ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Alfresco agonistes

By | May 17, 2009, 9:48am PDT

Summary: Alfresco’s agonistes, which is common with all enterprise open source companies, is maintaining open source credibility while bringing in enough cash to keep the doors open.

Matt Asay can’t write freely about the struggles of his employer Alfresco. But Robert Galoppini can, and he does this weekend with keen insight.

(The word agonistes refers to struggle, and the agony of struggle, but you may be more familiar with it in the title of the great historian Garry Wills’ first book, Nixon Agonistes. Its subtitle is worth noting  — “the crisis of the self-made man.”)

Alfresco’s agonistes, which is common with all enterprise open source companies, is maintaining open source credibility while bringing in enough cash to keep the doors open.

It’s a tightrope walk, and the balance between its free “labs” version and paid “enterprise” versions is sometimes criticized.

Galoppini writes that Asay’s recent conversion from support for the GPL to BSD licensing may be part of this struggle. While it’s likely too late to switch from the GPL, he suggests a move toward GPLv3 with attribution — GPLv3 the SugarCRM way – may be in order. (Matt may take that as a compliment, given his views on SugarCRM’s former CEO John Roberts.)

Alfresco founder John Newton is upfront about things on his own blog. Part of his solution is to make links to proprietary systems, like Oracle, which Alfresco writes, available only to paid customers:

We started with Alfresco 3 to put extensions to proprietary databases such as Oracle or SQL Server into the enterprise release only, while extensions to MySQL, Ingres and other open source databases were available in open source. Now with the Alfresco Enterprise 3.1, we will be adding system monitoring capabilities and easy clustering administration that will only be available as part of the enterprise version. 

Galoppini also writes of another possibility, a low-level “starter” version that is open source and whose availability is time-limited.

“The question is not anymore if your community wants to trade time to save money or to trade money to save time, but more likely how much money they are able to invest, and for what,” he writes.

It should be noted here that Wills was not unsympathetic to his subject, either, although the Nixon people did not see things that way. Partly for this attitude toward criticism the Nixon era ended badly. May Alfresco have a happier ending.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Disagree
daengbo 18th May 2009
First of all, Red Hat (RHT) doesn't depend on proprietary bits to make money. You can get RHEL without support simply by downloading CentOS. It's a 100% open source company. Adding to that, it's income is up year-on-year, it's stock is up, and it's hiring. Compare the leading FOSS company to the leading CSS company (MSFT), and you'll see that MS is losing is those areas.

Many FOSS or dual-license companies are failing. So are many traditional software houses. The companies that are doing well, though, are either SaaS or FOSS. These types are succeeding because they offer greater value. for other businesses stuck in between a bad economy and and angry board.
0 Votes
+ -
The race to zero is almost complete
honeymonster 17th May 2009
It is getting harder and harder to see viable business plans for open source. The recession which were supposed to be so great for open source is having the opposite effect: Instead of customers rushing to the open source model with "paid support", customers are cutting back on support and services.

The answer from open source companies such as Alfresco (and Red Hat etc) is to offer "premium" versions with vital parts offered in ways reminiscent of the old economy proprietary software.

Where exactly are all of the advantages and customer guarantees when vital parts can die with the company?

Seems to me that the most successful model (and perhaps the only successful model excluding Red Hat) is the "collaborative foundation" model like Linux and Apache.

Mozilla have had some success with their model, but they could soon find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place if their "eyeballs" agreement with Google ends.

But only a few high-profile projects are suitable for the foundation model, and certainly only one per category.

A feeling is sneaking up on me that in 5 years we will look back at the failed open source hype and shake our head in disbelief over our naivety.

No, I'm not saying that open source will die. I'm quite certain that Linux, Apache and probably OpenOffice will exist in 5 years.

But I'm equally certain than many, many open source startups will have bowed. They are struggling already. Once customers realize that also open source products can be abandoned they will see software licensing as a kind of insurance that someone will always be willing to pick up the ball. Which is certainly not the case with many narrow open source projects.

The RMS ideology style open source is not sustainable. Open source will soon receive a healthy dose of pragmatism.
0 Votes
+ -
re: I don't think so.......
Christian_<>< 17th May 2009
Companies are cutting back and getting rid of support from Red Hat???

My friend I guess you have been reading the Bill Gate's times online because Open Source is growing. Companies are getting rid of proprietary software models such as MS Server/Windows/Office because there is no logical reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on MS Exchange that can't stay up and is a constant virus quagmire.

Apache, Postfix/Sendmail, BIND, Radius, ftp, dhcp is powering the internet and it is NOT MS based solutions.

I guess Firefox is doomed now the most popular web-browser and Thunderbird???

This is nothing more than FEAR tactics by the MS Windows advocates who are being swept aside by skills sets like in the Open Source realm.

So you are telling me that Windows Server/Desktop is secure?

I guess the $9 BILLION in damages from Conficker is not real either???

When you want security you go with Unix/Linux distro's not MS software where licenses are paid, then anti-virus licenses, then other software licenses and YOU do not own the software MS does.


Try again, Conficker is a great testimony to the MS advocates who blame it on people not applying patches. You can patch a Windows box 24/7 and it still can't face the public internet, it will be hacked in minutes.

Unlike a Linux distro, it can face the public Internet and be safe/secure without worms/viruses/spyware/malware and trojans.

Keep your broken model and hype meanwhile, I invest in Hardware and Open Source where I can build a secure infrastructure without spending fortunes on licenses....
0 Votes
+ -
Open source is more than just the big name apps like linux or
OpenOffice. the idea that trusting in open source in the future will be
viewed as naive is not understanding OS. Most open source is
embedded code in apps, not licensed & supported directly. Having
said that, creative destruction is clearly having an impact on the
licensed software community. The real benefactor of open source, the
ultimate business model for all software in the future will be as a
service. This was predicted long ago at http://bit.ly/X5GRz

Software as a Service (SaaS) isn't impacted by the technology lifecycle
in the same way as software products are. By monetizing a specific
technology as a service, the cost of software can actually drop to zero
while the demand and support for the same technology can grow. We
are seeing this in action today at http://www.digitalchalk.com

0 Votes
+ -
Open Source has 'CHOICE' ....
Christian_<>< Updated - 17th May 2009
Open Source is a different methodology, it is a want to solve a problem not some 'patch job' that only happens after the fact.

Close source is a dead end street with a locked in application or platform. After that everything is welded into this, why do companies get in this fix. Because they do not hire the people with the correct skill sets, throwing money at software licenses for a quick solution always ends with a big mess.

When you approach it from the angle of how do we solve this problem and how can we use an Open Source solution to tackle it and getting the right people with the skill sets.

I find it amazing how people claim Open Source is a decade behind in technologies when MS can't even get rid of a worm that has plagued Windows Server/Desktops for 10 years now.


Spending tens of thousands for licenses of a closed source Operating system and apps only to have the entire works brought down by worms/viruses/malware/spyware and trojans does not seem like a good investment.

At least with a Linux distro you can CHOOSE what you want to install or go your own route. It has ALL of the tools you need to develop on and make it secure!

I have to disagree with your comments, We at Ingres are seeing more customers and partners looking to open source for business critical solutions. We are seeing customers reduce cost by choosing open source solutions such as Ingres and JBoss, etc. The trend we see for paying customers are those that have business critical needs - if the solution has security (sarbox/ HIPAA), 24x7 needs,performance needs, etc to keep their business running, they pay for support.Always have, always will. If their business can survive with losing data, dropping service occasionally, they won't pay.

/deb woods
http://blogs.ingres.com/technology/2009/05/13/looking-to-save-some-cash-these-guys-are-doing-it/
0 Votes
+ -
Disagree
daengbo 18th May 2009
First of all, Red Hat (RHT) doesn't depend on proprietary bits to make money. You can get RHEL without support simply by downloading CentOS. It's a 100% open source company. Adding to that, it's income is up year-on-year, it's stock is up, and it's hiring. Compare the leading FOSS company to the leading CSS company (MSFT), and you'll see that MS is losing is those areas.

Many FOSS or dual-license companies are failing. So are many traditional software houses. The companies that are doing well, though, are either SaaS or FOSS. These types are succeeding because they offer greater value. for other businesses stuck in between a bad economy and and angry board.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Alfresco agonistes
mjasay 17th May 2009
"Agonistes" implies that we're somehow struggling. Our pipeline is up 3X, we've grown a minimum of 100% each year, and we have a roster of customers that any company on the planet would envy. So...what is the big struggle that you point to?

That we're fiddling with our business model? Of course we are! Who isn't? Is Google an "agoniste" because it's tweaking its advertising model for YouTube? No, of course not.

I understand you might want to take a swipe at me: fair enough. But please do so without tarring Alfresco, which is a tremendously successful company by **any** measure, and by **any** standard, open source or proprietary.
0 Votes
+ -
Nixon agonistes
DanaBlankenhorn 17th May 2009
...the book was written in 1969, when Nixon was
riding high.

I'm not taking a swipe at you, nor at Alfresco.
I'm examining the company's own self-
examination, something I think many enterprise
open source companies share, based on the words
of the company's founder, and Mr. Galoppini.

Oh, and Wills' book, as I noted, was his 1st. He
now has written 40. He is a giant among
historians.

Just as Alfresco has an opportunity to become a
giant in software, as it works through its
current questions -- questions which every
company going through this current recession is
facing.

Thanks for writing. Always good to hear from
you. But I'm not your critic. I remain a fan.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix