Yup, these are alternatives, but one thing to remember is that the MS products have deeply integrated user experiences.

For instance, you can have SharePoint, Exchange, Outlook, Excel, Word, Internet Explorer – all working together seamlessly. Add on Dynamics CRM and it integrates again with SharePoint and Exchange and Outlook and so on. The end-user gets to use a familiar and known UI without requiring to learn how to navigate it and gets everything in the place where it should be.

Also, there are certain things that are simply not available in the OSS products – for instance, ActiveSync OTA, Remote Wipe, Managed Mobility (Exchange) or Forms Services, Excel Server, Information Rights Management, Business Intelligence & Reporting (SharePoint) or SSO (Active Directory for all of the above) to name a few.

It’s a good start for the OSS world, but still a way to go

> Yup, these are alternatives, but one thing to remember is that the MS products have deeply integrated user experiences.
true. I agree.

Obviously, products from the same vendor, supported on OS platforms provided by the same vendor must integrate (at the least )

Following is just FYI:

The reality and the excuse (which does not apply to a end user) is, all these (open source alternatives) are independent projects and not under one entity’s control. Plus there are many Linux distributions (and even Windows) to support. And they intend to support more and more platforms.

Most of these have web services API and there are a few integration efforts, like saving mail conversation from Zimbra into Alfresco, archive Zimbra E-mails in SugarCRM and Jitterbit itself is an integration server. All of them can talk to LDAP for authentication (not SSO). Alfresco supports SSO with NTLM. Zimbra Mobile – http://www.zimbra.com/products/zimbra_mobile.html – though not open source – supports OTA sync via ActiveSync. For reporting, there is Pentaho (http://www.pentaho.com/).

> It’s a good start for the OSS world, but still a way to go

“still a way to go” for adoption ? I disagree. All these products are in production use by others, my clients and myself.

“still a way to go” to integrate tightly”, I agree.

I agree with Vinod.

a. Seamless intergration with other MS products/ offerings makes MS products very powerful. Most consumer hardware (gadgets like phones etc.) and sofwares also tend to have plugins available only for MS products (understandably so, for commercial reasons….. but its kinda sad).

b. And my guess is that since they are already well tested and packaged as products, they must also be relatively easy to install and manage.(May not require experts like IT4E to implement ????)

I wish MS extended (rather encouraged) the integration proposition to non-MS products also.
e.g. at time mails sent from Thunderbird client do not display properly on Outlook especially when I have forwarded an html mail which was originally received from a sender using Outlook. (a very small, but irritating issue)

Also wish, that TCO of MS products was more SME friendly.

P.S. Alfresco is really cool.

> May not require experts like IT4E to implement ????
Vinod, basically Aseem is asking that if he goes with MS products would he require you ?

That’s exactly my point. Most (but not all) of “Free Software” and “Open Source Software” are made to *scratch an itch* – that is, to fulfil the needs of a small set of users or community. As long as *their* needs are met, they don’t care about integration with other software, user experience/interface, code architecture, documentation, help files etc.

This is unfortunate and it requires a major rethink from the many OSS projects out there. It is all great to say that Alfresco and Joomla can do most of what SharePoint and Exchange can. However, when in an Enterprise environment, you need the other features as well. And when you don’t get it, most OSS guys will have a standard answer – we’re giving you the source, so why don’t you write it yourself?

This is where the TCO of OSS goes up beyond those of MS offerings. Since not all enterprises are s/w development companies, they would need to get consulting from someone to do it and this can be expensive (justifiably so) since OSS software is just so hard to write good code for.

Doing even simple things can be quite hard in non-integrated software – and the only benefit you get is non-vendor dependance. Which in the long term really doesn’t matter too much.

That’s exactly my point. Most (but not all) of “Free Software” and “Open Source Software” are made to *scratch an itch*

Yes. lots are floating around. You need to choose the product which fits your need. The choice to choose is a pro but choosing the right choice is a con – requires a consultant . When it comes to MS products, we know the database is SQL Server and mail server is Exchange. When it comes to open source, mail server – sendmail, qmail, postfix and databases – mysql, postgresql.

The products mentioned in the blog post are enterprise grade (so called). They did not pop up suddenly because a school kid wanted to write a hobby program and GPL it.

As long as *their* needs are met, they don’t care about integration with other software

Similarly, it can be said that since the need (to release a great product which can be sold and can integrate with MS products) of Microsoft is met, it also chooses not to integrate with Open Source software.

It is all great to say that Alfresco and Joomla can do most of what SharePoint and Exchange can.

Alfresco is also a Web CMS

And when you don’t get it, most OSS guys will have a standard answer – we’re giving you the source, so why don’t you write it yourself?

If the feature is an obvious (compared to similar products), then making such a statement is very unfair to the end user or even a developer – who will face a long learning curve.

If the feature is specific, then this statement is kinda fine, accompanied by pointers and some help. Also here is where the “power of choice” of Open Source may help. Atleast to start with, choose an OSS product which comes closest to your needs.

This is where the TCO of OSS goes up beyond those of MS offerings. Since not all enterprises are s/w development companies, they would need to get consulting from someone to do it

A non s/w company will still need a consultant to setup, deploy, configure and integrate Exchange/Sharepoint. They will also need a consultant/developer for specific enhancements and specific integration requirements. What is added on top of it, is the software license fee.

In case of open source one will need to pay for the former not for the latter.

If there is any such observation that an open source consultant/developer is expensive than a MS consultant/developer or vice versa, that can be blamed onto the “demand and supply” and not to the strength/weakness of software products.

(justifiably so) since OSS software is just so hard to write good code for.

hehehe. Vinod beta bahut maar paregee.

A noteworthy issue is Open Source languages/frameworks do not have a RAD (Rapid Application Development) tool like Visual Studio to develop applications easily. The excuse is, there are simply so many OSS langauges/frameworks.

But not all Open Source languages/frameworks lack a RAD tool. Java is an example with great RAD tools. Python may be not.

and the only benefit you get is non-vendor dependance. Which in the long term really doesn’t matter too much.

I agree but for the following reason. Vendor dependence may not be bad for a product deployment. This is because once you pay for the product you are likely to receive upgrades, and discounts. Vendor dependence will affect more in case of custom software development – more if the custom development serves the core part of your business.

An open source project (like the one started by a school kid) may get discontinued. Hence the latest trend of “commercial open source products”.

>> It is all great to say that Alfresco and Joomla can do most of what SharePoint and Exchange can.
> Alfresco is also a Web CMS

Exactly. Alfresco also acts as only a Web CMS. In Sharepoint, Web CMS is a given – what you get more than that is what is known as Enterprise CMS.

This consists of Enterprise-wide content indexing and search (based on user access rights, of course), records repository, content access and expiration policies and Information Rights Management. These all features are there because a large number of organizations have specifically asked for them and they have been added by MS into the product itself. And all integrated into the main Sharepoint product. As I said earlier, the integration itself is a great feature. Think of having ALL your enterprise apps completely integrated with each other seamlessly – mail, intranet, CRM, ERP, document management, information rights, user forms, databases, single sign on, instant messaging, office applications, mail applications, instant enterprise-wide search capability, collaboration, business intelligence, data reporting, dashboards, etc. to name a few. All with a single entry point, central user and rights management and a consistent user interface and full support from the company who developed it.

Commercial Open Source is a misnomer – no, actually an oxymoron. Think about this: If you were spending a ton of money (by hiring developers) to write a lot of code, then giving it away for free and charging only for support – gosh, i think you would make sure that the guys who do take the product from you do come back for support – otherwise you have 0 cash inflow. So which means that it is in the interest of the company giving Commercial OSS to make sure that the subscribers do take the support. Also, the support costs will be fairly high since 1) they now need to get their original product creation cost out from there; 2) the actual support needs to be paid for too!

Small sugesstion:
Please include a preview feature and if possible a rich text entry control for comments.

This is yet another danger of choosing OSS

OSS != projects started by school kids. Only a few projects. And yes, everyone should be concious and cautious about this. OSS is also Apache, JBoss, Tomcat, Postfix, Sendmail, MySQL. I think that’s what you meant when you said the following:

Most (but not all) of “Free Software” and “Open Source Software” are made to *scratch an itch*

Commercial Open Source is a misnomer – no, actually an oxymoron

Commercial free software can be an oxymoron . OSS != Free i.e. Aseem will still need to pay us.

Also, the support costs will be fairly high

Not sure. Lets try to find out. Shall we compare Sharepoint and Alfresco, Zimbra and Exchange ?

Sorry, but you missed my main point in the earlier post: Enterprise grade software which is well integrated gives a better experience to the company taking it and the users using it than an OSS one.

Sorry, but you missed my main point in the earlier post: Enterprise grade software which is well integrated gives a better experience to the company taking it

Following was my first reply to one of your earlier and first comments where you raised this point.

Obviously, products from the same vendor, supported on OS platforms provided by the same vendor must integrate (at the least )

I agree about the integration benefit of MS products. They are known, tried, tested, trusted to integrate well amongst themselves. This is definitely a benefit to enterprises who deploy MS only solutions, leaving aside – any cons, open source, consultants, money, TCO, support, you, me, we and Aseem (trying my best to drag him back into this conversation )

I agree with you both. You have carefully chosen the right examples that support your arguments… which is what you consultants do well.

Earlier, I read the following on OSS vs Proprietary debate which I found very crisp and simple to understand:
a. Deploy open source software when there is a need for greater customization and there are strong internal IT resources
b. Deploy commercial software when there is a need for a strong overall product vision, professional service and platform consistency

Infact, another factor which I believe is important in this debate is the cost of discarding a solution e.g.:

case 1. I use Thunderbird. Even if, for some reason (which is highly unlikely), I want to shift to Outlook tomorrow, I can do that easily without any cost. Thus, one should try the OSS first before moving on to a proprietary one. I know you may say that this is an example of a desktop solution and not an enterprise one.

case 2. I use a OSS web conferencing solution called Webhuddle. I love it. Allows me to make presentations to people across the world; no per user charge; no CALS etc… I hope this classifies as an enterprise class solution. And tomorrow if I feel the need to discontnue it and use a commercial software, what is the cost— zero. I know that now you will say that due to the nature of this application no critical data is created which needs to be recovered for future use. And thats the reason for no cost of discarding.

case 3. I use SugarCRM. This I can safely say is an enterprise class solution. That too a commercial open source one which I think is a wonderful idea (other details below will indicate why I think so). I use the OSS version. I am adding a lot of critical data onto this solution. I am still not worried about it…. but why?
a. You say OSS solutions lack long term product vision/ support: this one being commercial open source solution does not suffer from this problem.
b. cost of discarding : I do not know how high would this be. But since I am assuming that i will move from an OSS solution to a commercial one, I can easily expect the commercial vendor to make this happen for me if he wants to make the sale. Otherwise also, I can always go back to makers of this “commercial open source” software and ask them to do this for a fee. Infact I would expect this fee to be lower than the fee of getting a new tech expert to do this for me.

Also, I think commercial open source does not mean that the company is creating the software with the purpose of creating something which will be so difficult to manage that a user will definitely require support. I am not a techie and have not seen the code but my guess is that they would be even more careful with the coding and commenting while writing COSS code than a commercial code. So if the code is clean and commented nicely, it will be easy of a techie to modify it further.

Disclaimer: I ‘may’ have also chosen only those examples which supported my agruments. After all….. I am also learning from you consultants.

Good points Assem. Here are some of my thoughts on this:

1. Migration may or may not be easy moving from a non-integrated OSS setup to an integrated enterprise class solution. Taking your examples, say you have a number of users in SugarCRM and WebHuddle (and other pieces of the pie), getting them all into a centrally managed system will be quite a task – and each solution developer (commercial OSS or free OSS) will be responsible for only *their* part. Moving from Exchange to Lotus Notes or vice versa will be much simpler given they are both enterprise class commercial (non-OSS) software with deep integration.

2. Yes, most of the OSS solutions are free or near enough to it. And there is a cost involved in commercial s/w. One way most people justify it is by saying that commercial software is “bloatware” and you don’t need most of the features that they have and are happy with the cheap, OSS ones. However, it is when you really need a feature that is mission critical and find that you simply do not have it and you do need to move to the commericial stuff, the cost would be very, very high for the migation path. A simple example: Most OSS guys lash out at MS Office for having a ton of features that most people do not use. True – but when any individual requires any particular feature – it is at least there. For instance, take something like SmartArt. This is something that many users never use – till the time they need it. And once they do, they cannot simluate it in any possible way in say OpenOffice. Each product (CRM, Web conf, mail, portal) have the same arguement. Most OSS is a generation or two behind the current commercial version. For instance, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Calc, to see the difference between Calc and Excel 2007

3. Unfortunately, Aseem, your point on the code isn’t true and this is something I’ve raised time and again in Open Source forums and conventions. Developers in OSS simply do not follow good coding practices. Instead they have a one upmanship with each other – an unofficial contest if you will – about who can write the most convulted code. Ask Shekhar – we’ve looked into the guts of many OSS and found really, really bad code, practices and more. I’m not saying that commerical code is better as I’ve not seen it – but they at least have a published coding standard and hopefully follow them. OSS doesn’t even have architecture guidelines. If I were to start wanting to contribute to OSS, I can simply pick up/create an OSS project and start writing code for it and submit it. I don’t have to make sure there’s an arch setup, class diagrams, coding and commenting structures, APIs or documentation more than a README.txt.

Overall, I think it’s better to take a sure tested, architected commercial product over (most) OSS especially commercial ones. I don’t know which I’d trust less – free OSS or commerical OSS!

say you have a number of users in SugarCRM and WebHuddle (and other pieces of the pie), getting them all into a centrally managed system will be quite a task

Both SugarCRM and WebHuddle talk to LDAP.

Moving from Exchange to Lotus Notes or vice versa will be much simpler given they are both enterprise class commercial (non-OSS) software with deep integration.

Does Exchange talk well to Lotus Notes or Lotus Notes talks to Exchange ? Zimbra can talk to Active Directory (official feature). Does Exchange talk to OpenLDAP (officially) ? Zimbra makes an effort, Exchange does not. But if I think about it, it is not a negative point against MS products. Its the monopoly factor or the market share. Zimbra came much later than Exchange. So Zimbra needs to catch up and try to capture MS Exchange market. Perhaps Exchange talks well to Lotus for the same reason. But technically, I’m not aware how well Exchange and Lotus talk to each other. Will discuss this with you.

Most OSS is a generation or two behind the current commercial version.

If you compare OSS with MS products.

Going by the same comparison, MS technology was, at one point, behind in the area of ORM. Open source gave .Net its first ORM (NHibernate). Other not in context examples are – Zune vs iPod or Live Search vs Google

your point on the code isn’t true and this is something I’ve raised time and again in Open Source forums and conventions. Developers in OSS simply do not follow good coding practices.

Ask Shekhar – we’ve looked into the guts of many OSS and found really, really bad code, practices and more.

Yes you are talking about Anaconda (one of the Linux installers). But you had also praised Apache’s code for its documentation and structure. One will not be able to win this point, unless he/she can choose N open source products, from numerous OSS, to compare against N MS products.

I can simply pick up/create an OSS project and start writing code for it and submit it.

No code is included into the mainstream till it is “checked in” by the so called maintainers.

I don’t have to make sure there’s an arch setup, class diagrams, coding and commenting structures, APIs or documentation more than a README.txt.

OSS has APIs (those N products do). Zimlets and Java API in Zimbra, JS API in Alfresco, DSO API for Apache etc. And a code not following the API may be published in the “contribution” section.

Overall, I think it’s better to take a sure tested, architected commercial product over (most) OSS especially commercial ones. I don’t know which I’d trust less – free OSS or commerical OSS!

Version 1.0 in OSS means a lot. We should try a 1.0 (tested and ready to use) version. Architectured: http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/UML_Class_Diagrams_2.0 (a quick example thru Google search).

Aseem: I know you may say that this is an example of a desktop solution and not an enterprise one.

Wicked. R you trying to bring in the desktop angle ? This is an area where Windows definitely shines. I can only bank on Windows ME.

Ok, I’m not taking this discussion further unless you invite Daj here as well But just to bug you, I’m gonna close on one thing.

Version 1.0 in OSS means a lot. We should try a 1.0 (tested and ready to use) version. Architectured: http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/UML_Class_Diagrams_2.0 (a quick example thru Google search).

You should have chosen a better example. According to the page you have linked to above:

These diagrams have been based on the XML definitions of these models in the latest source code (in Subversion), which eventually will be released as Alfresco 2.0.

Which basically means that the UML architecture was created after version 1.0 was released and reverse engineered from the existing code!!!!!!!! That means code came first and architecture later. And then then are going to base version 2.0 on this code-first-architect-later-architecture.

I can only say “tch, tch!” HEHEHEHEHEEHHEHEHHE!

Which basically means that the UML architecture was created after version 1.0 was released and reverse engineered from the existing code!!!!!!!!

1. This was a link to show you that the UML diagrams exists in the open source world.
2. Alfresco (like other known commercial companies) has not released the UML diagram or they did not use “UML” as such.
3. A contributor created (on a later date) the UML diagram using the XML definitions (if there was no architecture why the XML definitions ?).
4. These XML definitions existed in the subversion along with the code.

Ok, I’m not taking this discussion further unless you invite Daj here as well

Just realized, is anyone even reading my Blog post ? Or the comments are much more interesting ? Each comment is longer than the blog post itself!! With Daj, I will have to use a NAS to store the comments.

Last but not the least, thanks Vinod and Aseem for a knowledgeable debate. My next post will be on Apple’s alternative to MS products (just kidding ).

wow! this post and the chain of comments is thorough edutainment