Asay on SWiK

Red Hat?s other open source management project

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:58:37 -0700

Matt Asay is excited about Red Hat’s Spacewalk project to release the code behind its Red Hat Network Satellite product under an open source license (as he should be, he’s been waiting over a year for it). As well as anticipation, Matt’s excitement can also be attributed to the potential for Spacewalk to become the default management platform for open source software.

As he writes:

“What is the first thing that MySQL and JBoss did to add value to their support subscriptions? Build networks. What, presumably, will be the first things that other open-source companies do? Build networks.

What is the result? A swamp of incompatible service-delivery networks.

Now consider the power for Red Hat if its Spacewalk actually served as a gathering point - an integration point - for the commercial open-source community? Powerful.”

It is a powerful opportunity, but is Spacewalk (a Linux management platform) the right tool for the job? As Bob Bickel notes in the comments to Matt’s post, Red Hat’s RHQ project with Hyperic is a broader project that is possibly more suited to operational management. Indeed he reveals that Ringside Networks is using it for an upcoming release of Ringside Networks Social Application Server.

Of course now both RHQ and Spacewalk are open source projects there may the opportunity for cross-pollination and, as is stated on the RHQ website: “The new project will provide a common set of management services, which will be incorporated into future editions of Red Hat products such as JBoss Operations Network and Red Hat Network, as well as Hyperic HQ.”

It will be interesting to see if and how the two projects align. Watch this space(walk).

The Consequences of Being an Open Source Company

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:14:59 -0700

No Matt, my brain definitely wasn't idle.. I've been thinking about these problems for the better part of the last decade. And it seems like I`m not the only one who wants this discussion.

Dries told me that as a follow up to my previous post I should write a post with solutions to the problem. Difficult as I don't have the solutions yet.. If I had them .. well :)

Fact is that different types of opensource products might require different approaches Alfresco to my knowledge has little to no contributing community , Linux distributions tend to have a big one, if not just in the form of the different open source projects they pacakge. The MySQL community is more one of documentation, helping out and bugsquashing. So my ideas aren't valuable for everybody, which is maybe why Matt Asay can't understand me, he might be looking at only one side of the picture.

There are some little things that I can suggest however.

Open Source works because of people contributing to projects, Open Source companies should recognize that and figure out a way to return more business the partners that also contribute to their code , this way they can contribute both on commercial and financial level. If you keep sending business to non contributing partners at the loss of the ones that actually commit code, some people will be unhappy. Those contributing shops might not be bringing the big revenue for the vendors, but they sure are contributing.

The other part is in the support model, Matt somehow thinks I`m in the "everything must be free" camp. Wrong, I`m in the right price for the right product/service camp.
Which means that if I`m escalating a support issue of a customer of mine to a vendor, my time must also be paid for. However that's a difficult sale, my client already paid for his support contract , to the software vendor.

So my suggestion, back when RedHat came to the Bemelux, was to have different types of support contracts, a customer could get a direct contract with a vendor where no integrator could log the calls. Then with another contract type if the a partner actually logs a call for his customer he must get some kind of kickback for that...
One of the advantages there are that more first line calls can be tackled by local partners, partners that might know their customers better.. but they still have a backup if they can't solve the problem. Therefore less investments are to be made in a support organization by the vendor.

And last but not least , don't tell your partners what they can't do. They should be listening to their customers, if their customers choose for the open source version it's the customers choice, and the partner should be able to help his customer, the last thing you need to do is punish them for listening to their customers needs rather than the vendors. This is how the proprietary world works.

Oh and Matt, next time you are in Belgium, let's do another round of Buytaert vs Asay :)
Maybe we come up with some better ideas than the above ones.

Doesn't Matt Asay want Open Source integrators to earn a living ?

Tue, 06 May 2008 13:13:42 -0700

Or, why the Inuits won't partner on selling Ice from Alfresco unless they change their strategy.

I usually agree with lot of the things Matt Asay writes but today in Closing an open-source deal trough your systems integrator , he thinks the way to work with partners in an opensource environment is to force them to sell the commercial solutions of your products.
He also thinks you should block them from starting an implementation before the end customer has signed a purchase order.

Whew.. this must be the most stupid idea he had since he started his opensource career. The sad part is that I haven't seen a commercially backer of an opensource project dealing correctly with its contributing partners. He isn't solving the problem , he is creating a bigger one :(

Integrators and consultants are often the bigger contributors to a project because they are integrating new features for their customers, You know, their local , we speak your language , customers. So now Matt wants to force them not to sell services around GPL software anymore but sell the commercial versions ?

As lots of commercial opensource versions do not allow you to make changes to the code if you don't want to loose support your hands are tied again. And yes I have been in this situation before multiple times, a situation where , a commercially backed opensource project, required a couple of small changes to fit with a customer, because of these changes the commercial vendor would drop support , so the customer decided not to buy the license. Should a local integrator capable of helping such customer loose that deal because of a partnership ? Off course not .. It's perfectly understandable that a software vendor can't support every different patch. Shouldn't an integrator have the freedom to assist a customer in making these choices, and give him valuable advise ?

Forcing the integrator to sell the commercial version brings them back to the proprietary software vendor situation , where they couldn't solve issues either.

Mind this is a Category "C" user ,(an organization that has more money than time), which should be an easy win for the commercial opensource vendors.

Then there is the issue of Paying twice where a customer both pays for the time the integrator spends on solving his issue and the support contract. I`m stil looking for a solution for this one.

In the past we invested in different partnerships , some requiring certification, with different Open source vendors before, never got a dime back from these investments.

While our shop was a small but specialist expert knowledge center most deals that those other vendors had in our area went to the incompetent boxmovers that did volume, often totally screwing up the actual implementation. Whether we had contributed to the project, or in the case of Linux distributions were probably equally skilled to support the environment as the vendor itself didn't matter.
We didn't sell enough boxes , so we never got any deals back. Our business is advising people on how to implement open source , implement it for them and support them. We are working with both type A,B and C customers. But the commercial opensource vendors want to force us to go back to the old proprietary boxmoving model, sell licenses, don't sell solutions, Oh and No you can't fix that .. you'll have to wait for the next commercial release or lose support.

So how many of the opensource benefits should the customer give up ?

No Matt, this time your idea stinks,

This way skilled consultants that care about open source and contribute to the community are being punished for doing so, whereas they should actually be getting business back from the vendors, so they can earn money and contribute more on your product you force them to waste more time on the sales side. While the people that just move boxes, don't care if its an open source application or a proprietary package gain more. For them its just business as usual .. selling boxen.

It just doesn't make sense

This concept is just bad for opensource in general, motivated people will stop contributing to products they implement, as they see that their efforts aren't appreciated by the vendors.

Why enterprise software costs so much | The Open Road - The Business and Politics of Open Source by Matt Asay - CNET Blogs

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:03:56 -0700

How to use all Your Options with Open Source Software

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:23:48 -0700

Matt Asay asks the question “What to do when open source is not good enough?” in his CNET blog.

He argues that he sometimes encounters cases where his choice of open source software does not fulfill his desired feature set and so he resorts to proprietary, closed source, binary only applications. For example, Asay switches from Adium to iChat when he needs video chat capability and from OpenOffice.org Impress to MS PowerPoint, when he needs video embedding. He concludes it is o.k. to use binary only applications in these cases and I would not disagree.

However, I’m not quite sure if Asay asks the right question or answers the question he asks.

Open Source is there so you can improve on the software you got, as opposed to a binary license that does prevent you from even pin pointing (debugging) a problem. The core freedom of open source is being able to add/modify/fix what is “your itch”. That the software is it also “free as in beer” is more of a side effect.

The better answer to Asay’s question is “If open source is not good enough, then improve it.” Sure not everybody is a programmer, but everybody can hire someone to do the job.

That is where it becomes clear that the “free as in beer” is only for making a copy of the software. If you really want to get the best out of it and solve your specific issue, then you have to invest like in anything else. You don’t even have to share (publish) the fruits of your investment. Only when you want to give it to someone else (for money or for free) you have to give that person the same rights you got (under the GPL at least).

So now it is your decision if you want to invest your money/talent/time into proprietary software that does not give you these freedoms or in open source that does. I’m not saying OSS is the only solution, but I’m saying it is equivalent to closed source and even better in some cases.

Ask yourself how would you answer the question “What to do when closed source software is not good enough?” I’ll think you’ll come to the same answer, use a competing application that does do what you want. Now in case of proprietary binary only software, you are at the mercy of “the market.” If you can’t find the app with the features you need, you are out of options and have to start from scratch to build the software you need. In case of open source you can take the package that comes the closest to your needs and add/modify/fix.

It’s all about options, you choose yours.

Does open source get easier with age? | The Open Road - The Business and Politics of Open Source by Matt Asay - CNET Blogs

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:44:15 -0700

Eclipse, a new model for open-source innovation | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:26:48 -0700

Free versus paid support in open source | The Open Road - CNET Blogs

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:27:53 -0700

Open Sources | InfoWorld | Making sense of Microsoft's open source fetish | May 13, 2007 07:42 PM | By Matt Asay

Mon, 14 May 2007 11:55:39 -0700

Open Sources | InfoWorld | The Red Hat business model, Part II | May 11, 2007 10:35 AM | By Matt Asay

Mon, 14 May 2007 10:56:31 -0700

Open Sources | InfoWorld | The future of open source...more lock-in (?) (Tim O'Reilly) | May 11, 2007 02:01 PM | By Matt Asay

Mon, 14 May 2007 10:56:27 -0700

AC/OS: Fleury's finest moment?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:59:27 -0800

asay-paper.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:41:57 -0800

Linux paper for Lessig

Open Sources | InfoWorld

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:00:58 -0800

» The ultimate revenge? Novell’s Allison to join Google | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:47:44 -0800

"Allison: I'm off to Google. I start in the new year." - Matt chided Allison, asserting that he should stay and fight the good fight at Novell - i disagree, and think this could be a good move for him

Once More unto the Breach: OSCON 2006: That's Billion with a "B"

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:02:19 -0700

"The one thing I find troubling is the focus on the billion dollar yardstick." - me too, that was the point i was trying to - and obviously failed - to make ;)

Open Source Software Business Growth Round-up

Tue, 16 May 2006 10:04:17 -0700

wherein senor walli rounds up some of the reactions to asay's earlier piece; while stephe and i differ on the importance of 'solution,' he's got the right of it here, IMO