[OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)

Duarte Carreira DCarreira at edia.pt
Thu Oct 17 02:38:19 PDT 2013

I find that an argument that seats well with management is open source scales for free, while proprietary is itself a financial obstacle when you need to grow your system, be it to support more load server-side, add more client-side machines, or add new applications to your portfolio (usually a combo of these). In proprietary you can only grow in functionality by increasing your annual budget just for keeping the software, without even considering any development or training costs. So in the long run, your base costs creep up, like a memory leak ;).

Many times you see a system be completely shut down because its maintenance costs got to a value someone just decides it is not worth paying anymore. Then you are forced to go open source, in a very painful way.

Bottom line, in the medium/long term open source offers a significant financial stability, that can in fact mean the sustainability of your system.


De: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) [mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us]
Enviada: quarta-feira, 16 de Outubro de 2013 17:01
Para: Norman Vine; osgeo-discuss (discuss at lists.osgeo.org)
Assunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)


We're thoroughly entrenched with a OpenSource installation right along side a bunch of commercial products.  It's been very hard for any commercial vendor to even get a leg up in our office for a number of years now because we've got so much stuff already working via OpenSource (and also available to the commercial products.)  However, we still don't have a top level position to over see these things, and there is still splintering of resources that is taking place.


From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Norman Vine
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:57 AM
To: osgeo-discuss (discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>)
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)

On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, "Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)" <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us<mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:


Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind).

Thanks for the feedback.



I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to
vet adherence to any OpenStandard

In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal
should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance
as such


-----Original Message-----
From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shoreas at gmail.com<http://gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM
To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>)
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or
attmepting to . . .)

Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of
interoperability, a critical project success factor in this
increasingly interconnected world.

And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue
protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist.  (I can tell you
re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying
sole-source procurements.)

Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good
Lord must love standards;  She made so many of them!


On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
<bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us<mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
Hi all,

I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following
statement, I'm
looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to
yourself there  :c).

"Open Source software enforces standards" ... <snip />

Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131017/5a5c47f0/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list