Joe,

Well, you raise some great issues.

>Doug,
>
>>Well, thing is is that if you bet your entire business on 'free' software you really put yourself into a position where your business judgement can be called into question.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. The cost of the software doesn't mean a thing. What matters is what kind of support you have for your software. Thousands of businesses use free software every day, like Apache as a web server (check out any recent study on Apache's share of the server market) or using Linux as a cheap print server (check out Cisco's testimonials on how they have implemented Linux in such a fashion). Are you questioning Cisco's "business judgement"? They are one of the most successful companies in the world...

Well, the issue here in my mind is whether or not the software will be around for a 'typical' life cycle. I suppose we could argue this to a draw since I'd expect you to remind me that in the case of 'free' (open source) software that you're not dependent on one single company. And, yes, I know Apache is very well regarded.

>
>>Don't misunderstand... I like the notion of paying little or nothing for world-class software but something tells me that even in this case you will end up getting what you paid for.
>
>What exactly is the "something" that tells you? Could we have some specific examples? Don't get me wrong, the Open Source movement and idea of free software are two things that still have me reeling and trying to fully understand, but to dismiss free software as "you get what you pay for", i.e. that the products are worthless in the long run, is dangerously dismissive at best...

Well, I suppose it would be a principle more than anything else. Personal observations of the software industry over the last 15-20 years. There really is no such thing as a free lunch and what concerns me is finding out where the hidden costs would be in, say, the case where I download some great piece of 'free' software. Do I incur those costs by having to pay an exorbitent amount for a 'guru'? Or, do I spend that $$ over the course of several years since the software requirs an extra 5-10% of my attention. As an aside I remember when at UC Davis Extension we had 2 non-HP laser printers. They cost less, promised more features but ate up 80% of my laser printer support time. IOW, they cost a lot more in the end. Stuff like that.

Shoot, if you could point me to a downloadable Windows-based SQL manager that was free and offered me everything I can currently get in SQL 7 (not to mention SQL 2000) and save me $$ I'd like to take a look. The trick is in the word 'everything' I'd think.

>
>>Additionally, at least here in the US there are going to be cases where a company will be required by their insurance carrier or lawyers or ?? to not use such software. Too much risk and liability.
>
>This is probably true. I would be curious, though, as to what risk and liability they are expecting? When is the last time Microsoft paid out any money because their operating systems or application crashed? They simply do not. In other words, you truly are on your own even with the "supported" solutions, unless you pay an ungodly amount in service contracts (not even sure MS offers such comprehensive coverage...)

Do you think MSFT is going to publish that information? <g> What happens in an imaginary case, where someone uses this 'free' software for an online web store and it loses their credit card numbers or worse exposes them to some hacker? Who's liable? In the case of SQL, while I'm sure MSFT's lawyers have written into the contract every kind of preventative clause imaninable the simple fact of the matter is is that they are still liable under the law where the law permits. State law trumps local law. Federal law 'trumps' local law unless contravened. If there was no way to receive 'remedy' then you can bet your bottom dollar I'm not going to place any project I'm responsible for on the notion that the software is open source and "everyone cares".

No offense meant but empathy is a poor substitute indeed for responsibility.

I work on the ikinds of projects where I need someone to be held responsible and who is willing to take that responsibility. I suppose that's the big issue in my mind. I know that a huge portion of the products like Apache, etc are great and I would use them in a heartbeat. But when it comes to a product that holds my data... Well, I have to take a very serious look at that and, yes, I understand I pay more for that. The investors want that kind of assurance - it is their money after all. <g>

>
>For anyone who has used Linux for a while, ask them where they get their support. Odds are they find out all they need from internet sites and USENET news. I won't lie to you, Linux can be a demanding and arduous road, but I have always been able to find more help on Linux than when I have Win95 or NT questions, and the Linux help is all free.
>
>>I guess the thing that 'threw' me was the notion that a client would want a robust system but was unwilling to pay for it.. I wouldn't take a client like that knowingly. I figure that they will want my best efforts and not want to pay me either. <g>
>
>Not paying for software isn't the same as not paying for services. Clients don't expect services to be for free, but it is not unreasonable to expect the software for free. As any Open Source supporter might tell you, software isn't for making money, it is for being used to make money -- subtle difference (and probably not worded very well). But services are where most "free software" companies make their money. Packaging, support, and consulting are very viable business models in this day and age...

Sure, but not paying for software is also not a magic release from expenses, hidden or otherwise, either. My point is that if you save money because of the nature of the software being 'free' you will amost invarioably pick up that cost somewhere else as a result of corrolary issues and events.

Please understand, I'm not slamming the open sores ..er.. <g> open source movement. I think it's great and hugely beneficial. Mission Aviation Fellowship, a group of people who donate their lives, time and resources towards helping others use Linux as their email transport system and in their case it is IMO a perfect fit. But, I would think twice about having them place their financials on a 'free' SQL product. I'd want to thoroughly evaluate it first - and, if it proved to meet my needs I'd have a hard time arguing against it.