Rob Emmons wrote:
You are ignoring the fact that with the open source solution you do at least have the option of hiring bright programmers to support the framework which has now become moribund, whereas when a company goes bust there's no guarantee the software IP will ever be extricated from the resulting mess.For managers of companies it's worse: the company makes
VERY substantial investments into any technology it "marries",
and that means big losses if it goes. Long-term stability
of this technology in terms of "we're not going to be left out
in cold alone with this technology to feed it" means a lot to them. Even a poor technology with external backing of big, stable vendor is better than the excellent technology without ......
There is the stability issue you mention... but also probably the fear
issue. If you choose a solution from a major company -- then it fails for
some reason or they drop the product -- it's their fault -- you've got an
automatic fall guy. On the other hand, an open source solution or otherwise less accepted solution ... it will probably be consider your fault by the organization. It's a rational decision to avoid personal risk when you don't get much reward for choosing something different.
So I'm not sure I'd agree with "rational" there, though "comprehensible" might be harder to argue with.
Personally I'd feel in a better position standing before a Board of Directors and saying "While it's true that our chosen software platform isn't being supported by the original team any more, we do have options to continue to move it forward, including forming a consortium with other users".
Avoidance of blame is way too large a motivator in large organizations, and it leads to many forms of sub-optimal decision making.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/ Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/ Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
