ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Gartner doles out sobering predictions for open source use in the enterprise for next 5 years

By | January 5, 2009, 11:58am PST

The economic slowdown should benefit open source software but whether open source software will benefit its owners is up in the air.

That’s according to Gartner Group predictions for 2009, which claims that over the next few years most enterprises using open source won’t manage those assets correctly and most won’t achieve any cost savings over proprietary software. 

I’m late to the game here, but it’s worth pointing out two findings in the Gartner Predicts 2009 report, which was  published early last month:

Through the end of 2011, fewer than 50 percent of global IT organizations will have implemented a formal open source adoption and management policy.

And for the next five years, only about 50 percent of all mainstream IT projects using open source software will not achieve cost savings over closed source alternatives, according to the report’s author, Mark Driver.

The data serves as good warning for enterprise IT managers and CIOs, especially those who have stuck their necks out to support open source.

Gartner’s advise? In order to get a payoff, “move aggressively” to develop an open source adoption strategy and bring OSS and hardware under asset management systems.

“Do not expect to automatically save money with OSS or any technology without effective financial management,” Driver writes. “Do expect to carefully manage open source solutions in the appropriate scenarios to realize total cost of ownership advantages. ”

Imagine sitting down with your CEO in 2015 and explaining why the supposed cost savings of OSS never materialized with all of the energy and bucks put behind it?

Consolidation will vastly reduce the number of open source partners with whom customers do business.

Gartner predicts, for example, that by 2012, at least 50 percent of all direct commercial sales from open source products will come from projects under a single vendor’s patronage. Think about Red Hat, which scooped up JBoss. Think of Sun, which acquired mySQL? What’s in store for 2009?

On a good note, this may spread the use of open source (one throat to choke) and reduce the number of vendor relationships customers must support. But on the other hand, it may amass power into too few hands.

There was some good news in this otherwise  sobering report.

Through 2013, 90 percent of all cloud computing providers will rely on open source software to deliver products and services. this will no doubt stimulate more OSS sales and widespread use.

Gartner advises IT managers to manage their cloud and open source strategies together to maximize the potential of each. Tap into the ability of open source software to move workloads to the cloud, Driver also recommends in his to-do list for IT managers.
 

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

Topics

Paula Rooney is a Boston-based writer who has followed the tech industry for almost two decades.

Disclosure

Paula Rooney

Paula Rooney owns no stock in the companies that she covers. She holds a 401K that is managed by Morgan Stanley.

Biography

Paula Rooney

Paula Rooney has covered the software and technology industry for more than 20 years, starting with semiconductor design and mini-computer systems at EDN News and later focused on PC software companies including Microsoft, Lotus, Oracle, Red Hat, Novell and other open source and commercial software companies for CRN and PCWeek. She received a silver award from the American Society of Business Publication Editors in 2005 for her profile on Linus Torvalds and edited and co-authored "Partnering With Microsoft," a book about Microsoft's channel published by CMP Publishing in 2004. Rooney graduated from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1997. In her off time, she enjoys scuba diving, sailing, sun worshipping, running, reading, surfing (the net) and hanging out with her family. She resides on the shores of Scituate, Massachusetts.

27
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Are You Serious
smokeandmirrors 9th Mar 2009
Let me explain to you what happens in the real world with the big boys that use MS. I have watched every single one of my ATM machines go down, bank teller PC?s go down, all off my trading applications go down, as well as 75% of my work force PC go down multiple times due to MS security and scalability problems. Additionally I have watch numerous startups collapse due to MS infrastructures not being able to with stand the load of a serious enterprise applications. On top of that you are confined to a limited solution set to handle your problems. With open source the sky is the limit. Now that may be your down fall as well, but the flexibility gained from open source solutions is tremendous.

- - > ?The is no central "go to" company if it all fals in a hole.?

Are you serious? You obviously have not looked too hard into open source technology support. You CANNOT get the same support out of MS, IBM or anyone as you do the open source companies. Well let me restate that. A well ran open source company. I cannot tell you how many times I have been hit with the whole, ?you have to upgrade to our latest and greatest version to get that issue fixed?. With open source they have flown out to my company and even cut custom builds for us to use until they can incorporate it into there main truck/branch. All under the standard support license. No nickel and dimming me for versions, no sale pitches in the middle of IT emergencies ? just plain old fashion good business support.

- - > ?people use it at home, and they dont want to have to come to work and use something new, they want to get their work done, get paid and go home.?

Yeah ? they also get tons of blue screens and crashes as well at home. And I do not want that in my infrastructure. In fact I do not want that in my IT mentality. I have linux servers running my open source middleware that have been running so long that the counters have gone around. My MS infrastructure constantly has to be rebooted. Also, all the sick servers in my infrastructure are always the MS variety.

- - > ?business needs standards, they need people to be comfortable with the apps and they need apps that do the job. OPEN Source has alot of trouble meeting those needs.?

This comment is very funny. MS is the anti standard. They do not play by the rules of any standard body ? with the exception of Web Services. I can plug and play a plethora of middleware, databases and applications far easier with open source.
0 Votes
+ -
Meaningless corporate clap-trap
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 Updated - 5th Jan 2009
Problem with reports such as this one is that, while they sound smart at the surface, I have to admit that once I dig deeper I realize than I have no idea what the report is saying.

Article:
That?s according to Gartner Group predictions for 2009, which claims that over the next few years most companies using open source won?t manage those assets correctly and most won?t achieve any cost savings over proprietary software.

Manage open source assets? You mean burned copy of Ubuntu? Perhaps some kind of contract you paid to Red Hat is an asset? How do you manage that?

Article:
Through the end of 2011, fewer than 50 percent of global IT organizations will have implemented a formal open source adoption and management policy.

What is formal open source adoption and management policy? You mean I just cannot install software as I need it and I need a plan in a binder sitting on a shelf somewhere?

Article:
?Do not expect to automatically save money with OSS or any technology without effective financial management,?

You mean that unless I track the money I am saving, I will not be saving any money? Is it something like monetary Schr?dinger principle?

Article:
Driver writes. ?Do expect to carefully manage open source solutions in the appropriate scenarios to realize total cost of ownership advantages. ?

I think that this means that I have to manage open source software under right circumstance to save money. Still not clear though.

Open source is like brushing teeth, often times you do not see the benefit, but it is there. I use Ubuntu at home. I tried several different distributions over time before settling on Ubuntu. Imagine driving to the store, buying several different proprietary OS-es and trying them out? That would be major expense and pain, but if you use Open Source, it is just an after-though. Same thing is true with applications; I can install and uninstall Applications and not worry about licenses, file format or lock-in. All these savings in time and productivity you can't really put into an accounting ledger.
0 Votes
+ -
Managing Open Source
R.L. Parson 5th Jan 2009
Yes, in a corporate setting you do have to manage your open source assets, otherwise you'll have varying levels of chaos. Which flavor of Linux is this person using? Which spreadsheet is that person using?

It's up to the IT Department to establish the role of open source, create a corporate-wide standard, convince the executive poobahs of the need to do adopt it, and then train the rank and file to use it. All that comes with a cost.

This is completely different from someone dinking around with open source at home. I think Gartner has, for the most part, come to the right conclusions.
0 Votes
+ -
What is an open source asset?
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 5th Jan 2009
You totally miss the point. Yeah you should manage IT and do things in the normal course of Business. But phrase Manage open source assets makes no sense. From what you saying, managing software in the normal course of business is what managing open source assets is. But there is no indication that is what Gartner report meant. There is no indication what an open source asset is. Is it software? Is it staff expertise? is it support contract? Report is full of meaningless phrases that are open to interpretation.
0 Votes
+ -
There is a certain vagueness with the buzzwords Gartner is tossing about, but I think your arguments tend to reinforce their arguments about slow adoption. If I were a corporate poobah, that haziness is what would make me move slower.
I believe it can be and does need managed like other software assets
0 Votes
+ -
Putting a word ASSET after a noun does not make banal statement important
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 Updated - 6th Jan 2009
You can say that Open source needs to be managed like all other software, but that is banally obvious statement. Further more putting the word "asset" after any noun makes a person sound like a corporate sometingbag. Would you pay big bucks for a report telling you that you need to manage your dental assets (take care of your teeth)
... in which they are speaking? OSS assets are not the easiest things to deploy, manage and understand where the value belongs for many companies. It's use on server and desktop is too new and that is just the way it is for many.


Asset mgmt. ties the assets to the businesses mission, not just technology for the sake of technology, it helps keep track of what has been implemented, where, the value of each and where it can provide better value going forward.


It ties short range and long range planning to organizational performance in regards to the assets at hand.


You know when you start to use OSS software, you obviously must do a lot of planning on how you are going to proceed in terms of server and client software, application software and myriad other choices must be made at that point in time. Whether you "Own" the assets physically or not, they are nonetheless assets that have been chosen and must be managed at the asset level or the business will flounder with it for years. The IT dept might be all gay and happy to be bringing in open source but they, by and large, have no clue about asset management and tying the software to the business goals and such.



Ok, that was just more obvious or painfully banal to you, but it's not to many companies and that was the point.


Think of the context. OSS is struggling to get anything more sophisticated, integrated with economy of scale higher up the software stack so trying to use assest management for open source is difficult to begin with. That means it's absolutely essential that software asset mgmt or some type of system used to manage resources in varying contexts (for instance not just how much hardware savings might be found, but how to leverage that in ways that provide value, not just an IT dept with older and lower performing hardware) or you are sunk.


The CIO position is clearly morphing into a combination of very strong business skills along with technical savvy, but most sites are not there yet and in either case Software has to be tied to the business to be effective, otherwise it's really just a lot of cost for little advantage and return.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, you do.
cornpie 5th Jan 2009
You:

I need a plan in a binder sitting on a shelf somewhere?

Yes, you do need a plan. It doesn't have to be printed in a binder, but yup, you sure do need a plan. Otherwise you end up with a mass of unrelated stuff that doesn't play well together, is undocumented, and will cease to function three days after you get in a car accident that renders you unconscious.

You:
You mean that unless I track the money I am saving, I will not be saving any money?

Yes, that is also exactly right. The people you work for have books to balance and accountants to do it and they will expect you to prove (and have a right to expect it) that the savings are real. And as a side benefit, when you show them your numbers actually proving that you saved money, you are much more likely to be able to obtain funds for your next project.

You:
Imagine driving to the store, buying several different proprietary OS-es and trying them out?

Ever heard of trial versions? Even Microsoft will let you download limited time trial copies and if you are on TechNet, they aren't even time limited. About the only exception is Apple where you would have to buy the whole computer to try it out.

All these savings in time and productivity you can't really put into an accounting ledger.

Sure they can. Its difficult, but you better find a way. See my response above. The people you work for and their accountants will expect you to do just that if you want them to invest in your ideas in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
You really think that I can just stick things into an accounting ledger?
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 Updated - 5th Jan 2009
Yes, you do need a plan. It doesn't have to be printed in a binder, but yup, you sure do need a plan. Otherwise you end up with a mass of unrelated stuff that doesn't play well together, is undocumented, and will cease to function three days after you get in a car accident that renders you unconscious.

There is a difference between documentation and plan. Not having a plan does not mean a complete chaos. Plus you cannot plan everything. Have someone in IT plan what software someone in purchasing will use. Nonsense! You try to keep things consistent, but in large part you do not know what problems will come in the future so you deal with things as they arise.

Yes, that is also exactly right. The people you work for have books to balance and accountants to do it and they will expect you to prove (and have a right to expect it) that the savings are real. And as a side benefit, when you show them your numbers actually proving that you saved money, you are much more likely to be able to obtain funds for your next project....Sure they can (just stick things in accounting ledger). Its difficult, but you better find a way. See my response above. The people you work for and their accountants will expect you to do just that if you want them to invest in your ideas in the future.

Nonsense! I am part of financial reporting (and I am wasting time right now from end of the year financials) and what you are talking about is nonsense. Do you thing you can measure benefit of everything in monetary terms? There is an accounting standard called GAAP. The source of GAAP is two institutions; FASB and AICIPA. Those two institutions are full of serious looking people in dark suits and gray beards. Once in a while they meet and discuss how to value an asset or a liability. You don't just stick things into the ledger.

Ever heard of trial versions? Even Microsoft will let you download limited time trial copies and if you are on TechNet, they aren't even time limited. About the only exception is Apple where you would have to buy the whole computer to try it out.


Point is I do not have to use trial version, worry about licenses, face restrictions and depend of good will of corporations. I can install and uninstall when I want, how I want and for how long I want it. I can even do it multiple times. There is benefit not measurable in $$ in freedom.
0 Votes
+ -
you're a propeller head, aren't you?
justthinking 5th Jan 2009
I can install and uninstall when I want, how I want and for how long I want it. I can even do it multiple times.

Of course you can but what happens if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in your organization does the exact same thing? What happens to the enterprise HR, CRM or financial applications that rely on specific OS versions? Installed libraries? Drivers?

Who is going to man your help desk for these possible hundreds of different OS distributions? And all the thousands of permutations of the applications and device drivers possible?

You?

You are thinking "me" where the report specifically addresses "organization" and the end-to-end thinking that has to go into running the IT strategy.
0 Votes
+ -
I think his "plan" must be...
cornpie 5th Jan 2009
...to hand each employee an Ubuntu CD as they walk in on Monday morning and consider himself done.
0 Votes
+ -
Ritalin may help you with your ADHD
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 6th Jan 2009
I never suggested that users should be able to install what ever they wanted at a company. Perhaps you should read the thread again and this time try and pay attention.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm. are you sure you work in fiscal?
xuniL_z Updated - 8th Jan 2009
The type of accounting you are referring to only exists for what is going to be reported to the government, creditors and other outside entities.


As for internal managment accounting, you can do anything you want and you better believe you have to show value on a project. Where are you coming from? My guess is a small country business where the management hasn't evolved and IT is still a "magic" place where magical things happen? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, honestly, i just can't believe you don't understand.


You've never heard of Software Asset Management Systems?


I would suggest you immediately Google Software Asset Management and look into managerial accounting. These are not new concepts.
0 Votes
+ -
Meaningless corporate clap-trap
Aussie_Troll 6th Jan 2009
That attitude is **WHY** Open source will never go anywhere.

Business cant trust you, cant rely on it, and cant handly the fanboi attitude that poisions FOSS like a viral plague.

Business wants to do business, they dont want to join a cult and pray and give offerings to the great Stallman God !!
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think you read my post
hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812 7th Jan 2009
I was criticizing an article and its writing style and I was not really talking about Open source.
0 Votes
+ -
Et Tu Ballmer?
Ole Man 7th Jan 2009
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/01/1658258.shtml

"In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that Linux and the open source movement is "good competition" because it will "force [Microsoft] to be innovative," but calls Linux "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39418108,00.htm

Microsoft blames users for Vista infections

http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/microsoft_blames_vista_users.html

Microsoft Blames Users for Vista Problems
An article covering "Five Misunderstood Features in Windows Vista" claims that all Vista problems are only perceived by users and blames their judgment of the OS. You can get upset, or have a good laugh.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Microsoft-blames-users-for-malware-on-Vista-PCs/0,130061744,339288981,00.htm

Microsoft blames users for malware on Vista PCs

http://vegblog.veggiedude.com/index.php?/archives/1616-Microsoft-blames-users-for-Vista-security-problems.html

Microsoft blames users for Vista security problems

Looks like Microsoft blames you (users) for everything that goes wrong with "their" software. And you're rallying to their defense? Ho ho ho!
These chuckleheads still without a clue eh?! devil
0 Votes
+ -
I have to assume it's Gartner, so may I remind you, you have been right in there backing them when they've done Vista reporting and it comes out on the negative side.


Either back them, or not. Selectivly doing so doesn't seem to suit an honest man.

0 Votes
+ -
Gartner doesn't have a clue.
bjbrock 5th Jan 2009
Any company reading predictions such as this and putting any store in them has to be crazy.

With comments like "all of the bucks and energy put behind it," Gartner shows they don't have a clue. The bucks will be less and the energy will certainly be no more than non-oss.

Gartner make predictions that very rarely come to fruition. If you were to keep a score card you would realize how utterly out of touch they are with reality.
Who does this analysis? Open source apps are in some areas exceeding the quality of comparable enterprise stuff that costs crazy amounts of money. The only diff with "some" open source may be support, but honestly if you have the right people who can work with the stuff its never a problem.
0 Votes
+ -
The predictions are fluff.
kozmcrae 5th Jan 2009
What does it matter how right or wrong Gartner's predictions are? The advice is good though. Just replace the word "proprietary" in the place of "Open Source". It doesn't make any difference. The only thing special about implementing Open Source is perception and a lack of understanding. You'd be well advised to do your research and have a good plan in place for a change over to Open Source. You'd be well advised to do your research and have a good plan in place for a change over to a different proprietary vendor.
0 Votes
+ -
So hows it workign for you OSS boys ?
Aussie_Troll 5th Jan 2009
with 0.85% market share after 17 years, Macs 10 times more, MS 100 times more market share.

reading the OSS biased comments tell me exactly why this is the case.

FOSS/Linux guys OSS in gerneral does not have a glue about what happens in the real world with the big boys.

saying things like "OSS must be cheaper" is just plain wrong.

Business and corporation wants to get things done, they dont want the staff spending time working out how to configue the OS, they dont want a mixed bag of OS's and apps, they dont want confusion.

The very reason MS has and is doing so well is that it listens to the market and strives to meet the market's requirements.

FOSS does not, FOSS caters for FOSS people can work on what they like, not what is needed.

The is no central "go to" company if it all fals in a hole.

MS may (is not) perfect, but it gets the job done.

people use it at home, and they dont want to have to come to work and use something new, they want to get their work done, get paid and go home.

and if every other business uses the same products it forms a defacto standard, an industry standard.

If you apply for a job, you will probably be asked if you can use WORD, and excell, powerpoint, project ect.

You wont be asked if you can use a Wordprocessor, spreadsheet, you will be asked if you know how to use windows products.

Why, because by having standards and commonality things just run way smoother.

The mindset of OPEN, FREE = BETTER is incorrect.

business needs standards, they need people to be comfortable with the apps and they need apps that do the job. OPEN Source has alot of trouble meeting those needs.

and i feel its a bit late to change FOSS's attitude. 1995 was your big chance and thats long gone.
0 Votes
+ -
Are You Serious
smokeandmirrors 9th Mar 2009
Let me explain to you what happens in the real world with the big boys that use MS. I have watched every single one of my ATM machines go down, bank teller PC?s go down, all off my trading applications go down, as well as 75% of my work force PC go down multiple times due to MS security and scalability problems. Additionally I have watch numerous startups collapse due to MS infrastructures not being able to with stand the load of a serious enterprise applications. On top of that you are confined to a limited solution set to handle your problems. With open source the sky is the limit. Now that may be your down fall as well, but the flexibility gained from open source solutions is tremendous.

- - > ?The is no central "go to" company if it all fals in a hole.?

Are you serious? You obviously have not looked too hard into open source technology support. You CANNOT get the same support out of MS, IBM or anyone as you do the open source companies. Well let me restate that. A well ran open source company. I cannot tell you how many times I have been hit with the whole, ?you have to upgrade to our latest and greatest version to get that issue fixed?. With open source they have flown out to my company and even cut custom builds for us to use until they can incorporate it into there main truck/branch. All under the standard support license. No nickel and dimming me for versions, no sale pitches in the middle of IT emergencies ? just plain old fashion good business support.

- - > ?people use it at home, and they dont want to have to come to work and use something new, they want to get their work done, get paid and go home.?

Yeah ? they also get tons of blue screens and crashes as well at home. And I do not want that in my infrastructure. In fact I do not want that in my IT mentality. I have linux servers running my open source middleware that have been running so long that the counters have gone around. My MS infrastructure constantly has to be rebooted. Also, all the sick servers in my infrastructure are always the MS variety.

- - > ?business needs standards, they need people to be comfortable with the apps and they need apps that do the job. OPEN Source has alot of trouble meeting those needs.?

This comment is very funny. MS is the anti standard. They do not play by the rules of any standard body ? with the exception of Web Services. I can plug and play a plethora of middleware, databases and applications far easier with open source.
0 Votes
+ -
Reading a Gartner report is not "data," it's only another
person's opinion written in a particular style (the Gartner
weather report - "75% chance of rain with a 50% probability"-
do you take an umbrella?). The cited observations are also
exactly what one has to deal with when justifying proprietary
software. Open source software is no more (or less)an issue
than proprietary software- both have to be managed.
In paragraph 7 you begin "Gartner???s advise? In order to get a payoff..." That should be "Gartner???s advice?" Gartner "advises" or they give "advice".
I see nothing sobering in this report. I also don't see the connection between Gartner's advise and successfully achieving / demonstrating cost saving with open source over proprietary offerings.

"Through the end of 2011, fewer than 50 percent of global IT organizations will have implemented a formal open source adoption and management policy."

I can believe many orgs don't have a "formal open source adoption" policy, but I can't believe those orgs using open source do not have a "management" policy. Managing a production environment requires the establishment of at least:

1) A regular maintenance schedule with associated procedures (backup / DR processing, minor patches, hardware upgrades, new features, etc.), and

2) A hot-fix process.

Very few IT shops or managed services lack these essentials.

"And for the next five years, only about 50 percent of all mainstream IT projects using open source software will not achieve cost savings over closed source alternatives, according to the report?s author, Mark Driver.

...snip...

Gartner?s advise? In order to get a payoff, ?move aggressively? to develop an open source adoption strategy and bring OSS and hardware under asset management systems."

I understand the benefit of an asset management system, but I don't see the connection between implementing an asset management system and suddenly achieving a "payoff" (or as the author says - "get a payoff"). An asset management system does not compare the TCO of alternative solutions. It may help to produce the input numbers for one part of the analysis, but the system does not help to "get a payoff".

Then we're treated to these other gems:

?Do not expect to automatically save money with OSS or any technology without effective financial management,? Driver writes. ?Do expect to carefully manage open source solutions in the appropriate scenarios to realize total cost of ownership advantages.?

DUH!!! The sky is blue and the grass is green (at least in Texas). I hope there was something a bit more insightful than those tidbits.
for the next 60 moons, citing vague innuendos from an infamous Troll.

Could she be colluding with the Aussie Troll? Lots of evidence to contemplate, cogitate, and ruminate..........

But.... no evidence of the aftermath from the can of worms she's masticating on.

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