Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

These are not the sources we're looking for

A few comments I made a couple of weeks ago where brought to the fore again this week. The comments related to getting OpenSource applications used within a corporate environment, or lack thereof. A prime example of this happened just yesterday. I'm in the middle of documenting a few things for some work I've completed on a validated system. Following the old adage of a picture paints a thousand words I needed to insert a diagram. My desktop in the office is win2k, installed with the default SMS deployed desktop. Unfortunately there is a lack of diagram software and the process to get stuff installed is so convoluted, I'd be filling in requisition forms and trying to get the necessary access to use the ordering software till Christmas... 2010. I installed Dia, knocked out my diagram, export to jpeg, insert, job done. Or so I thought.

“This is a validated document,” says Mr Document Reviewer, “we need access to the original format”

Before I venture any further I have to point out that I am a contracted resource for company B. Company B is the outsourcing provider for company A. On my contracted days I work onsite at an office in company A. With me so far? Well, there are politics here, who pays for what, who is responsible for this, who's job is that. The usual corporate quagmire sucking in the productive time and spewing out endless, senseless debates about the most trivial things.

“Well”, I tell the reviewer, “the original diagram was done with Dia and it is available on the file server”

Immediately there are a flurry of emails being bantered around. Which is the approved tool for diagrams? Company B doesn't mind, a diagram is a diagram is a diagram and if they are footing the software bill then free is good. It is a completely different story from company A. “Visio is the tool that is used and you should only use this tool”. The diagrams should be embedded and not inserted as images. Post architect review they say that the application is very good, it would do everything they need, well put together but.... and this but is bigger than the rear end of a blue whale with an over-eating disorder. But... it may disappear from the scene and we'd be left with all our documents in that format with nothing to edit them with. At this point I threw in my tuppence worth. I remarked that by taking the source longevity was assured. The return argument reverted to cost support in that case. Hmmm, I reply, 70 odd quid a pop for Visio, times by what? 1000+ users? 70k? For this version, plus upgrades and maintenance? Now compare that to free and open with the benefit that you can tailor it to your specific needs, in a programming language in which most of your in-house developers are fluent? How can it disappear? Plus, if this was developed in-house you would support it till eternity, you have the source, same thing don't you think? The reply made me give up.

It's not Microsoft and our preferred supplier of this kind of software is Microsoft. It's the company standard.

Company standard indeed.

And that was for one application that works very well at its assigned job. More than capable.

It is going to be a long battle and a major uphill struggle to get OpenSource into the big corps no matter how polished the application is.

Instead I used my energies elsewhere, screaming at the TV screen as Russia scored the second and england were scattered after snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I sat in dismay and waited the inevitable text message coming from my other half, visiting her parents in Moscow.

Look, feel the source.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: These are not the sources we're looking for

They prefer Microsoft? Makes some sense; paleontologists have suggested that many dinosaurs ran herds. Looks like they still do.

It's just the Peter principle

Thanks for your observations about "the corporate quagmire". I recently stormed out of a Foss project when the navel-gazing interfered repeatedly with progress in actually getting something done. Now that was a quagmire. The problem is not related to software, it's about human incompetence a.k.a the Peter principle.

More in Tux Machines

Linux Mint 18.1 Is The Best Mint Yet

The hardcore Linux geeks won’t read this article. They’ll skip right past it… They don’t like Linux Mint much. There’s a good reason for them not to; it’s not designed for them. Linux Mint is for folks who want a stable, elegant desktop operating system that they don’t want to have to constantly tinker with. Anyone who is into Linux will find Mint rather boring because it can get as close to the bleeding edge of computer technology. That said, most of those same hardcore geeks will privately tell you that they’ve put Linux Mint on their Mom’s computer and she just loves it. Linux Mint is great for Mom. It’s stable, offers everything she needs and its familiar UI is easy for Windows refugees to figure out. If you think of Arch Linux as a finicky, high-performance sports car then Linux Mint is a reliable station wagon. The kind of car your Mom would drive. Well, I have always liked station wagons myself and if you’ve read this far then I guess you do, too. A ride in a nice station wagon, loaded with creature comforts, cold blowing AC, and a good sound system can be very relaxing, indeed. Read more

Make Gnome 3 more accessible for everyday use

Gnome 3 is a desktop environment that was created to fix a problem that did not exist. Much like PulseAudio, Wayland and Systemd, it's there to give developers a job, while offering no clear benefit over the original problem. The Gnome 2 desktop was fast, lithe, simple, and elegant, and its replacement is none of that. Maybe the presentation layer is a little less busy and you can search a bit more quickly, but that's about as far as the list of advantages goes, which is a pretty grim result for five years of coding. Despite my reservation toward Gnome 3, I still find it to be a little bit more suitable for general consumption than in the past. Some of the silly early decisions have been largely reverted, and a wee bit more sane functionality added. Not enough. Which is why I'd like to take a moment or three to discuss some extra tweaks and changes you should add to this desktop environment to make it palatable. Read more

When to Use Which Debian Linux Repository

Nothing distinguishes the Debian Linux distribution so much as its system of package repositories. Originally organized into Stable, Testing, and Unstable, additional repositories have been added over the years, until today it takes more than a knowledge of a repository's name to understand how to use it efficiently and safely. Debian repositories are installed with a section called main that consists only of free software. However, by editing the file /etc/apt/sources.list, you can add contrib, which contains software that depends on proprietary software, and non-free, which contains proprietary software. Unless you choose to use only free software, contrib and non-free are especially useful for video and wireless drivers. You should also know that the three main repositories are named for characters from the Toy Story movies. Unstable is always called Sid, while the names of Testing and Stable change. When a new version of Debian is released, Testing becomes Stable, and the new version of Testing receives a name. These names are sometimes necessary for enabling a mirror site, but otherwise, ignoring these names gives you one less thing to remember. Read more

Today in Techrights