Joe,

You know, I think we're pretty close here. In this case I'm putting on the "I'm responsible to Corporate" hat and you're putting on the 'I'm trying to get the best solution for the best cost" hat, which is really not at variance with my position wouldn't you think?

You make some really good point and I perhaps, as you mentioned, I also am not as much of a zealot for the corporate position either. I just see their side and wanted to make sure that it was represented.

IOW, I think paying less is great as long as you do not compromise quality. That's really all I was trying to say.


>Doug,
>
>>Well, you raise some great issues.
>
>As do you...
>
>>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.
>
>You are dead on with this point...that free software (Open Source, namely) is not conventional in terms of "life cycle" and stuff like that. It is forever growing and changing. Now, this is a big shift to get ones head around, and you are right -- you either accept it or you don't, so we don't really have to argue that point.
>
>>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 $$ over the course of several years since the software requirs an extra 5-10% of my attention. As an aside I remember when at UC Davis Extension we had 2 non-HP laser printers. They cost less, promised more features but ate up 80% of my laser printer support time. IOW, they cost a lot more in the end. Stuff like that.
>
>I completely agree that the price on software isn't the only aspect of "cost" to consider. But I think some commercial software costs money for the software AND for support/maintenance -- it gets you coming and going. For large, accepted Open Source projects (I will again refer to Apache), you can jst good functionality for zero up-front cost and not a lot more ongoing cost. HEck, if you have Unix expertise in your organization, the ongoing cost may very be less that with some commercial solutions.
>
>>Shoot, if you could point me to a downloadable Windows-based SQL manager that was free and offered me everything I can currently get in SQL 7 (not to mention SQL 2000) and save me $$ I'd like to take a look. The trick is in the word 'everything' I'd think.
>
>I totally understand. Folks need to get the functionality they require, and plenty of companies think MySQL, Interbase, or PostgreSQL are enough.
>
>>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".
>
>I guess I need some clarification here. So, you are saying that commercial companies are paying for mistakes all the time? I agree that if I buy stuff from MS I can say they are responsible, but are they really responsible when it comes down to it? YEs, I think MS does have to post what they pay out to people, as they are a publicly help company. Shareholders would have the right to know what expenses are out there.
>
>The only times I hear about companies paying out money is if you sign up for a type of contract that guarantees uptime, etc. The contracts are _very_ expensive, and most smaller businesses cannot afford such things. So, for those types of places, being able to say "well, Microsoft sucks and that is why our servers went down" doesn't really put the lost revenue back into the owners pockets. In that sense, having a commercial product vs. a free one doesn't really help you out.
>
>>No offense meant but empathy is a poor substitute indeed for responsibility.
>
>No offense taken, as I am not sure what you mean.
>
>>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>
>
>Like I said, most commercial companies don't end up taking responsibility anyway, so it is a wash.
>
>>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.
>
>I agree that the whole enchilada needs to be considered, but would still contest that once everything is analyzed, some free software has advantages in cost, plus the added benefit of never being at the mercy of a commercial company that might raise prices, move in a new direction, or leave you hanging with old products.
>
>>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.
>
>We are basically in agreement about that. My first message probably made me out to be a bit more of a zealot than I really am. I think Open Source can and will offer more and more products that give you everything you want _and_ the free pricetag.
>
>JoeK