CIOs Band Together Against Paying For Software Bugs 361
gmerideth writes: "This article over at cio.com interviews several CIO's who are sick and tired of spending billions every year on software upgrades simply because the creater tells them to upgrade as they wont support previous versions or they get stuck into lengthy, costly licenses. Quoted from the article "Other companies, such as Ameritrade Holding, are opting for open-source technologies such as the GNU and Linux operating systems, the Apache Web server and Sendmail e-mail.". It's glad to see the open source movement doing it's job."
The better licensing plan (Score:3, Interesting)
The other scheme I would like to see return is the purchase of business logic software WITH the source. Back in the days of mainframes, if you needed accounts payable, accounts receivable, order tracking, etc., you would buy a package of software that would come with all the source code so that you could change the logic to fit your business. This was actually a requirement then because the DB access code was compiled into the program resulting in binaries that were tied to the schema. However, the side effect it produced of giving the source with the product was extremely successful due to the fact that no two businesses are alike. Just because Kraft does their paperwork this way, doesn't mean that GM does theirs the same. Plus, Kraft has to worry about delivery schedules via networked partners such as Sysco whereas GM ships directly to dealerships.
As much as people may hate to hear this, the mainframe guys had it right and business today should start taking notice of that.
Wait a minute. Somebody's shifting blame. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem.
If CIOs would cover their damned butts they wouldn't get into these binds.
It's good to hold Oracle's feet to the fire. It's good to make them sweat and to make them deliver.
But...
Why aren't these CIOs demanding reasonable back-out strategies?
Twenty years ago, when I worked for EDS, clients routinely demanded that we use particular technologies so that they could kick us out if they didn't like us.
At another employer, the only patents I've ever had my name on (inventor, not owner. No money for me) came because we didn't want to be locked into AT&T as a long-distance provider. They had a special feature we wanted called Network ACD, but it was patented and no one else could offer it. We spent the time and money to invent our own system and stay free to negotiate with whomever we pleased.
I'm amazed by these people who are talking up subscription software. Nothing wrong with the concept, really -- if you've got a way out. Then it's like a lease-or-buy decision for anything else.
With a lock-in? Come on. Surely they've noticed that Microsoft is moving in that direction without any prodding from the outside. That should tell 'em everything they need to know.
Botton line:
Oracle or nothing, Office or nothing, anything or nothing will leave you screwed.
Bugs vs. Piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Bugs [cio.com]: "Faulty software costs businesses $78 billion per year"
hmmm... so pirates have $66 Billion to catch up?
Do we spend less time maintaining Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Aside from paying M$ for licenses, is Linux in 2001 any easier to maintain?
If I installed 100 workstations in 2000 (all up to date software/patches/etc.) how easy would it be to maintain them. What if I wanted to install the latest version of Open Office? Would I need to upgrade KDE/Gnome, libraries, the kernel, etc?How easy would it be?
My experience is we spend most of our money on people to support the infrastructure, and things like licenses are small in the great scheme of things? Would I spend any less time maintaining and upgrading my Linux boxes?
Re:thank heavens (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but that wasn't the case in your example. Unless you're somehow suggesting that the size of your partition or network share is technologically limited to be smaller than your RAM. If that's the case, you seriously need to look for another career.
Which leads once again to my question: what's a bug and what's a limitation?
That's an easy one to answer, at least in your example.
With the exception of unregistered cripple-ware, if the software allowed you to create the file, it's definitely a bug if it won't let you save it.
Re:Wait a minute. Somebody's shifting blame. (Score:1, Interesting)
Have any of the companies done the cost/benefit analysis of what they'll pay out in licensing, upgrades, etc vs changing to another, more open solution? If not, then I have no sympathy - they chose their poison.
Withholding payment would do miracles (argh). (Score:3, Interesting)
The article has a section titled "Withholding Payment: The Brute Force Option". Well, that would really do miracles for solving many QA-related problems. I know. Been there, done that.
Scene: The year is 1992. A computer manufacturer has sold a big mainframe to a local bank. There is a glitch somewhere in the interface between a network driver and a particular model of ATM machine. Nobody cares except of course the bank. No resource is available nowhere to debug the problem. Nobody want to pay for it.
So the bank's boss holds a meeting and tells the computer manufacturer that he will suspend payments on the mainframe until said mainframe could talk to the ATM as promised. The cost of the mainframe: a few millions. The look on the sales guys: Priceless. :-)
It took only a few calls ("he suspended WHAT???") to suddenly find the required resources. Mysteriously, money appeared to send people (me!) and debug the problem. Of course, the manufacturer could have sued the customer, but I am not sure it would have been a smart move. Satisfied customers are nice to have, ya know.
That's why I really think this article is an excellent thing. A Revolt of the CEOs is the only thing that can prevent (some) software to be delivered with swarms of bugs on purpose. It's one more step toward making software a science instead of a black art.
And if this revolt could tip the balance towards open source, so much the better.
Here is a slightly more elegant proposal: Network providers have a garanteed uptime. If your leased line or fiber drops below a certain minimum uptime, the provider starts refunding you. That's a standard clause.
How about suggesting such clauses to CEOs for their critical systems?
This is what I hope we will finally start hearing: "We replaced Sendmail with Exchange. Since then, I barely get any email and MS is paying us." Hmmm.
Re:Is Open Source the answer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, I know that I'm replying to a troll, but nevertheless - it's such a joy.
It's been a long time, at least ten years, that I've read something to describe TeX as bloatware and with "useless bells and whistles". Others have already asked you about the money that you are going to get from commercial vendors when you find a typo or a missing index entry in the manual, your article speaks for itself. But then, somebody attacking TeX still means that TeX is still very much alive - much to the contrary opinion of those who hail the latest {K,Open,Star}Office package that still can't deliver what TeX does since 20 years.
Proud to work with TeX since 1982, involved in creating CTAN, founding member of DANTE; sincerly yours