3 ms·

In many cases, for an off-the-shelf solution to work for you, you need control over it. You need to be able to change it. So it is required to be open source. I

In many cases, for an off-the-shelf solution to work for you, you need control over it. You need to be able to change it. So it is required to be open source. I guess most off-the-shelf solutions aren't. Also, to be able to change the solution, you need to find one with just about the required feature set. In other words, you need a solution with minimal complexity that fulfills your needs. Because otherwise changing quickly becomes too painful. On top of that, trying existing solutions and finding out why they don't work for you is not fun. It's much more fun to explore the solution space on your own.

Bahamut 8y ago
Open source isn’t a silver bullet - if the library isn’t updated frequently, or has some bugs in design, it can be tough to get them fixed. Maintainers tend to be very protective of the codebases they steward too.
- bigger_cheese 8y ago
  Support is a big thing as well for business software. When you buy "off the shelf" package from commercial vendor a large chunk of the cost is usually in support contracts. If you have a bespoke system built from open source components it can be difficult to find people able to support it. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to shoehorn the vendor supplied peg into your business's particular hole. I've heard a lot of people over the years complain to my manager "XYZ is crap I could write a better solution using ABC" the reply is usually along the lines of "Yeah but are you willing to spent the next 10 years supporting it."
- jdbernard 8y ago
  Yes, I agree with GP that open source is often necessary. I agree with you that it is also not always sufficient. So companies do what they can to have the necessary control and also sufficient support: build it themselves.
wolco 8y ago
I see this a lot. Large companies buying large expensive solutions that do very little of what they need. Many would be better off building themselves. Smaller companies leveraging existing products makes more sense in terms of budget and team size.

Bahamut 8y ago

Open source isn’t a silver bullet - if the library isn’t updated frequently, or has some bugs in design, it can be tough to get them fixed. Maintainers tend to be very protective of the codebases they steward too.

bigger_cheese 8y ago
Support is a big thing as well for business software. When you buy "off the shelf" package from commercial vendor a large chunk of the cost is usually in support contracts. If you have a bespoke system built from open source components it can be difficult to find people able to support it. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to shoehorn the vendor supplied peg into your business's particular hole. I've heard a lot of people over the years complain to my manager "XYZ is crap I could write a better solution using ABC" the reply is usually along the lines of "Yeah but are you willing to spent the next 10 years supporting it."
jdbernard 8y ago
Yes, I agree with GP that open source is often necessary. I agree with you that it is also not always sufficient. So companies do what they can to have the necessary control and also sufficient support: build it themselves.

wolco 8y ago

I see this a lot. Large companies buying large expensive solutions that do very little of what they need. Many would be better off building themselves. Smaller companies leveraging existing products makes more sense in terms of budget and team size.