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

[Jason Dusek]

  Their assessment is a reasonable. Their staff have a lot of
  MS training and experience; there will be considerable
  expense and confusion for them should they move to MySQL.

  Also, it is likely that Postgresql is actually a better fit for their
  needs so why not recommend that? MySQL has been lagging
  on core relational database features for quite some time.

  Forcing technical decisions on technical people for political
  reasons is unfortunately all too common and leads to
  inefficiency, stagnation and poor morale. You've made your
  suggestion and they have rejected it; persisting would only
  recreate the kind of hierarchical vibe that is both contrary
  to open source and probably led to the choice of MSFT in
  the first place. Help them be free to choose open source.

--
Jason Dusek
 On May 23, 2011 8:02 PM, "Asa Dodsworth" <asa.dodsworth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110524/5a381a12/attachment-0003.html>