[Noisebridge-discuss] City of Berkeley explanation of why not using open source.. Open Source vs. "proprietary" software

Stefano Maffulli smaffulli at gmail.com
Tue May 24 04:47:45 UTC 2011


Hi asa

from the answer they gave you it seems that they have in house only
developers skilled and trained on Microsoft technology. It is an uphill
battle to convince them that they need to throw away what they have and
start from scratch with technology they don't master.

their ideas are confused, at best. The fact that Oracle bought mysql doesn't
change the fact that mysql can be run for free. Any debian installation has
the full mysql server code running, easy to setup and always up to date
(security patches included, for free).
By buying Microsoft they simply increase their dependency on Microsoft
tools. BTW, Mysql runs and is supported on Windows too.

You may want to talk also to Code for America to help educate them and offer
alternative solutions to develop this custom app.

hth,
stef

2011/5/23 Asa Dodsworth <asa.dodsworth at gmail.com>

> The City Of Berkeley IT staff say that Open Source Database software wold
> not be desirable, would ya'll like to assess their assessment..
> I ask as I'm a rent board commissioner who has been trying to understand
> how opensource software can be used to address our software needs.
>
> asa
>
>
> Hi, Jay.   Here is a brief explanation of how Open Source would play into
> your project and why it wasn't considered.
>
> *Open Source would make the task of automating the Rent Board much more
> simple.
> *The biggest challenge the Rent Board faces is converting a manual system
> that had loosely defined business rules that were not consistently applied
> into a software system that rigorously enforces business rules.  We have
> agreed that there is no off-the-shelf solution that can meet the Rent
> Board's needs.  As we've seen over the past year, the process of formalizing
> business rules is a cultural problem rather than a technological one.  Once
> we have accurately and thoroughly defined the business rules, the software
> development process is essentially the same whether we choose Open Source or
> proprietary tools.
> *
> Open Source would require less of an investment for the Rent Board.
> *Since we have determined that there is no readily available off-the-shelf
> solution to adequately fulfill the Rent Board's needs, the only software
> required is server, web server and database software.  Since the City has an
> existing Enterprise agreement with Microsoft and is using virtualization,
> there is no cost to the Rent Board for server and web server software.  The
> City could choose to use MySQL for a database platform, but since Oracle
> acquired Sun Microsystems, MySQL Enterprise edition (required for an
> enterprise application like RTS) would be roughly the same cost as SQL
> Server.  Since our network engineers, database administrator and programmers
> are all familiar with SQL Server and do not have MySQL experience, there
> would be an additional ongoing cost to train staff and keep them educated on
> two disparate database platforms.
>
> *Open Source prevents prevents price gouging and other predatory practices
> by companies like Microsoft and Oracle.*
> In theory, this is correct.  The source code for Open Source software like
> MySQL is published intermittently so that any developer can support the
> software should the vendor's business practices take an unattractive turn.
> However, a customized version of MySQL, for instance, carries other risks.
> First, database design and coding is extremely specialized and not something
> most programmers are familiar with.  It's possible that the 3rd party that
> supports the product is not qualified to modify the code.  Secondly,
> maintaining a customized version of the software is expensive and not most
> vendor's core business.  It's unlikely a vendor would modify something like
> a database engine or operating system unless they had very specialized needs
> and experience to address those needs.  Once a vendor has modified the base
> code, it could become proprietary unless they turn around an publish it,
> thereby counteracting the benefit of going with Open Source in the first
> place.  In terms of City staff modifying Open Source software, the cost
> would be very high, we would need specialized, dedicated staff to maintain
> and support the software, and the risk of the software becoming unstable
> would be very high.  City programmers are competent at creating small,
> specialized applications for those needs that can't be filled by commercial
> software -- customizing databases and operating systems exceeds their skill
> set.
>
> *Open Source is like alternative energy -- it's the right thing to do and
> we should support it or else it will never get a solid foothold.
> *First acknowledging the points made above, this is a valid point.  Open
> Source may be a viable option for the City in the future but it is not
> currently viable.  Municipal governments typically let private enterprise
> work out the kinks before taking risks on new technology.  In the past 5
> years, we have slowly but steadily begun using cloud services for some
> applications -- when it made sense and we could justify the risk.  If we are
> to use Open Source in the future, we will approach it in the same,
> deliberate way and with adequate research and preparation.
>
>
> --
> Keith Skinner
> Renegade Image <http://renegadeimage.wordpress.com/>
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Renegade-Image/150788618296324>
> Berkeley Afoot <http://urbnwokker.wordpress.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110523/a99648e5/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list