Where have all the critics gone?

While open source development models and software have been around for some time, their progress in the enterprise was long inhibited by the criticisms of some vendors and analysts who warned against the use of open source and Linux-based solutions.

Their reasons ranged from feeling threatened to just plain confusion at what open source is and how it works. However, open source has proven itself in business and those critical voices have become curiously mum. One can only assume that the critics have accepted the error of their previous statements.

One of the top criticisms was that open source lacked support; that it was developed by a disparate group of people across the globe with no official support in place, leaving users to rely on community-based resources for sorting out their problems. Enterprises could not rely on this, they argued.

Another concern about Linux was the Unix-type fragmentation of operating systems. There isn't just Linux - there are literally thousands of distributions of Linux, and while this allows users a wide range of choice, the argument was that it also created much confusion.

The open source development model was also under attack in the press. Critics claimed it was fundamentally flawed - how could you rely on disparate groups of people with wide geographical spread to produce something stable and reliable enough for use in business?

Then there was the question of security - how could source code that was available to anyone be more secure than the closely guarded source code of the proprietary world?

Perhaps the most famous damnation of Linux and open source use came in 2004 and was backed by funding from large companies in spreading its message: that Linux carried a higher total cost of ownership (TCO) than proprietary software solutions. They said that while Linux presented a lower acquisition cost, its TCO was raised by implementation and maintenance costs, making it more expensive than closed solutions.

Some of these criticisms stemmed from a misunderstanding of open source and its development and possible business models. Others, such as the TCO argument, relied on the lack of knowledge in the market to spread lies about the use of open source and Linux.

So powerful is open source development that some proprietary software vendors are attempting to simulate the model in their own operations.

Muggie van Staden, MD, Obsidian Systems.

These criticisms have died down in recent times. Anyone would be hard-pressed to find them in the media anymore, and even the most stalwart of proprietary vendors, such as Microsoft, are now siding with open source companies and supporting the use of Linux.

Microsoft and Novell recently concluded a patent and interoperability agreement to bolster the support for virtualisation and integration of open and closed source solutions.

That open source managed to weather the storm of criticism and emerged unscathed is partly due to the nature of open source and partly to do with the work of companies that support it.

The open source community proved itself in terms of developing robust solutions that power today's business world, such as the Apache Web server and the several mail servers available.

The collaboration of thousands of developers all over the world labouring on a project that truly interests them presents a force that cannot be matched by small teams of developers working on projects they don't really care about. So powerful is open source development that some proprietary software vendors are attempting to simulate the model in their own operations.

The support question has been answered by the likes of Red Hat, which provide enterprise-level open source solutions as well as certifications for both skills and compatibility, supported by partners all over the world. Hardware is certified to run Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as are implementers and partners for its support. This creates trust in the market and silences the criticisms of open source support - it exists and is every bit as competent as its proprietary competitors.

This has also crushed the argument that Linux is coupled to a higher TCO. This has been disproved by practice in actual implementations, where a combined open source enterprise stack has been shown, in many enterprises, to incur a far lower TCO than proprietary solutions.

Open source has matured to the level where it is possible to maintain an entirely certified stack from major vendors, even to the extent that institutions are running Linux and open source solutions in mission-critical environments.

However, there are basic rules of thumb for the implementation of open source in the enterprise. These are similar to those of proprietary solutions: it is essential to select a product that can be certified on a hardware and implementation level. It is also vital to go with a local partner who offers certified support in the enterprise's region.

With the cover of both international and local support, coupled with ongoing development and certified hardware, open source has much to offer the enterprise customer, in terms of security, reliability, maintenance and TCO. And, finally, few will disagree with that statement.