Welcome!

Java Authors: Maureen O'Gara, Bruce Armstrong, Liz McMillan, Walter H. Pinson, III, Yakov Werde

Related Topics: Java, Open Source

Java: Article

Zadrozny on Scott McNealy: "Open Source is Free Like a Puppy is Free"

"This Analogy Is Really Right On the Money," Argues Peter Zadrozny
By Peter Zadrozny
Article Rating:
November 7, 2005 01:30 AM EST
Reads:
 12,586
I have always enjoyed Scott McNealy's knack for analogies, and this one is really right on the money: "Open Source is free like a puppy is free. There are long term costs and hassles, and occasional cleanup jobs."

As I have stated in previous occasions, the fact that software is open source and thus free doesn't automatically make it good. I'm not going to rehash on all the arguments about open source, but will instead focus specifically on this comment from McNealy.

Sometime in my dark past I used to be a VP of IT (or CIO as they are called nowadays). When I had to justify a project I started by assuming a lifespan of 10 years, of which approximately 1 year was dedicated to the development. The other 9 years were spent in day-to-day usage of the application, which represented about 70% of my costs over the life of the application. Some of my colleagues laughed at me by just using 10 years, pointing to the large amount of Cobol-based programs that are still in production. Independently of how much time an application might be in production, the point I'm trying to make is that it will be a lot longer than what it takes to build (assuming it was done correctly). And this is exactly what McNealy means by long term costs, the actual cost of running the application.

Let's assume for a moment that all the J2EE application servers available are the same, be them commercial or open source. Let's assume that your application will be running on an enterprise setting. The question is where are the day-to-day monitoring and management tools? These are the ones that will be used for the 9 years or more after the application has been placed in production. These are the ones that will really be needed to diagnose and identify problems. One of the very big differences between the open source J2EE offerings and the commercial ones is exactly on this point. The open source offerings do not have such a functionality, and so far it seems that they don't even understand the need for it.

I think that the problem is based on the fact that the majority of the developers of, and users of open source are developers. As far as they are concerned, once they finish the application it goes over the wall to some black hole, of which they only hear when there are problems.

As J2EE based applications become increasingly popular, we are starting to see the operations guys of the IT departments refusing to be responsible for these applications. Not only they don't have the tools for day-to-day operations, but there are no best practices defined. What we usually see happen is that the architect of the application ends up being responsible for the operations of it, usually carrying a burden s/he did not want.

This is one of the long term costs. Look at it carefully before deciding. By the way, this is not only an issue with open source. The lack of monitoring tools is also an issue with various of the commercial offerings.

Published November 7, 2005 – Reads 12,586
Copyright © 2005 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.

More Stories By Peter Zadrozny

Peter Zadrozny is CTO of StrongMail Systems, a leader in digital messaging infrastructure. Before joining StrongMail he was vice president and chief evangelist for Oracle Application Server and prior to joining Oracle, he served as chief technologist of BEA Systems for Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Comments (6) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Most Recent Comments
Infernoz 11/21/05 03:42:15 PM EST

Commercial software can have huge costs compared to OSS, license fees for a large estate can cost a fortune, as can upgrades (bug fixes, useless eye candy, more bugs and maybe some useful stuff), worse still commercial software can cripple a project if the supplier drops a version of the software, charges for bugs fixes or is plain incompetent. I have also seen multiple commercial suppliers release products with poor standards support when this would not be tolerated for an OSS product.
PK 11/15/05 11:16:41 AM EST

ranjix: I'd say your comment is equally confusing.

>>>
3. confusing, because nobody said that open-source software would be free in the first place. open-source means that usually the source code is open for development/scrutiny, nothing else.
<<<

The point is that almost everyone pushing OSS are always very very sure to hammer in the point that there are not license costs involved.
Although this is true my experience is that other hidden costs make an OSS based system just as cheap or expensive as any standard software if we are talking TCO.
Andy Connors 11/10/05 12:23:23 AM EST

A point well made. My customers discover this all the time, they try JBoss but quickly discover that it lacks a decent security framework, good management tools, support for 3rd party connectors and other software, lack of connectors and other resources needed to connect to legacy and 3rd party systems.

The list goes on, but the point is that it is easy to make an application server that support the J2EE specifications. It's harder to make one that is actually useful and decreases development time by the addition of "value-adds". It is these extras that takes exist in mature products with a long history of having to support thousands of real-world deployments. Many of these extras are migrated back into the specications and so remain proprietary for a short time only.
ranjix 11/09/05 12:15:49 PM EST

the article is:
1. useless because the message is "open source software is not free". a great discovery, thanks for opening our eyes, you (and Scott McNeally) deserve to be next to Mallory and Scott (the other one, the real one) in the list with the great discoverers of humanity
2. naive because the analogy is naive, as any kind of proprietary software is like a puppy too - that requires long term costs as well.
3. confusing, because nobody said that open-source software would be free in the first place. open-source means that usually the source code is open for development/scrutiny, nothing else.

putting next to each other, the open source and close source compare like this:

1. both have long term costs
2. both have bugs
3. both have unreliable support
4. the open source USUALLY is free, so no costs related to licenses.
5. the open source has the source published, meaning that everybody can take a look at the code - meaning, at least in theory - that more eyes are on it and maybe fewer bugs. so at least it doesn't use (the case be) "security thru obscurity" methods as the close-source would be attracted to (and the history showed they did).

the (general) advantage is clear (for me), so unless you need Autocad or so, don't pay.

anyway, mr. Zadrozny, please find better analogies, this is lame
Lisbeth 11/09/05 12:15:30 PM EST

It is a given that all software solutions have hidden costs attached to them. And the more frequently and longer you use the software, the more likely you are to encounter those costs.

Stating that Open Source software has hidden costs, however, is not the same as proving that the hidden costs of Open Source software are higher than that of commercial software. Some commercial software has very high hidden costs. Il caveat emptor.
AW 11/08/05 08:36:26 PM EST

Carrying this analogy a bit further, we could ask the question: what kind of puppies are free? Usually, it is the mutts, the mixed breeds with all kinds of different genes that have come about through some chance encounter. Compare this to the puppy you will pay money for: the pure breed. With both puppies, there will be a certain number of costs: the puppies need their shots, the responsible owner will get the puppy de-sexed (paid support?), etc. For the mutt, however, the predictable costs end there (though obviously there will be vet bills as the puppy ages). The pure bred (read: inbred) puppy, however, will continue to cost. Grooming, congenital problems, doggy psychologists: the works. And as the puppies age, which one is more likely to snap and bite your baby because its brain is swelling or it is suffering from arthritis?

Nevertheless, not all mutts are created equal. Perhaps prospective pet owners should be more concerned about the temperament of the puppy they are taking home when taking their pick of the litter.