Review Article #2
Randy Metcalfe (2005) in his article, “Software Choice: Decision-making in a Mixed Economy”, discusses the software choice and the critical choice factors that go in to institutional IT decision-making. This article emphasizes the steps that IT people (including senior IT managers, managers, technician, and end users) have to take to make a decision about free and open source software. Since there is not much past experience to draw on, the IT staff involved in IT decision making need to understand the terms “free and open source software” as a forerunner to discussion of software choices in UK institutions. This article discusses the fact that a survey in the United Kingdom revealed not many authorities in the higher education or further education did even mention free and open software, as it was not clear to them what it meant.
There are organizations, such as OSS Watch, which is the national open source software advisory service for UK Further and Higher Education established by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) to provide unbiased advice and guidance on free and open source software. OSS Watch is not an advocacy group and has no financial or ideological interest in the decision that they make, in relation to open source software advice that they provide. They simply help the stakeholders to have a better understanding of the issues that they are dealing with and to be clearer about decision that they are making.
One of the issues that the stakeholders have to understand is that open source software (OSS) is distributed under open source licence. If the software is not distributed through an open source software licence, it is not open source software. The other issue is software development, which Metcalfe believes not many IT decision makers are concerned about. However, he argues that how the software is developed and will continue to develop does matter. In this section he discuses Eric Raymond’s famous cathedral and bazaar theories. Raymond argued that open source software is not normally developed to meet clear functional requirements and it is rather a “tentative sketch”. Raymond describes the open software, as exchanging goods in a market, or bazaar, “than the ethereal realm of cathedral building” used in proprietary software development. This article also discusses the communities and the end-users, who are important contributors to the development of the open source software. He conclude by saying that open source software is a valuable alternative to the proprietary software, but in the United Kingdom there is still plenty of work that needs to be done to think more constructively about IT strategies and practical decision making. However, OSS Watch is working with institutions for higher education to help them understand the open source software better and to help them to develop better guidance materials, which will assist them, when it comes to making difficult IT decisions.
While this paper provides a good introduction to the choice between proprietary and open source software, it is somewhat vague on the specifics. It has been my experience that most companies will find the adoption of open source software difficult until they have tried it and been successful. To do this they must be willing to “join the community” and play by the rules in the “open software licence”. On the other hand, most companies a facing having to develop software to more and more demanding standards, and open source software may be a big help by “sharing” the cost of meeting these demands. This is especially true if the members of the “community” are also actively involved with the development and management of these standards.
I also feel that the open source model fits areas of software development where it is very clear that joint development serves the ‘greater good’. For example, in the development of our Operating Systems, Internet Applications, etc., on which our future prosperity and commence will depend (i.e., advancing the so called ‘information age’). Throughout the Industrial Revolution, companies have prospered by being the first to develop a new manufacturing technique. This worked because hardware development cycles were long and a company could gain a strategic advantage in the market place before its competitors could catch up. This has all changes with software, where the development cycles have become shorter and shorter) along with the period of economic advantage this may afford). Hence, I see the development of open source software as a natural evolution driven by the Darwinian “prisoner’s dilemma” where the best results are achieved when we all work together (as a community). Thus, practical guidance on when it is best to use proprietary in-house methods versus open source software development (as discussed in the concussion of Randy Metcalfe’s article) provides a valuable first step in helping customers and institutions deal with the difficult IT decisions ahead.
Reference
Metcalfe, Randy (2005, January). Software choice: decision-making in a
mixed economy. ARIADNE, 42(1). Retrieved November 9, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/metcalfe/
There are organizations, such as OSS Watch, which is the national open source software advisory service for UK Further and Higher Education established by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) to provide unbiased advice and guidance on free and open source software. OSS Watch is not an advocacy group and has no financial or ideological interest in the decision that they make, in relation to open source software advice that they provide. They simply help the stakeholders to have a better understanding of the issues that they are dealing with and to be clearer about decision that they are making.
One of the issues that the stakeholders have to understand is that open source software (OSS) is distributed under open source licence. If the software is not distributed through an open source software licence, it is not open source software. The other issue is software development, which Metcalfe believes not many IT decision makers are concerned about. However, he argues that how the software is developed and will continue to develop does matter. In this section he discuses Eric Raymond’s famous cathedral and bazaar theories. Raymond argued that open source software is not normally developed to meet clear functional requirements and it is rather a “tentative sketch”. Raymond describes the open software, as exchanging goods in a market, or bazaar, “than the ethereal realm of cathedral building” used in proprietary software development. This article also discusses the communities and the end-users, who are important contributors to the development of the open source software. He conclude by saying that open source software is a valuable alternative to the proprietary software, but in the United Kingdom there is still plenty of work that needs to be done to think more constructively about IT strategies and practical decision making. However, OSS Watch is working with institutions for higher education to help them understand the open source software better and to help them to develop better guidance materials, which will assist them, when it comes to making difficult IT decisions.
While this paper provides a good introduction to the choice between proprietary and open source software, it is somewhat vague on the specifics. It has been my experience that most companies will find the adoption of open source software difficult until they have tried it and been successful. To do this they must be willing to “join the community” and play by the rules in the “open software licence”. On the other hand, most companies a facing having to develop software to more and more demanding standards, and open source software may be a big help by “sharing” the cost of meeting these demands. This is especially true if the members of the “community” are also actively involved with the development and management of these standards.
I also feel that the open source model fits areas of software development where it is very clear that joint development serves the ‘greater good’. For example, in the development of our Operating Systems, Internet Applications, etc., on which our future prosperity and commence will depend (i.e., advancing the so called ‘information age’). Throughout the Industrial Revolution, companies have prospered by being the first to develop a new manufacturing technique. This worked because hardware development cycles were long and a company could gain a strategic advantage in the market place before its competitors could catch up. This has all changes with software, where the development cycles have become shorter and shorter) along with the period of economic advantage this may afford). Hence, I see the development of open source software as a natural evolution driven by the Darwinian “prisoner’s dilemma” where the best results are achieved when we all work together (as a community). Thus, practical guidance on when it is best to use proprietary in-house methods versus open source software development (as discussed in the concussion of Randy Metcalfe’s article) provides a valuable first step in helping customers and institutions deal with the difficult IT decisions ahead.
Reference
Metcalfe, Randy (2005, January). Software choice: decision-making in a
mixed economy. ARIADNE, 42(1). Retrieved November 9, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/metcalfe/
posted by Mehrak at 7:10 PM
4 comments
