"A Fatal Flaw For Open Source" -- FUD article on Forbes.com

[samalex]

I ran across this via one of the RSS feeds I subscribe to, and I just had to check it out. The title "A Fatal Flaw For Open Source" and icon showing "sponsored by Microsoft" makes me proceed with skepticism.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/google-yahoo-software-technology-cio-network-open-source.html

The title is very misleading in that it talks about open source software packages being targeted for a single customer, or single-tenant as it calls it, instead of a single instance of the software working with multiple customers, or multi-tenant as it says.

Other than them mentioning Drupal and how one company had to change the code to cater to more than one client (which wouldn't have been possible if Drupal were closed source) the main points of this article have zero to do with Open Source Software. And the fact that someone can take a single-tenant application that is open source and change it to be multi-tenant speaks to the strengths of FOSS because you don't even have the option to change a closed source application if you had one you liked using.

At any rate I'm not sure why Forbes posted such an article... the content was pretty decent, but it has nothing to do with open source. I wonder of Microsoft pays Forbes to give articles that mention FOSS projects FUD topics even if they have nothing to do with FOSS.

Sorry for the rant, but stuff like this really rubs me wrong. Also by reading the comments thus far apparently others agree.

Sam

[madjr]

more stupid FUD

drupal is one of the best CMS and helps people everywhere make awesome websites with $0 upfront costs (in fact ubuntu.com, the white house, etc. use it)
this can only be possible thanks to open source

[mickie.kext]

Nothing new, Microsoft sponsored articles and posts are all over the internet and some of the posters even claim to be opne source advocates.

This rare one that explicitly say "Microsoft sponsored", though.

[sydbat]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/google-yahoo-software-technology-cio-network-open-source.htmlMomma says stupid is as stupid does.

[Sporkman]

The title "A Fatal Flaw For Open Source" and icon showing "sponsored by Microsoft" makes me proceed with skepticism.


I think anybody who makes open source vs proprietary decisions would be similarly skeptical with the article...

[donkyhotay]

Yeah, that article is a big old heaping pile of fud. Anyone at all familiar with the idea of open source will be aware that it is much easier to port applications to different architectures then closed source. People that don't understand open/closed source might get confused however that article focuses on businesses and the only IT thats going to believe it are MSCE's that don't know better and wouldn't convert anyways.

[Cuddles McKitten]

Good. The fewer companies there are that use open source software, the higher the costs and the worse the efficiency of my competitors. :)

[ugm6hr]

Isn't this someone's personal opinion saying that open source programmers can't be bothered with this new multi-tenant thing?

It isn't even a comparison between existing open source and closed source applications, but a comparison between future development of these services / applications.

Honestly, I don't think anyone cares.

[murderslastcrow]

I think they think it might make them money to attack their competitors, rather than merely focusing on improving their own products.

That kind of game won't work forever.

[samalex]

Whether it's the author's opinion or not I really don't see why such a heavy title had to be placed on the article. I read some of the other articles (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=dan+and+woods&aname=Dan+Woods) by Dan Wood and he's written some great stuff. Even this article is really good and got me thinking about multi vs single 'tenant' software which I've never put much thought into, but the title is what really has me scratching my head.

Sam

[Jay Car]

Whether it's the author's opinion or not I really don't see why such a heavy title had to be placed on the article. I read some of the other articles (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=dan+and+woods&aname=Dan+Woods) by Dan Wood and he's written some great stuff. Even this article is really good and got me thinking about multi vs single 'tenant' software which I've never put much thought into, but the title is what really has me scratching my head.

Sam

Part of the reason for using such FUD-ish titles is the wish to draw in people for lots of hits and ad clicks.

[Tristam Green]

Part of the reason for using such FUD-ish titles is the wish to draw in people for lots of hits and ad clicks.

it worked at least 12 times, too :)

[CharlesA]

Part of the reason for using such FUD-ish titles is the wish to draw in people for lots of hits and ad clicks.

I'd say 13 times, but I haven't read the article. :)

[McRat]

Can anyone offer some Definitions?

FUD?
(FOD is Foreign Object Damage which applies to aircraft)

Multi-Tenant?
(Is this the new Multi-User?)

[Sporkman]

Can anyone offer some Definitions?

FUD?
(FOD is Foreign Object Damage which applies to aircraft)


Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

[mickie.kext]

Can anyone offer some Definitions?

FUD?
(FOD is Foreign Object Damage which applies to aircraft)

Multi-Tenant?
(Is this the new Multi-User?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancy

In this case, I would say that they try to scare people who don't know what Multi-tenancy is. Make them think like it is some giant flaw in whole open source concept, while it is simple choice of Drupal developers and does not apply to every open source application. Alfresco, SugarCRM, Liferay, Red Hat Network, Compiere, OpenBravo and Eucalyptus comes to my mind as an example of multi-tenancy and open-source. I might be wrong for some of listed, but I couldn't be wrong for all.

[Tristam Green]

Can anyone offer some Definitions?

FUD?
(FOD is Foreign Object Damage which applies to aircraft)

An overused, often misunderstood term that seems to fly like those very aircraft you mention in these here parts.

[McRat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancy

In this case, I would say that they try to scare people who don't know what Multi-tenancy is. Make them think like it is some giant flaw in whole open source concept, while it is simple choice of Drupal developers and does not apply to every open source application. Alfresco, SugarCRM, Liferay, Red Hat Network, Compiere, OpenBravo and Eucalyptus comes to my mind as an example of multi-tenancy and open-source. I might be wrong for some of listed, but I couldn't be wrong for all.

Thanks.

How would that differ from what we are running this minute?

All the members on this site have a cache of personal data/settings, and are all concurrently running the same Open Source app.

[koenn]

An overused, often misunderstood term that seems to fly like those very aircraft you mention in these here parts.

Nonetheless, calling this article FUD seems appropriate.
For one, I did not see any explanation or indication as to why open source would be less capable of developing multi-tenant apps, or why non-open-source development would be the only ones capable of this.

[clanky]

Did you guys actually read the article? I don't really see how any of it other than possibly the title could be considered as FUD, what he is saying is right and he also says that he expects that the open source companies out the to step up to the mark and do what is needed.

He is not predicting the end of open source he is simply saying that multi-tenant web apps are going to produce huge challenges for open source developers and that existing software will not be easily converted.

[samalex]

Did you guys actually read the article? I don't really see how any of it other than possibly the title could be considered as FUD, what he is saying is right and he also says that he expects that the open source companies out the to step up to the mark and do what is needed.

He is not predicting the end of open source he is simply saying that multi-tenant web apps are going to produce huge challenges for open source developers and that existing software will not be easily converted.

The title was the biggest reason I pointed this out as FUD, and honestly I thought the article was really good. In my comment to the author I suggested he change the topic to "A Major Pro For Open Source Software" since it is more fitting.

Sam

[koenn]

Did you guys actually read the article? I don't really see how any of it other than possibly the title could be considered as FUD, what he is saying is right and he also says that he expects that the open source companies out the to step up to the mark and do what is needed.

He is not predicting the end of open source he is simply saying that multi-tenant web apps are going to produce huge challenges for open source developers and that existing software will not be easily converted.

hm.
maybe I'm oldfashioned about these things, but I still assume that the title of an article should reflect the content of that article, or its main points. Like I said, the author fails to bring forward any reason why open source development would fail to produce these multi-tenant apps, or why proprietary development would be better suited to produce them.
So as a whole (i.e. without artificially separating the title from the rest), this is FUD, imo.

Plus, it sounds very much like the old "a bunch of hobby programmers losely connected by the internet will never be able to produce quality software, let alone something as complex as an operating system. Only a tighlty organized team of developers within a corporate structure can accomplish such a task."


Apart from that, yes, maybe the guy has a point that multi-tenant apps are becoming important, and will become more important in the future. But apparently, judging by the title he choose, that's not the main point he's trying to make.