← Back to context

Comment by newsclues

2 years ago

People will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on proprietary software.

Most of those people won’t spend $100 on open source software.

In businesses I've observed this behavior tends to surround dysfunctions in liability and understanding of liability organizationally and from business management.

If you make a purchasing decision, your ass is on the line when people ask why certain product/service isn't fulfilling some arbitrary business need. In theory, assuming the functionality is part of the advertised purchase, the liability of the thing you're paying for lies on that third party. You did your due diligence. If you chose some open source combination with in-house build, they're going to question why you didn't outsource some envisioned cheaper third party option (sometimes, this is a legitimate strategy, often from my experience it's not). So you default to big vendor big solution to protect yourself.

Apologies are made and blah blah, discussions about "what alternatives do/did we have" and you often end up landing on implementing some mixture of leveraging public domain software and in-house customization atop/leveraging it to solve the problem you were paying for. In the end, you end up doing what you probably knew was the correct path anyways: this vendor solution is questionable, it doesnt completely align with our business needs, and it's not going to get the actual need done. Conveying that to business leaders is often impossible though. So, to pass liability/responsibility and cover your ass with incompetent business leadership, you throw often thousands, tens, or hundreds of thousands away.

I've had this discussion so many times and sat in these meetings so many times it grows tiring. The fact is, sometimes a generic solution works for your business (Office for example is a pretty generic need and often aligns), often it really doesn't (some arbitrary more niche/custom thing you do? Maybe, good luck).

I had this moment of cognitive dissonance when I noticed that one colleagues would use "open source" as a synonym for "poor quality". Context: I was working as a contractor, for a bank. That colleague was managing a bunch of *nix instances used to deploy our web services.

  • Because open source projects are not products per se. If you use mostly a proprietary software, open source project can be perceived as "poor quality product".

if they had to pay for open source then they couldn’t afford to pay for commercial software?

Yep, and if you ask them to they will throw a fit and claim you are taking away their rights.

  • Correct. They've learned the behavior that attacking someone's ego, sense of fairness, or duty pays off and costs little. Almost everyone in customer service or non-profit space has to deal with these leeches.

    Easy to defeat, fatal to ignore.