Open Source is good for me, I will fully embrace it with caution
Update: The original title for this article was actually “Open source is not the future you think it is”, which essentially while a headline grabber was not really the premise of the article. While the headline upset a few people, I think those who took time to understand the content could see the point – even if they don’t always agree. So I’ve slightly modified the headline based on a couple of of suggestions. Whether Open Source Software is your thing or not, it’s clearly a topic which can divide the community, and thats not good for the industry as a whole. We do need to be progressive and push GIS into new territories in order to benefit everyone, and I think to truly do that, we need to find more ways to unite the GIS community as a whole.
Read those words carefully. Read what they are, and understand what they are not. It could mean “old vendor ignores open source”. It doesn’t. What it means is that while many preach the virtues of open source, meaning free, cheap, and a utopian community who will fix all your problems – I do not subscribe. Open source, be it maps or software, is fantastic and I believe a part of the IT industry as far as we can see into the future. PBBI for example uses open source projects in its own products while the likes of MapInfo Professional connect easily to an Open Street Map tile server. But let me give you a couple of examples where I am coming from.
I saw a presentation a couple of years ago from a young gentleman – about my age 
– who had a 30 minute slot at a conference. For 25 minutes he exalted the virtues of open source, and how he can take this piece of free software, and that free mapping source and you – yes you – can do all these wonderful things. But he was also pushing his wares, and spent the final five minutes telling you how he was then going to sell you these products/services that he had put together from all this free stuff. So the end result in that case was: I take free stuff, you pay for it. Come again? You mean its open source but I’m paying for it? But you just spent 25 minutes telling me how great this free stuff is and now I’m still being asked to open my wallet? Heckling ensued from the peanut gallery.
Let’s take another scenario. You have decided to invest in an open source solution. To put this all together you decide to employ one or two recent sharp graduates (depending how much free cash “cough” you have). Over the following 12 months these guys excel – because you employed a genius – and now you’ve got a wonderful purring system. But a
Yea, that last guy was a cowboy. Don't worry, they call me Jim...
year or two down the line, these guys move on to something else. It happens. Maybe you don’t have budget to pay more, or maybe they simply are moving on to another challenge. Now you’ve got to rehire, but there is a small problem. You need to hire someone to look after a bespoke system (with a common open source base) written by someone else. If there is something I’ve learnt is that software engineers have a trait also seen in plumbers. Whoever did the last piece of work on it was rubbish and got it all wrong. Don’t worry though, because they can fix it for you but it will of course set you back a little money and time. You can see where this is going.
The point of course, is that open source is not free. And open source may not even be cheap. I am not asking you to ignore open source and only talk to traditional vendors, because that in some ways puts you back to square one. Open source has credible value to both vendors providing sustainable solutions and individual organisations implementing systems. Take PostGIS as an example. It has come on significantly and is in a number of instances a credible alternative to the likes of Oracle. But are you going to pay more or less for that PostGIS DBA over the Oracle DBA? Assuming it’s the same, or perhaps a little more for a specialist, then we’re into pure software licensing. I can guarantee Oracle aren’t about to roll over because of pricing. If a company has a site agreement with Oracle are you free to pick up another database? Even if it is free – or free to download? As some people say “spatial is special” we are increasingly seeing that IT departments disagree. Spatial is increasingly not viewed as special and won’t be treated as such.
I’ve already seen firsthand, organisations that have tried and given up on building a sustainable product to sell based entirely on open source, and organisations do a complete U-turn on their own bespoke open source project because of spiralling costs and concerns over maintenance. It’s not to say you shouldn’t take that path, but it is to say, it’s not free, and in the long run it might not even be cheap. The crux behind all of this is money. If we all had loads it wouldn’t matter so much. We’d build or buy whatever system we wanted. But now more than ever we don’t have money. If an offer seems too good to be true, then it probably is. Open source will continue to evolve and grow and I’ve no doubt more and more individuals and organisations will participate. Some organisations will use open source for publicity, others perhaps giving more to the open community. I still believe we are looking for products which give us the best of both worlds. Extensibility where we are comfortable, but somehow reducing the risk and ongoing support to minimal predictable cost.
A couple of weeks ago I said a more informed decision is likely to be a better one. Next time someone tells you open source is free, have a little think about it. Use what is right, not what you think might be cheap.
EDIT – I’ve seen a few comments on this article over the weekend that this article is a bit behind the times. Please remember that most of you writing that are at the forefront of the GIS industry. There are plenty of people working in our industry and using GIS to solve their problems who have yet to touch open source, yet to think heavily about using it. Just because you may be at the forefront of the industry, don’t get caught in the trap that everyone else is.
Chris M
PS – This blog is using wordpress – we use it because it’s a great tool for the job, not because it’s open source!
Shock..I’m very shock reading this, but then again it is human rights to speak his thoughts.
At some point you are right, when we pay for an open source,at that moment we lost the meaning of free and open source. But IMHO is not the open source tools that we paid for, but the effort to maximized the power of open source, and I think it’s “Legal”
I agree about spatial is special but IT dept still don’t think the same. We need a way to change those guys mind about it
Indeed, you are correct when it comes to large type deployments. I’ve seen it too, where an apparently open source solution turned very expensive and even a liability owing to the fact that coding was done that pretty much ensured the programmer would be hired as a consultant there after. But I digress, I think where open source approaches free is for people who use it themselves, meaning I or you or Mary Beth downloads PostGIS and we do all the tweaking and modifying ourselves in order to complete some function for someone else. If a contractor/consultant can utilize open source solutions in this manner then costs can be kept down. Of course I’m talking small, I guess, so perhaps I missed the point entirely, but none the less it’s my opinion that open source’s potential lies with those willing to take on the challenge of “owning” it and understanding it. Having said all this I use ESRI stuff so what the heck do I know?
Hi Zery,
Well i certainly didn’t mean to be overly controversial and I thought I’d sufficiently explained that open source tools are a brilliant addition to our community, and a superb game changer. The article was more focussing on the commercial opinion that it all comes at no cost. I merely want our readers to think about the long term prospects.
I also agree that the customer is paying for the effort the developer has put in, but I hope you see my point that you can’t talk about the brave new free world and then ask for the money in the space of 30 minutes. It was more that the person got his pitch wrong.
The power of open source is immense, but the point is it’s not all going to come at zero cost to the end user.
CM
Hi Chris,
I agree much confusion abounds about costs, ROI, and support but I also think the title of the article betrays your broader point. I don’t think you were trying to suggest that open source advocates are trying to fool end users, or that end users would even be gullible to be fooled. Instead, your point is clear: evaluate all systems on equal footing.
Naturally, this is when the cost issue comes up. An open source license is no-cost, agreed? I don’t think anyone argues that someone will install, customise and maintain it for you. Enter the consultants on both sides of the game – but one side needs you to first pay the license.
Unfortunately many people experience the pain of having the same “bespoke” problems you mentioned but with their (often costly) closed source technology – beholden to “someone” to fix something in the black box, if they want to, sometime. Or being forced to “upgrade” their entire infrastructure or business model due to a new revision, competing product, etc.
So, I certainly see your point and hope this helps to clarify it: users must consider the volatility of the platforms they adopt. Unfortunately, there can be a false sense of security in choosing a closed system and that can be a real mindbender. That’s the real arm wrestle, in my opinion, balancing not just the costs, but the real risks of lock-in of any technology no matter how it’s licensed.
The companies that will prosper, are already taking cues from quicker release cycles common in open source, but also in making it easier (and less risky) to move in or out of their platform by using open standards. Then those risks of having to re-tool go away, regardless of the underlying platform.
I’d love to hear more about what open source software you have behind the scenes in your own systems. That’s one area where other open source users get encouragement – they see a proprietary vendor using a tool that they too can use. Then the argument that it’s free simply helps clinch the deal since it’s good enough for “them”.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Tyler
Hi Chris,
Good lecture, indeed. But you’re really lacking this much of attention?
Just read the opposite of this..
http://blog.cleverelephant.ca/2011/08/proprietary-software-is-not-future-you.html
Hi Chris,
Just to get this right, are you saying that the cost of using an open source solution is higher because:
a) Oracle won’t allow you to use a free solution
b) The consultants or employees can get bored and leave you with a piece of unsuppoterted code
c) Someone has packaged an open source solution and want to sell you a product or subscription for support.
It seems to me that you can change open source to proprietary in your text and the arguments are equally “valid”?
nice write-up. Here is an additional and neutral source about open source and costs by the Dutch Court of Audit: http://www.rekenkamer.nl/english/News/Audits/Introductions/2011/03/Open_standards_and_open_source_software_in_central_government
Supports several of the points you make.
Cheers,
Jw.
A good perspective Chris.
When I studied at University, Liverpool hosted the HPUX software library. A large collection of capabilities that could be downloaded, built and implemented, it was known as Freeware and Shareware back then. The value I gained from open software was the access to source. As an engineer, being able to fully understand how something worked was important to me. It enabled me not only to improve my own development practices, it also helped me debug, and fix problems.
Later in my working career I built a system for encrypting billing records when in transit between different systems. Without PGP being open, I don’t know how I would have ported it to the target platform the customer implemented.
As you highlight, implementing open source software will cost money, as with all things you have to do your research and apply due diligence. Be informed, when you make your decision.
Hi,
Thanks to all who have commented with their thoughts and perspectives. In writing this I knew that there was plenty of scope for people to misinterpret what I said – or indeed I wasn’t clear enough in a couple of areas. One thing is clear that open source technology is a hot topic.
@treeboy – You are totally right in that open source means anyone can pick up and use very powerful software without the significant price barrier to entry traditionally put up by vendors in the industry. They can reap significant rewards in doing so and if this is passed on to customers then that can give them a great advantage. I think that while there is a perception that open source can gain footholds in smaller deployments, this is growing and we’ll see it push into larger deployments in coming years. Great to have an ESRI users persepective here. While I’m writing on a PBBI site, I tried to keep this article neatral. I know some ESRI employees do read the blog, so maybe one of them could give their perspective.
@Tyler Mitchell You are quite correct that perhaps the article title doesn’t reflect the true message I am trying to portray (but it did draw in readers), which as you say is to assess all options on an equal footing. You (and others) are also quite correct that by chosing a traditional vendor over open source does not solve some of the situations and problems mentioned. Obviously vendors will look to protect their IP, but most recognise (even if they haven’t done much about it) that selling closed black boxes isn’t what eveyone is looking for. You’re also right that those who are going to prosper will take the best of open source, as you say development cycles, methods, even code, and use that to improve the experience.
In terms of what we use, there is across the company a huge range – and with mixed experiences. Fot example one team I worked with used an open source installer to avoid paying installer licence fees. Big mistake. The technology was not suitable and we spent weeks and weeks fixing things and getting it to work. When I was working with another team a few months later they floated the idea of doing the same and I think I erupted on the spot. That instance was not worth it. However in solutions like Stratus we are very open about using Open Layers. Implementations like those done by our partner COWI have used Stratus, but then extended using Open Layers. Equally the team use Dojo extensively, something I think ESRI also use. There is definately merit in picking the most complete open source project, and something like open layers is fantastic. Does our (and other vendor) use of it endorse companies to go and use it and ditch us? Maybe. But I think it raises the stakes for the vendors to say, that is great, now how can we build a system around that which solves customer problems, and save them extensive time and effort – and of course that is where we put a fee on it, and the customers decides if that fee is worth it. If a vendor technology (and this is everyone including us) adds nothing beyond open source – or a tiny amount, then why would you pay?
That leads me a bit into @Mats questions. All the points about open source can be applied to black box vendors as well. This wasn’t an article to say – hey look at them, it’s not rosy, you should stick with us. I believe PBBI, or ESRI or Autodesk, or anyone else has to earn their keep. In response to the Oracle query, I have worked with organisations who have signed legal argeements saying that all databases in the organisation must be from that vendor and that vendor only! Obviously that doesn’t happen often, but it happens. I’ve worked with organisations all across the world and of many sizes, and it’s amazing what deals people will sign. 15 year contracts with one IT service provider is another good one. So yes, in some rare instances it does breach agreements made.
@Pedro – I actually didn’t expect this to get so much attention, but like may articles on the site, it was intended as a lighter look and just another view point that we have to look at the short, middle and long term benefits of open source, just as we should do the same when paying for a propietary system from a vendor.
@Aby – a couple of colleagues posted that to me on Saturday. I think Paul did kind of miss my point, which was open or closed systems have their pro’s and cons. I did think about writing a complementary article on why a closed system wasn’t the safety net you might think it is, but I guess Paul did it for me
I’m flattered that he took the time to rewrite my article from another perspective.
One point he does make is that he left my note about PostGIS and Oracle unchanged because it does give good support for using open source. This wasn’t an article that advocated one over the other. in fact I was writing another article which I was struggling a bit to put together when I was talking to a friend at another GIS company who was loading OS MasterMap into Oracle. He said in future he was going to ditch Oracle and go with PostGIS. He commented that was the future because it was free. In that case he will benefit from using PostGIS, it will be cheaper (probably). But our conversation followed in the direction of the article – it might be free to download, but to reap the reward you take on some risk. So back to Paul, I don’t really care what db people use, in fact more of our products are linking to PostGIS because customers are demanding it. But, I equally don’t think Oracle are going to pack up because of open source. They will find new ways to try and stay at the top of the tree.
Again, thanks for the links and feedback, seems it is a topic to split opinion. No matter what I put down i know some people will only see what they want to see. Goos to hear all opinions and experiences!
CM
Good thought provoking article Chris..
And you are right , no matter which side of the fence you took , it’d be somewhat controvertial.
The tile could read “Open source is not as Free as you think it is” – rather than tying it to the future as the title claims. The commentry is focussed around cost of ownership related aspects of open source software compared to commercial
Nevertheless a good read !
Thanks Sherif – I’ve amended the title this morning to try and avoid some more confusion, as you and sveral others pointed out it didn’t reflect the true message of the article.
CM