Ezekiel wrote:

>
> http://management.silicon.com/itdire...367,00.htm?r=3
>
>
> Is the debate about open source finally over? The practicalities of
> managing open source in a business context became clear years ago. In that
> environment, open source is difficult and cumbersome, so surely the
> honeymoon period should have ended long ago.
>
> Of course, open source has found its niche and will continue to be of
> practical value in the realm of web and network security. But its
> application to business is limited. Many of my colleagues are now reaching
> similar conclusions.
>
> As a CIO with a background in mixed environments - and who still manages
> one - I can say with certainty that maintaining and developing in a
> cohesive open source environment is complex, costly and ineffective,
> except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature.
>
> Open source lacks true and defined standards, best-of-breed capabilities,
> fully functional integration and knowledgeable staff to support it
> cost-effectively.
>
> From an organisational perspective, in its level of customisation and lack
> of true industry standards, this is cowboy technology.
>
>
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

This is almost as funny as 'Of course I will still love you in the morning'.
The comments are funny as well, but in a 'who do you think you are kidding'
way!

"SomeBloke" wrote in message
news4CdnWbKC6h8tL7VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@metronet...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> http://management.silicon.com/itdire...367,00.htm?r=3
>>
>>
>> Is the debate about open source finally over? The practicalities of
>> managing open source in a business context became clear years ago. In
>> that
>> environment, open source is difficult and cumbersome, so surely the
>> honeymoon period should have ended long ago.
>>
>> Of course, open source has found its niche and will continue to be of
>> practical value in the realm of web and network security. But its
>> application to business is limited. Many of my colleagues are now
>> reaching
>> similar conclusions.
>>
>> As a CIO with a background in mixed environments - and who still manages
>> one - I can say with certainty that maintaining and developing in a
>> cohesive open source environment is complex, costly and ineffective,
>> except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature.
>>
>> Open source lacks true and defined standards, best-of-breed capabilities,
>> fully functional integration and knowledgeable staff to support it
>> cost-effectively.
>>
>> From an organisational perspective, in its level of customisation and
>> lack
>> of true industry standards, this is cowboy technology.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is almost as funny as 'Of course I will still love you in the
> morning'.
> The comments are funny as well, but in a 'who do you think you are
> kidding'
> way!


When I first read this I wasn't sure if this was real or some kind of
parody. I kept waiting for the punch-line or something but it never came.

In a way I think he's wrong but he's also right in a few ways. When you're
the CIO you have to view things differently than the new young-gun IT guy
who's answer to everything is to throw linux at the problem.

As the CIO you have to think long-term and risk management and risk
assessment become very important. Like the issue he brings up - "Can I find
capable resources cost-effectively to deliver an open source environment and
then support it over time?" Yeah, that's an important factor to consider for
a company before they risk their enterprise on something.

Insurance companies, retailers, etc don't want to be in the "software
business" so answers like "You have the source code... you can maintain it
if the project goes belly-up" aren't going to fly. They have a difficult
enough time running their core business and don't want to spin-off an
internal software company just to support some OSS application they saved a
few bucks on.




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 8 May 2008 12:42:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "SomeBloke" wrote in message
> news4CdnWbKC6h8tL7VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@metronet...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://management.silicon.com/itdire...367,00.htm?r=3
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the debate about open source finally over? The practicalities of
>>> managing open source in a business context became clear years ago. In
>>> that
>>> environment, open source is difficult and cumbersome, so surely the
>>> honeymoon period should have ended long ago.
>>>
>>> Of course, open source has found its niche and will continue to be of
>>> practical value in the realm of web and network security. But its
>>> application to business is limited. Many of my colleagues are now
>>> reaching
>>> similar conclusions.
>>>
>>> As a CIO with a background in mixed environments - and who still manages
>>> one - I can say with certainty that maintaining and developing in a
>>> cohesive open source environment is complex, costly and ineffective,
>>> except in those areas mentioned where open source is mature.
>>>
>>> Open source lacks true and defined standards, best-of-breed capabilities,
>>> fully functional integration and knowledgeable staff to support it
>>> cost-effectively.
>>>
>>> From an organisational perspective, in its level of customisation and
>>> lack
>>> of true industry standards, this is cowboy technology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is almost as funny as 'Of course I will still love you in the
>> morning'.
>> The comments are funny as well, but in a 'who do you think you are
>> kidding'
>> way!
>
>
> When I first read this I wasn't sure if this was real or some kind of
> parody. I kept waiting for the punch-line or something but it never came.
>
> In a way I think he's wrong but he's also right in a few ways. When you're
> the CIO you have to view things differently than the new young-gun IT guy
> who's answer to everything is to throw linux at the problem.
>
> As the CIO you have to think long-term and risk management and risk
> assessment become very important. Like the issue he brings up - "Can I find
> capable resources cost-effectively to deliver an open source environment and
> then support it over time?" Yeah, that's an important factor to consider for
> a company before they risk their enterprise on something.
>
> Insurance companies, retailers, etc don't want to be in the "software
> business" so answers like "You have the source code... you can maintain it
> if the project goes belly-up" aren't going to fly. They have a difficult
> enough time running their core business and don't want to spin-off an
> internal software company just to support some OSS application they saved a
> few bucks on.

Like many OSS Linux Loons, SomeBloke is in massive denial.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

Traits:

* Nym shifting (see below)
* Self confessed thief and proud of it
* Homophobic
* Racist
* Habitual liar
* Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
* Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA