There is some misunderstanding about my points. I agree with you - open source should not be given any special merit based on an ideology. It is unrealistic to expect this and unnecessary since open source often delivers superior overall results vs. commercial alternatives.
My point about rewarding people and teams for selecting open source assumes that the project delivers high value, on time. By using open source, teams often save the company money, create leaner, more maintainable infrastructures and reduce vendor lock-in. They should be recognized for the up-front effort required to deliver these benefits - for putting the company first, not just hitting the speed dial number for their incumbent big vendor.
The crux of the point I?m making is embedded in your second paragraph. Virtually every large organization runs open source somewhere. They were all ?busy trying to run a business? when they chose open source, but some smart developers and architects invested the extra effort to evaluate open source alternatives. Relying only on the consultants and vendors of commercial software for ?free? advice leads to obvious outcomes. I agree that the skill-sets required to evaluate open source packages are rare in some organizations, which is why I advocate forming open source centers of excellence, which can range from just a few part-time individuals in smaller organizations to dedicated teams in larger organizations.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
