Asay the Alfrescan

Zack Urlocker is at the Gartner Open Source Summit this week, and has been hearing some good things about open source databases. Open source databases (Sleepycat, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.) have been around for a long time, but the analysts didn’t give them much credit because even though everyone was using them, few were paying for them. Or so they thought. Now, however, open source databases are becoming big business.

Zack cites Gartner’s Donald Feinberg:

Overall, Gartner is predicting that the worldwide DBMS market is around $14 billion and will continue to grow by nearly 7% per year. If this was a new market, it would not be a very impressive growth rate, but for a market of this size, it’s huge. And there can be lots of movement within the market. We are at the start of a new era where migration to open source technology is going to fuel the DBMS market. That includes migration away from Unix to Linux and from closed source to open source.

A few key findings from Gartner / IDC research:

• By 2008, open source databases will be used by more than 70% of IT organizations [Asay note: I’d actually be surprised if the number isn’t already closer to 100%. There’s a lot of open source database usage that isn’t registered by the CIO or whomever it is that talks with Gartner/other analysts.]

• By 2008, MySQL will be a serious choice for mission critical applications [Asay note: See below.]
• 56% of companies surveyed plan to switch to Linux as a DBMS platform
• Linux will surpass Unix as the leading DBMS platform within the next 3 years, even for the most demanding database applications
• 40% of surveyed companies are planning to replace proprietary DBMS with open source
• 49% of respondents have MySQL in deployment with 17% planning to deploy

This is impressive, despite the fact that the “Big Boys” still control 92% of the market, as Gartner reported earlier this year:

And it’s still funny to me that MySQL isn’t considered “mission critical.” It would be hard to find more demanding applications than Google, Yahoo!, Orbitz, etc. They all run MySQL. Lots of MySQL. Even Oracle runs MySQL.

Here’s a thought: Oracle is quickly building and buying its way into the center of the enterprise software ecosystem, using the database as the hub for all the enterprise application “spokes” it’s building/acquiring (CRM, ERP, ECM, etc.). Don’t you think that MySQL is well-positioned to do the same, except with open source applications?

Hmm….

Well, actually, 100% of the world will wait on Vista, because it’s always on the horizon…never quite getting here.

According to an article in SearchSecurity.com, there are a myriad of reasons for this. Most interestingly to me, though, is that many of these same IT professions surveyed seem to have no hard-and-fast aversion to Microsoft products at all. The delay in their adoption seems to be similar to their past delays in adopting Microsoft (and any other new) products:

When Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) was released nearly two years ago, most IT professionals said they were worried about compatibility problems and that they’d wait a while before deploying it in their enterprise.

The full release of Vista, the next big upgrade for Microsoft’s operating system, isn’t due out until early next year. A new survey though suggests Vista is already being viewed with skepticism similar to what was directed at SP2 in 2004.

According to a survey by Boca Raton, Fla.-based Amplitude Research conducted on behalf of Albuquerque, N.M.-based security firm VanDyke Software, more than half of respondents said they have no plans to deploy Vista when it comes out, despite all of the security improvements that Microsoft says will be baked into the operating system.

Amplitude culled the information after surveying 255 network and system administrators last month from a variety of industries. The enterprises also varied in size. Of those polled:

• 10.98% are testing the limited beta version of Vista.

• 19.21% are waiting until the public beta release to begin testing.
• 25.49% are waiting until the official release to begin testing.
• 5.09% have plans to deploy after successful completion of beta testing.
• 20% will deploy after successful completion of testing of the official release.
• 11.37% will deploy after Service Pack 1 for Vista is released.
• 11.37% will deploy only on new PCs with Vista pre-installed.
• 52.15% said they have no current plans to deploy Vista.

Of those who do plan to test or deploy it, 58.33% said their primary interest in Vista is its “enhancements,” while 30.12% cited “improved usability.”

To those of you interested in Vista’s “enhancements,” I’d recommend you get Macs. You’ll get double the improvements in stability, ease of use, etc., and infinitely more security.

To Microsoft, I’d heartily recommend you do with your product what (increasingly) everyone else does when they want to make it secure: open source it. Sure, this is a naive statement for a company that has been the poster child of Proprietary, but you would boost trust, arguably find a wider, deeper array of bugs before (and after) general release, and a more efficient distribution mechanism.

Try it. You’ll like it. Even Mikey likes it.

Thus spake Simon Phipps, in this eWeek article. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I think the answer is relatively simple: GPL it. Not one of those newfangled modern corporate-created licenses. The stubborn old GPL.

Yes, from the GPL you still get various flavors of Linux. Ubuntu. Red Hat. Gentoo. Etc.

But the differences between these are more in the assembly of packages than anything else - they’re much more similar than they are different.

So, GPL it, Sun. Set Java free.

I had a funny “customer win” last week that reminded me (and the new customer) that signing on with an open source company can be much more than a passive relationship….

Let me explain.

The customer was looking to cluster Alfresco in a way that we don’t currently support. “We,” meaning Alfresco. But they told me that “Danruss” was working on the code solution to the problem, and would have it by July.

“Danruss?” I queried. “Who the heck is Danruss? We don’t have anyone by that name working for us.”

“He’s all over your forums,” they replied. “He told us he’s backlogged right now, but will be issuing a beta by July 1.”

I couldn’t figure out what (or, rather, whom) they were talking about. But then it hit me:

Russ Danner.

Russ is with The Christian Science Monitor, and has proven to me once and for all that open source enables a highly interactive, dramatically innovative way of developing software. No, Russ doesn’t work at or for Alfresco. He works for The Christian Science Monitor. But he definitely works with Alfresco, and in a way that proprietary software has never been able to replicate.

So, Russ, you won’t be getting a paycheck from us, but you will be getting (and giving) exceptional software. Thanks to you. To Alfresco. To all of us. That’s the power of open source.

Jose Mourinho is quoted today about how pleased he is that the best striker on this planet - Thierry Henry - turned down two record offers of nearly $90M from Barcelona and Real Madrid to stay with Arsenal. Why would the coach of the world’s most competitive team (in the transfer market, anyway) be happy that Arsenal will be stronger next year?

Because competition is good.

Who cares if Chelsea wins if they have no competition? Indeed, Mourinho has bemoaned this fact lately - no one takes him seriously as a coach since he has billions to spend on buying up every good player on the planet.

It’s the same in the open source world. First, it’s becoming a bit distressing to me that the proprietary players have come up with such anemic rationales for why IT buyers should choose them. Innovation? Open source has that in spades. Or how about this one from Microsoft, arguing that open source is not reliable or dependable? I think Redmond has failed to notice the mass exodus away from its rainy shores for stable, reliable, dependable open source in the form of Linux, MySQL, Apache, etc. etc. etc.

In short, I hope the proprietary vendors learn to put up a real fight. Right now, they’re looking pathetic.

Of equal importance to me is that open source breeds an increasing number of quality projects. We need more, not fewer, Alfrescos, SugarCRMs, MySQLs, etc. Too often we think that because one has been funded or grown in popularity, that it’s time to move on. The proprietary world doesn’t think that way - why should the open world fall into this trap? Where would Oracle be without DB2? And Sybase, Ingres, etc.?

Competition is good. Lots of competition is better. Even for you, Jose “Big Bucks” Mourinho.

I figure I might as well maintain my status as Resident Inquisitor of Open Source Myths with a discussion on the value of choice. A friend at a Fortune 500 company recently set me to thinking on the problems (and opportunities) that open source affords vis-a-vis choice. (I’ve opined on open source choice before, in case you’re interested.)

I’m very fond of telling enterprises that open source maximizes their choice. I often use one of Larry’s graphics to illustrate how much better off they are:

Look at all that choice the CIO now has! She can spend her money in a variety of different ways.

Oddly enough, that can be a problem. In many ways, it’s easier to be forced into a decision: if I only have $10 to spend, in some ways I’m glad to have $9.95 in Arsenal tickets staring at me. My choice is made. No need to worry about spending $2 to send condolences to the Barca fans.

However, there’s a much more difficult angle on choice for CIOs: how to figure out what to choose in the first place. My friend tells me that it can be hugely time consuming to download and try out open source software. Vendors like MySQL and Alfresco take it as a matter of course that our would-be buyers will first download, test, and evaluate our software, and then opt to buy it. However, what if they go through all that effort only to find out the product is rubbish? Lots of man hours on the road less traveled…and it will have made all the (negative) difference.

Oddly enough, in the commercial world, the buyer gets the product largely “site-unseen” and then has the pleasure of beating up the vendor to get them to make it work. They paid big money for it, so they’re a) not going to recognize the sunk cost and move on and b) have given the vendor a strong incentive to fix the problems or face a battering in the word-of-mouth press.

For many, they would prefer to throw down the cash and pray it works. For others, they’d prefer to invest their time/money in experimenting toward a good fit (though, let’s face it, the process for winnowing down a universe of products/projects to a small group for a bake-off is the same - IT buyers are always going to talk to peers, read what the media has to say, etc., as I’ve noted before).

Over time, I think it will become increasingly easy to find good open source software. So, some of the “cost of choice” will be removed for my friend. But for now, there are real costs associated with choosing open source. Worthwhile costs, yes. But costs, nonetheless.

eWeek has a good overview of Sun’s announcements this week (Operating System Distributor’s License, for example).

One announcement that it didn’t make? That it’s open sourcing Java. My friend Dave Rosenberg gave a great line in this regard (must have taken him days to think of it): “I applaud Sun’s philosophy to open-source all of its software, but the community is asking for Java. Until Sun open-sources Java, their open-source credibility flag will still fly at half-mast.”

However, the company did say that it’s “not a question of whether it will open source Java, but how.” I can answer that: “Very soon, with minimal restrictions.” You’re welcome.

I’m on the phone with a company that is soon to open source the core of their technology, technology that touches most of us every day. I continue to be amazed at how pervasive open source has become, and is becoming. If you’re a proprietary software (or hardware) vendor trying to compete in the 21st Century, you’re going to lose. Period. The momentum is too strong, and the rationale behind open source too strong.

This particular company interests me so much because it’s taking open source in a completely new direction. Just as Jonathan Schwartz’s move to open source Sun’s hardware design/reference implementation for one of its new chips is revolutionary (wait 5 years - all chips will be that way), so is this company’s. And as Sun, this company, Alfresco, SugarCRM, Red Hat, etc. etc. open source more and more core, compelling technology, it’s staggering to think of the immense value of software which will be open and freely available.

So much to do, and so much to do it with. There has never been a better time to be in technology.

Over the past few months with Alfresco, I’ve met with dozens of enterprises to talk about open source content management. Yesterday, one of these companies said something very interesting:

“For us, open source lowers the bar to ROI.”

“ROI,” of course, means return on investment. The higher the investment, the bigger the return must be. Open source turns the traditional software ROI equation on its head: instead of imposing a huge upfront cost on an enterprise, open source allows the enterprise to ingest smaller increments of software. Sips, rather than gulps. As in the real world of food, “don’t wolf down your IT” is an appropriate, accurate metaphor for healthy IT buying.

Not only is it better because open source won’t break the bank, but open source is better because enterprises tend not to have enterprise-wide IT requirements that they can easily gulp down all at once. I’m not saying enterprises don’t have enterprise-wide problems that IT can fix. They do. I’m arguing, rather, that trying to fix them all at once tends not to work well. Besides, IT needs tend to grow organically, one department/person at a time. Much better, than, to invest in IT that more easily scales in this way.

In my world, you can’t get into one of the big proprietary vendors for less than six-figures. Yet most IT problems can be fixed with a much smaller dose of CRM, ECM, etc.

In talking with a large financial institution today, they remarked on their general experience with big IT investments: most never get implemented, or get incompletely implemented. Two years into the failed project, the champion of that project leaves the company to take a job elsewhere, and the project dies. Or, in the ECM space, you pay Documentum/FileNet/etc. $1M for your system, another $3-4M for consultants to make it work and set up workflow, and 6 months after your business processes change and no one can afford to re-invest in the consultants to make the system work again. So the system falls into disuse, and that ROI is -$4-5M. What a waste. Serious indigestion.

Don’t believe this happens in the real world? It happens all the time. One company I’ve worked with has spent nearly $1M on a system that they haven’t been able to get working, despite two years and countless dollars on consultants. They’re not alone.

That is sheer insanity - how could a vendor feel good about foisting that sort of “investment” on a customer? And why would a customer buy from a vendor that forces such a mammoth, upfront “investment?”

I couldn’t, and I wouldn’t. Instead, look to open source as the technology and business answer to proprietary indigestion. Open source is based on service and support - vendors get paid when they do a good job, and you drop-kick them when they don’t. You’re only out the support costs you’ve been paying (which tend to be much lower than the support/maintenance costs you pay on your proprietary systems, and that’s after you’ve already wasted truckloads of money on the upfront license costs. Open source gives you choice. It returns control of IT to the CIO. (Tastes better, too.