Enterprises: Embrace open source development or go extinct

A Forrester analyst warns that enterprises must evolve their IT systems of record into systems of engagement which allow customers, partners, suppliers and machines to engage seamlessly with corporate data — or fall prey to digital upstarts.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...e-open-source-development-or-go-extinct/10787

 

Nice. But I wouldn't interpret that as an "alert to Microsoft", because Microsoft is engaged in such initiatives since many many years ago. Things like:

* Microsoft Enterprise Source Licensing Program
* Microsoft Windows Academic Program
* Microsoft Government Security Program
* Most Valuable Professionals Source Licensing Program
* Microsoft Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure
* Microsoft Openness

This may well be the best business approach, make the proprietary code open to those who have a legitimate necessity in seeing/auditing the code: shared source.

 

Looking at the mercurial rise and success of RH, thats the model of true success needed for all to be adapted.

 

Microsoft is much more successful than Red Hat if "success" is the "correct measure".

But you don't see me claiming that Red Hat should follow Microsoft or the other way around.

I use Linux too, though I use Windows much more.

 

This may well be the best business approach, make the proprietary code open to those who have a legitimate necessity in seeing/auditing the code: shared source.

Thats telling enough. The fact an open source company can rise in the worse of the times is true SUCCESS and measure of it. It didn't have to monopolize and steal and entrap to get its clients. Last I checked, the servers and supercomps around the world use LINUX and so do the leading global enterprises and not MS so where is the success apart from desktop users may I ask.

 

A company's success is usually measured by its financial gains.

I don't see Microsoft monopolizing anything (search for the correct meaning of monopoly), let alone "stealing" and "entrapping".

 

ot posts removed

 

The meaning of monopoly is many buyers, one seller, that has been MS's intention so even if the share is less than 2%, they go after em

And since financial success is the criteria here, RH have aced it against all the odds thrown at it.

 

The best part is how not a single comment agrees with the article, it's good that most of them are as open minded as this comment, unlike some people.

 

come on guys stop fan war they both have SUCCESS in their ways and in eyes of their fans

both are very SUCCESSFUL of their own kind

SUCCESS = achievement of an objective(goal)

since both have diffrent goals so they are beyond compare

 

I agree (hence the quote I selected)

 

I see cooperation between Microsoft and Linux. Microsoft is not actively trying to "kill it" via any unfair method.

Microsoft Openness is a prove of that.

Also, even if Red Hat is doing well, its financial gains still don't compare to Microsoft's ones.

 

Microsoft's contributions to linux directly contribute to Microsoft, just in case that isn't clear. All they're doing is making ti so that emulating Windows on Linux is faster.

Red Hat and MS are completely different companies. Red Hat is 100% about enterprise open source operating systems, Microsoft is has an operating system, it has a phone OS, it has bing, it has office, it has a ton of other projects. The companies aren't comparable. And 100% of Microsoft's money is not going to producing Windows code.

 

And the same applies to every other company's contribution to Linux. Nobody is doing that because of "FOSS ethics" only, lol.

Exactly. It's nonsense to tell one to follow the other.

 

I work on one of the large information systems in Europe.
The database system (biggest part of the system), and numerous other small components utilise open source.
We are known to the public for being an MS based IT company. I recently had to correct a member of senior management who thought we didn't use open source because "open source is not commercially supported". Seemed surprised that even our standard desktop builds had atleast 2 open source products and we have numerous servers running Linux, all webservers had open source software on, vitalisation hardware that runs all our servers was runing Linux as the host, our network SAN, backup systems all running Linux.
You wont find it public-ally mentioned what these systems run, but it is often mentioned we use MS under an enterprise agreement.

Cheers Nick

 

And what it actually uses from MS?

Are you trying to tell that MS is paying others to say that they are using MS products? lol

 

All desktop run windows, office, outlook and exchange, sharepoint, visual studio, sql server for most normal size databases, .net for most web based front ends to our systems, iis, active directory

 

Nice clarification, uh.

 

And that makes it superior. QED of, for by the muggins.