The term "Open Source" only describes a licensing model. Strictly speaking, the only pro that you are guaranteed to have are the freedoms given by the license, and there are no cons that you are guaranteed to have.
There are many Open Source products that are also commercial, created, maintained, and supported by a company for a profit. There are also many Open Source products that are maintained by volunteers but also supported commercially. For example, if you buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, then Red Hat will support you on all of the products that come with it, even the ones that are maintained by volunteers.
As for how to be sure that there will be continued support, you can't. Not with Open Source, not with proprietary software, not with anything. With Open Source, if the community is large enough, you can be reasonably confident that the community will continue to maintain it (maybe under a new name) even if the current maintainers abandon it, and you have the option of maintaining it yourself or hiring someone else to do it. Maintaining it yourself may not be an attractive option, but it can be a life saver in a pinch.
With proprietary software, if the author decides to stop maintaining it, you are just plain out of luck. Consider, for example, the thousands of users of Visual Basic 6.
The main pro of Open Source software is illustrated by your comment:
[In the] case of proprietary software, there is an incentive for the organisation (money), and they will keep hiring people to keep it under development as long as the software is profitable.
The trouble is that if it ceases to be profitable (for example, because the code is so stable that people buy it and continue using it without needing upgrades), then the users of that software can be stranded with their nice stable product running on increasingly ancient machines until, one day, the machines crash, or must be upgraded to a new version of the operating system so that they can run some other system, but because the proprietary software is no longer maintained, you have to give up on the application. Indeed, it is not unheard of for companies that sell proprietary software to go out of business. And, if you did not ensure that there was a code escrow account for the software to protect you against the possibility of the vendor going out of business, then you are stuck.
If the code was Open Source and you were sensible (you obtained the source when you obtained the product), then you can take the old product and port it to the new system. How hard that will be depends on the nature and quality of the code - but it is possible. If the software was proprietary, you may never have the option.
The question is: what do you mean with "adopting open-source software". if you are planning to radically exchange every piece of closed-source software (CSS) with Open-Source Software (OSS), you will fail horribly.
I can guarantee you that your organisation is already using OSS in key parts of it's IT-infrastructure.
In my point of view, you only need to formalize how OSS may enter the company and if (and in which form) the company contributes back to OSS. Most companies require a support contract for mission-critical software and mandate that OSS needs to be bought through vendors which provide support.
In many cases, contributing back to OSS-projects is explicitly forbidden and only allowed after the CTO/CIO signs of on a specific contribution.
Simply make sure that your policies are flexible enough to allow what the IT-department currently runs.
It doesn't matter what Manager opposing Open Source is saying.
You have to know well Open Source product you are about to use. You have to be sure that it right solution for company. You have to be confident that you can find people on market who know or can learn to use that product. You have to know TCO for that product.
Then you can argue with manager and give him good reasons how company can benefit from Open Source.
Keep in mind that cheapest solution is not best solution. Companies need to earn money not to save money.
Depends on the situation, but usually, for a, internal, non-critical, no need to secure system, like most of what is done in enterprise, open source is like Halloween and you don't really need to care as long as you follow enterprise policy.
For the other big, important, need to be secured projects, its really simple. You need to have a part in the projects you use and have an internal repository hosting the project (so you have an internal branch that is kept in sync with the external branch). The thing is that those apps are the ones that take a shit long time to make and are supported for thousands of years. The teams tends to change a lot and there's a lot of people involved. Somebody needs and can be assigned to repository/build management.
Now if its only about the manager, then its just about communication and argumentation. Usually they are scared about support because its the long term cost. They tend to like to hear about best practices, well tell them that's what the big companies do (and examples) and that they also tend to participate in the projects and other times they even or its possible to find support for it.
Also, any contractor will be glad to give support of an OSS. Who would say no to money and the ability to develop an OSS.
发布评论
评论（5）
术语“开源”仅描述一种许可模式。 严格来说，保证您拥有的唯一优点是许可证赋予的自由，并且保证您没有任何缺点。
有许多开源产品也是商业性的，由公司创建、维护和支持以盈利。 还有许多开源产品由志愿者维护，但也得到商业支持。 例如，如果您购买红帽企业 Linux，那么红帽将支持您附带的所有产品，甚至是由志愿者维护的产品。
至于如何确保会有持续的支持，你不能。 开源软件不行，专有软件不行，任何东西都不行。 对于开源，如果社区足够大，您可以有理由相信社区将继续维护它（可能会以新名称），即使当前维护者放弃它，并且您可以选择自己维护或雇用别人来做这件事。 自己维护它可能不是一个有吸引力的选择，但在紧要关头它可以成为救星。
对于专有软件，如果作者决定停止维护它，那你就运气不好了。 例如，考虑一下 Visual Basic 6 的数千名用户。
The term "Open Source" only describes a licensing model. Strictly speaking, the only pro that you are guaranteed to have are the freedoms given by the license, and there are no cons that you are guaranteed to have.
There are many Open Source products that are also commercial, created, maintained, and supported by a company for a profit. There are also many Open Source products that are maintained by volunteers but also supported commercially. For example, if you buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, then Red Hat will support you on all of the products that come with it, even the ones that are maintained by volunteers.
As for how to be sure that there will be continued support, you can't. Not with Open Source, not with proprietary software, not with anything. With Open Source, if the community is large enough, you can be reasonably confident that the community will continue to maintain it (maybe under a new name) even if the current maintainers abandon it, and you have the option of maintaining it yourself or hiring someone else to do it. Maintaining it yourself may not be an attractive option, but it can be a life saver in a pinch.
With proprietary software, if the author decides to stop maintaining it, you are just plain out of luck. Consider, for example, the thousands of users of Visual Basic 6.
您的评论说明了开源软件的主要优点：
问题在于，如果它不再盈利（例如，因为代码非常稳定，人们购买它并继续使用它而无需升级），那么该软件的用户可能会因为他们的稳定产品越来越多地运行而陷入困境。古老的机器，直到有一天，机器崩溃了，或者必须升级到新版本的操作系统，以便它们可以运行其他一些系统，但因为专有软件不再维护，你不得不放弃应用程序。 事实上，销售专有软件的公司倒闭并非闻所未闻。 而且，如果您不能确保该软件有一个代码托管帐户来保护您免受供应商倒闭的可能性，那么您就会陷入困境。
如果代码是开源的并且您是明智的（您在获得产品时就获得了源代码），那么您可以将旧产品移植到新系统。 这有多困难取决于代码的性质和质量——但这是可能的。 如果该软件是专有的，您可能永远没有选择。
The main pro of Open Source software is illustrated by your comment:
The trouble is that if it ceases to be profitable (for example, because the code is so stable that people buy it and continue using it without needing upgrades), then the users of that software can be stranded with their nice stable product running on increasingly ancient machines until, one day, the machines crash, or must be upgraded to a new version of the operating system so that they can run some other system, but because the proprietary software is no longer maintained, you have to give up on the application. Indeed, it is not unheard of for companies that sell proprietary software to go out of business. And, if you did not ensure that there was a code escrow account for the software to protect you against the possibility of the vendor going out of business, then you are stuck.
If the code was Open Source and you were sensible (you obtained the source when you obtained the product), then you can take the old product and port it to the new system. How hard that will be depends on the nature and quality of the code - but it is possible. If the software was proprietary, you may never have the option.
问题是：“采用开源软件”是什么意思？ 如果您计划从根本上将所有闭源软件 (CSS) 替换为开源软件 (OSS)，那么您将彻底失败。
我可以向您保证，您的组织已经在其 IT 基础设施的关键部分使用 OSS。
在我看来，你只需要正式确定 OSS 如何进入公司以及公司是否（以及以何种形式）回馈 OSS。 大多数公司都需要关键任务软件的支持合同，并要求需要通过提供支持的供应商购买 OSS。
在许多情况下，明确禁止回馈开源软件项目，只有在 CTO/CIO 签署具体贡献后才允许。
只需确保您的策略足够灵活以允许 IT 部门当前运行的内容即可。
The question is: what do you mean with "adopting open-source software". if you are planning to radically exchange every piece of closed-source software (CSS) with Open-Source Software (OSS), you will fail horribly.
I can guarantee you that your organisation is already using OSS in key parts of it's IT-infrastructure.
In my point of view, you only need to formalize how OSS may enter the company and if (and in which form) the company contributes back to OSS. Most companies require a support contract for mission-critical software and mandate that OSS needs to be bought through vendors which provide support.
In many cases, contributing back to OSS-projects is explicitly forbidden and only allowed after the CTO/CIO signs of on a specific contribution.
Simply make sure that your policies are flexible enough to allow what the IT-department currently runs.
反对开源的经理说什么并不重要。
您必须充分了解您将要使用的开源产品。
您必须确保它是适合公司的正确解决方案。
您必须确信您可以在市场上找到了解或能够学习使用该产品的人。
您必须了解该产品的 TCO。
然后你可以与经理争论并给他充分的理由公司如何从开源中受益。
请记住，最便宜的解决方案并不是最好的解决方案。 企业需要赚钱而不是省钱。
It doesn't matter what Manager opposing Open Source is saying.
You have to know well Open Source product you are about to use.
You have to be sure that it right solution for company.
You have to be confident that you can find people on market who know or can learn to use that product.
You have to know TCO for that product.
Then you can argue with manager and give him good reasons how company can benefit from Open Source.
Keep in mind that cheapest solution is not best solution. Companies need to earn money not to save money.
取决于具体情况，但通常，对于一个内部的、非关键的、不需要安全的系统，就像企业中所做的大多数事情一样，开源就像万圣节，你实际上不需要关心，只要你遵循企业政策。
对于其他大型、重要、需要安全的项目，这非常简单。 您需要参与您使用的项目，并有一个托管该项目的内部存储库（因此您有一个与外部分支保持同步的内部分支）。 问题是，这些应用程序需要花费很长时间才能制作，并且得到了数千年的支持。 团队往往会发生很大的变化，并且涉及到很多人。 有人需要并且可以被分配到存储库/构建管理。
现在，如果只涉及经理，那么就只涉及沟通和争论。 通常他们害怕支持，因为这是长期成本。 他们往往喜欢听到最佳实践，我们会告诉他们这就是大公司所做的（和示例），并且他们也倾向于参与这些项目，甚至在其他时候或者有可能找到支持。
此外，任何承包商都会很乐意提供 OSS 支持。 谁会对金钱和开发开源软件的能力说不。
Depends on the situation, but usually, for a, internal, non-critical, no need to secure system, like most of what is done in enterprise, open source is like Halloween and you don't really need to care as long as you follow enterprise policy.
For the other big, important, need to be secured projects, its really simple. You need to have a part in the projects you use and have an internal repository hosting the project (so you have an internal branch that is kept in sync with the external branch). The thing is that those apps are the ones that take a shit long time to make and are supported for thousands of years. The teams tends to change a lot and there's a lot of people involved. Somebody needs and can be assigned to repository/build management.
Now if its only about the manager, then its just about communication and argumentation. Usually they are scared about support because its the long term cost. They tend to like to hear about best practices, well tell them that's what the big companies do (and examples) and that they also tend to participate in the projects and other times they even or its possible to find support for it.
Also, any contractor will be glad to give support of an OSS. Who would say no to money and the ability to develop an OSS.