chodarama

I'm preparing a presentation of my software migration plan for our company. Most of my recommendations are for open source software. The problem is that I can't come up with any valid cons of using open source instead of closed source. Why would I want to come up with any cons? Because I want to present a solution that is as unbiased as possible. I know of the argument that there would be nobody to sue in case of damages from using open source software, but would closed source providers really provide a valid target of litigation in the same situation? Most of their license agreements indicate that they are not liable for damages anyway. Another argument is for the technical support of open source software. IMO, open source support is just as abundant if not more than closed source. Can you guys come up with any other CONS of using open source vs. closed source?

rekinom

Post removed.

The_Dude

look @ the tech support you'd get for open source materials

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Cocktopus

Sometimes there are compatibility issues with opensource. Linux for example lacks standardization; some distros require more or less tweaking depending on what you want to do. United Linux may fix this. Also, since code is taken, used and recycled from everyone, you'll find it can be less than uniform and a little awkward sometimes (e.g. filter string syntax in ethereal).

Boner

I'll give you a con. It will sound ludicrous, but it makes sense to management types.

- Who do you sue when the software fscks up?

Sounds funny, but its true. Companies (or managers) want someone's ass to be on the line in the case of a problem.

Note: This is a devil's advocate type response. I prefer using open source software if it is applicable and mature enough to do what I want it to do.

TwoToTango

The difference is that, without economic
leverage, you can't compel support.
If you have a bug in your way, you either
have to staff up to fix it yourself or hope
that it becomes interesting enough to some
outside party that it gets fixed. If nobody
else happens to think it's worth his time,
you're on your own.

The flip side, of course, is that you can
fix things yourself if it comes to that.

chodarama

I'll probably stick to open source companies that can provide support, like Redhat or Suse. Most of the applications I'm considering are widely used server software, so they should be able to provide support if needed. Thanks to all for the help.

Boner: That's actually the first thing the execs had concerns about. ) But I've persuaded them that the benefits outweigh the potential problems.

yotta

Same person you sue when windows fucks itself... Nobody. ALL EULAs disclaim liability.

wg2000

And would you really have a chance in hell of successfully suing Microsoft anyway?

chodarama

No, probably not unless you can prove negligence that results in a human casualty.