Kclug Digest, Vol 39, Issue 9

[Luke -Jr]

On Monday 08 October 2007, leenix wrote:
> 1. I realize the source is available, but I want my developers
> developing OUR software not OS (Fill in your other FOSS software here)
> software.

The idea is that you have the OPTION to develop it if nobody else will. And 
quite frankly: who is going to add that occasional obscure feature that only 
you need?

> 2. If I buy a piece of software that is closed-source, the company
> selling it to me has to support it. If something is wrong with it,
> they'll fix it, because that's where they make their money.

Quite the contrary. They make their money selling the software, NOT supporting 
it. The people who make money providing support is the Open Source 
developers.

> 3. If I buy [closed-source company]'s software I know it will work with
> their Database, Mail server, Office Suite, etc. because it is made by
> the same company. I'm not sure that we'll be able to get [open-source
> company]'s software to talk to our existing infrastructure, our to our
> partner's existing infrastructure.

That's what standards are for. Get rid of non-compliant stuff every chance you 
get, and then you're not locked down to that one Database, Mail server, etc.
Obviously nobody is 100% SQL compliant, but many Free offerings come close.
Admittedly, most IMAP servers suck at some level, but I would argue that the 
non-compliant software sucks even more.