's his fault, and he has to explain why his addiction to child pornography caused him to waste a whole day at work.
I publish a set of standards. This is how your workstation connects to the company network. These are the services that need to be installed. This is how email authentication works. This is what an NT Domain is. This is what IP addresses and DHCP are. If you are gonna mess with your madchine, read and understand this document. If you aren't gonna mess with your machine, read it anyway and get clue.
OSS and Company Policy (Score:1)
so, one conversation with the IT manager (a clueful individual, but usually regarded as a single bright spot in a ocean of cluelessness) and we got a decision that it was worth a week of my time adapting VNC to fit, as compared to paying $BIGNUM for software that didn't. We now have VNC on all machines, and I am experimenting (with the knowledge and approval of the Suited Ones) with a Linux/Samba server for something they would have insisted on NT for a few months back. I am chalking this one up as a Win :+)
Re:Solution to the problem (Score:1)
And yet it's extremly likely to be the case, almost regardless of the quality of the open source software.
So: all we need to do is get a list of companies which do use Open Source - IBM, Sun, SGI, HP, RedHat... and a list of companies with an anti OSS policy, and compare their value against their value a year ago. If the pros value has increased more than the antis, then we've got something to crow about.
OSS Policy (Score:1)
Re:OSS Policy (Score:1)
a generally useful solution, based on the premise of the moronic majority, is to anti-fud the fud miesters. people, even morons, will respond to effective solutions. solve a problem, using some form of creative license in describing your actions...and let the solution speak for itself. i think the
in terms of support options, linux (and other oss stuff) has a growing base of quality support available. now your boss justify solutions with expenditures!
Re:OSS Policy (Score:1)
Well I tested it. Of coure it passed. It even was used where there was no NT solution. It even recovred after three hardware failures.
To make a long story short: They still refuse to use Linux. They won't use any solutions that can't be used on NT. They fired the one guy in their IT department that agreed with me.
The one good thing that happened is that Red Hat has my report and they are using it to get a lot of new corporate customers, just not mine!