[edfrghjk]

-This means that there's no support, Buy support! C/C++/SQL/Java are free with no support, but you don't choose to only program in JCL4800 because Burroughs sold it.

- The UI design of open-source software is often terrible. Ever seen in house or enterprise software

- There's noone to turn to with feature requests Yes because I have Bill's cell phone # for new windows features I want

- There's no marketing for open-source software. Depends whether you look for software on the web or in the WSJ

- You have no guarantee that your open-source software will be updated in the future Whereas you have a guarantee that MSFT will stop selling XP

- Most business-types, don't even know that there is such a thing as open-source software That's why they have staff. They don't know how an IP datagram gets to their web server but they still have a web site. Or possibly they don't - they will be running DecNet or SNA because you can't trust this free TCP stuff.

[mixmax]

It's obvious that you, and most people on this site, are hackers. We are, however, a minority.

My post was primarily aimed at explaining the difference in mentality between hackers and business people. Maybe I failed to convey that properly.

Business people have another mentality, different core values, and different goals and reasons for doing things than hackers. If you can grok this mentality you will find that you can outperform free. Both as in beer and as in freedom.

I once worked with a business guy that had a yearly budget of around $200 million, and his stance was that if someone wanted him to use something they had better sell it really well or he wouldn't use it. The whole process of selling, procurement, contracts, delivery, etc. was important to him. Both because this is what he valued (just like people here would have a hard time buying something they knew was coded in a flaky way) and because it gave him plausible deniability and removed responsibility in the sphere of corporate games. If he had used open-source software there would be noone to point the finger at if it didn't work - it sould be his responsibility.

And buying decisions are usually placed with business poeple , not hackers.

If you want to sell software to companies you need to understand these processes.

[tptacek]

The reality is:

* The UI for most software is often terrible. There are dynamics that can even push OSS towards better UI's than commercial; for instance, OSS code often uses more modern UI toolkits, and commercial code often gets away shipping on stuff that looks like Foxpro.

* You're no more likely to get your feature wishlist with commercial software than with OSS. Commercial vendors pay product managers to pick the features that will expand their market and close deals with their top N customers; if you don't fit the bill, or (worse) if they farm the product for revenue, you're S.O.L.

* The cost of marketing software has changed drastically; nobody buys their software from the WSJ anymore. Read Eric Sink on advertising, and go back to the BoS board and read other people's stories on advertising. A well-trafficked blog can generate more leads than a $20k/mo marketing budget.

* The constant cycle of pointless updates is an irritant, not a win. Look at graphic design, where professionals often stick with archaic versions of Adobe tools and bitch about CS2/CS3/CS4/CSx.

[run4yourlives]

You're missing his point. He's not making a 'closed source is better than open source' argument, he's saying that each of these areas are easily exploitable competitive advantages; ones that people will pay for.

Don't let fan-boyism cloud your ability to form a rational argument.