Open source vs. Traditional software

As Bridge has gained extensive experience in open source technology, we start developing more complex web applications. I read a lot about open source technology versus closed source technology and about Google versus Microsoft. It seems that nobody knows what the future will bring. The traditional, closed source vendors keep their opinion that traditional software development will always be needed. And the open source community just keeps on developing and

As Bridge has gained extensive experience in open source technology, we start developing more complex web applications. I read a lot about open source technology versus closed source technology and about Google versus Microsoft. It seems that nobody knows what the future will bring. The traditional, closed source vendors keep their opinion that traditional software development will always be needed. And the open source community just keeps on developing and

As Bridge has gained extensive experience in open source technology, we start developing more complex web applications. I read a lot about open source technology versus closed source technology and about Google versus Microsoft. It seems that nobody knows what the future will bring. The traditional, closed source vendors keep their opinion that traditional software development will always be needed. And the open source community just keeps on developing and

As Bridge has gained extensive experience in open source technology, we start developing more complex web applications. I read a lot about open source technology versus closed source technology and about Google versus Microsoft. It seems that nobody knows what the future will bring. The traditional, closed source vendors keep their opinion that traditional software development will always be needed. And the open source community just keeps on developing and trusts the future will be in open source.

Some claim the main advantage of using proprietary software is the implementation. For complex software solutions, the main costs lie in implementation and not in licenses or development.  They claim that implementation can be done more efficiently by companies who develop their own software and are experienced in implementing their own packages into the client organization.

I somehow can’t see the truth in this. The development that seems to take place in recent years is that vendors specialize in certain open source solutions. They become experts; know everything about the package and its implementation. They did not develop the package themselves and hence do not need to charge upfront or in licenses. If these packages have been widely in use, implemented in thousands of organizations and enhanced by thousands of programmers, the quality will be higher than any traditional software package.

Because of the open source character, it will also be easy for a company to find out which vendor has a proven track record in the implementation of any open source solution. Most open source packages have another major advantage: they are all web-based. They are accessible from any place & increase the freedom of the people working with the application.

Two years ago Bridge implemented Microsoft Dynamics CRM on a local server in the Netherlands. Today, we have Three more offices and we installed the same package on local machines in each office. The package is heavy, requires a lot of capacity from a server, and when the internet in the office quits or the server has problems, it is not accessible. It also has substantial license costs and moving it on a web server brings even higher costs. Some weeks ago we migrated to Sugar CRM. The package has got many of the features that Dynamics also has; it runs on a web server and can be downloaded for free. One central application, accessible from any place in the world, no license costs and always running.

Cost savings, high quality and more freedom: why do people still buy licenses?

trusts the future will be in open source.

Some claim the main advantage of using proprietary software is the implementation. For complex software solutions, the main costs lie in implementation and not in licenses or development.  They claim that implementation can be done more efficiently by companies who develop their own software and are experienced in implementing their own packages into the client organization.

I somehow can’t see the truth in this. The development that seems to take place in recent years is that vendors specialize in certain open source solutions. They become experts; know everything about the package and its implementation. They did not develop the package themselves and hence do not need to charge upfront or in licenses. If these packages have been widely in use, implemented in thousands of organizations and enhanced by thousands of programmers, the quality will be higher than any traditional software package.

Because of the open source character, it will also be easy for a company to find out which vendor has a proven track record in the implementation of any open source solution. Most open source packages have another major advantage: they are all web-based. They are accessible from any place & increase the freedom of the people working with the application.

Two years ago Bridge implemented Microsoft Dynamics CRM on a local server in the Netherlands. Today, we have Three more offices and we installed the same package on local machines in each office. The package is heavy, requires a lot of capacity from a server, and when the internet in the office quits or the server has problems, it is not accessible. It also has substantial license costs and moving it on a web server brings even higher costs. Some weeks ago we migrated to Sugar CRM. The package has got many of the features that Dynamics also has; it runs on a web server and can be downloaded for free. One central application, accessible from any place in the world, no license costs and always running.

Cost savings, high quality and more freedom: why do people still buy licenses?

trusts the future will be in open source.

Some claim the main advantage of using proprietary software is the implementation. For complex software solutions, the main costs lie in implementation and not in licenses or development.  They claim that implementation can be done more efficiently by companies who develop their own software and are experienced in implementing their own packages into the client organization.

I somehow can’t see the truth in this. The development that seems to take place in recent years is that vendors specialize in certain open source solutions. They become experts; know everything about the package and its implementation. They did not develop the package themselves and hence do not need to charge upfront or in licenses. If these packages have been widely in use, implemented in thousands of organizations and enhanced by thousands of programmers, the quality will be higher than any traditional software package.

Because of the open source character, it will also be easy for a company to find out which vendor has a proven track record in the implementation of any open source solution. Most open source packages have another major advantage: they are all web-based. They are accessible from any place & increase the freedom of the people working with the application.

Two years ago Bridge implemented Microsoft Dynamics CRM on a local server in the Netherlands. Today, we have Three more offices and we installed the same package on local machines in each office. The package is heavy, requires a lot of capacity from a server, and when the internet in the office quits or the server has problems, it is not accessible. It also has substantial license costs and moving it on a web server brings even higher costs. Some weeks ago we migrated to Sugar CRM. The package has got many of the features that Dynamics also has; it runs on a web server and can be downloaded for free. One central application, accessible from any place in the world, no license costs and always running.

Cost savings, high quality and more freedom: why do people still buy licenses?

trusts the future will be in open source.

Some claim the main advantage of using proprietary software is the implementation. For complex software solutions, the main costs lie in implementation and not in licenses or development.  They claim that implementation can be done more efficiently by companies who develop their own software and are experienced in implementing their own packages into the client organization.

I somehow can’t see the truth in this. The development that seems to take place in recent years is that vendors specialize in certain open source solutions. They become experts; know everything about the package and its implementation. They did not develop the package themselves and hence do not need to charge upfront or in licenses. If these packages have been widely in use, implemented in thousands of organizations and enhanced by thousands of programmers, the quality will be higher than any traditional software package.

Because of the open source character, it will also be easy for a company to find out which vendor has a proven track record in the implementation of any open source solution. Most open source packages have another major advantage: they are all web-based. They are accessible from any place & increase the freedom of the people working with the application.

Two years ago Bridge implemented Microsoft Dynamics CRM on a local server in the Netherlands. Today, we have Three more offices and we installed the same package on local machines in each office. The package is heavy, requires a lot of capacity from a server, and when the internet in the office quits or the server has problems, it is not accessible. It also has substantial license costs and moving it on a web server brings even higher costs. Some weeks ago we migrated to Sugar CRM. The package has got many of the features that Dynamics also has; it runs on a web server and can be downloaded for free. One central application, accessible from any place in the world, no license costs and always running.

Cost savings, high quality and more freedom: why do people still buy licenses?