Nickname: poster

Review: This article sounds like a smoke screen to me. You do all that up-front talking to pitch the on-demand model, which eliminates the need for clients to have those technologies in-house, then go on to talk about how open-source is the "right" technology stack? What are you saying? I agree that on-demand and SaaS (Software as a Service) is the correct way to go, but then comments related to which technology stack companies should use to build those services are irrelevant. If companies want to use open source software (OSS), go for it, but that doesn't mean companies that build on Microsoft, SAP or some other proprietary technology stack somehow have lesser services. In fact, it's these big companies that are providing the tools to build out the next generation on-demand services businesses. I think the hoax here is that a software development platform doesn't matter. It does.

Date reviewed: Dec 15, 2005 6:04 AM

Nickname: battlescarred

Review: Mr. Gianforte has articulated something I have experienced and suffered under for years. I often say, "If you sold used cars like some vendors sell software, you would go to prison. If you sold real estate like some vendors sell software, you would go to prison." They are long on promise and short on delivery with a confrontational attitude to their clients. This is very different from the business to business model I experienced earlier in my career, where client and vendor relationships were more of a mutual benefit partnership. A few vendors still practice this, but sadly few managers seem to understand that cooperation is always more powerful than confrontation.

Date reviewed: Dec 13, 2005 5:21 PM

Nickname: Lam

Review: Open source cannot meet the breadth and depth of software from propietary vendors. Customers still need to buy that stuff from SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, etc. Your suggested better model just doesn't work at this moment.

Date reviewed: Dec 12, 2005 9:26 PM

Nickname: nostromo

Review: You're right, Greg, that Open Source is a big part of the answer. Microsoft's goal is to make money by locking you in to its "solutions," not to help you solve your problems. But the advertising clout of the proprietary software vendors, plus customer inertia, will maintain the status quo for a long time. Plus, a lot of big companies have made the mistake of really letting themselves be locked in to a proprietary solution - whether it's Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, or whatever.

Date reviewed: Dec 11, 2005 12:56 PM

Nickname: Tux Gates

Review: Good article. I'd been using that smokescreen anology for four years, but after a recent "upgrade" cost us about a week of downtime, my boss is starting to get it.

Date reviewed: Dec 10, 2005 11:42 PM

Nickname: dalani

Review: Finally someone got it. It's so basic. All these OSS apps form postfix to Apache and MySQL are building blocks with which to create solutions. Now the problem is: where does a small mom and pop SMB get that expertise? Where are the numbers? Will this be commoditized as a known quantity or remain out of reach for small budget users? Otherwise we are right back to where we were: using turn- key shrink-wrapped proprietory solutions!

Date reviewed: Dec 10, 2005 10:21 PM