Open Source Must be Supported to be Safe
April 26, 2013
A recent controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not open source software can be trusted. Is it safe? Some proprietary executives are saying no. Both sides of the issue are discussed in the CMS Wire article, “Is Proprietary Software Better, Safer than Open Source? What Univa, Alfresco, MapR, MongoDB, WANdisco Say.”
Gary Tyreman, CEO of Univa, is interviewed in the article and has this to say:
“He claims that using Free Open Source Software (FOSS) is particularly dangerous because if something breaks at a critical time, you’re out on a limb and there may be no one to call for help. And even if there is, he adds, Open Source software, by its very nature, is still in production and therefore unstable.”
But, on the other hand, open source advocates and CEOs disagree. Jeff Potts of Alfresco has this to say:
“And even if ‘free’ is an initial reason for considering Open Source, it’s not why companies ultimately go (and stay) with it. . . . He cites ‘additional flexibility, lower TCO (which includes support), vendor independence, vendor transparency and the faster pace of innovation enjoyed by community development efforts,’ as the real drivers.”
Innovation, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness win out for open source users. But, if there are concerns with open source stability and security, simply choose a value added software based on open source technology, like LucidWorks. LucidWorks is based on Apache Lucene and Solr and fully supported. Users like knowing they can have the benefits of an open source solution with the support and guarantee of a trusted name.
Emily Rae Aldridge, April 26, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Beyond Search
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
