Okay, why is open source so hatred among enterprises?
Posted by VNiqkco@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 762 comments
I am an advocate for open source, i breath open source and I hate greedy companies that overcharge for ridiculous licensing pricing.
However, companies and enterprises seems to hate open source regardless.
But is this hate even justified? Or have we been brainwashed into thinking, open source = bad whilst close source = good.
Even close source could have poor security practices, take for example the hack to solarwinds, a popular close software, in 2020.
I'm not saying open source may be costly to implement or support, but I just can't fathom why enterprises hate it so much.
Do you agree or disagree?
SuppA-SnipA@reddit
Some open source software does have paid support, like Zabbix. But yes I've felt your pain during my help desk days. I've suggested an Ubuntu VM for something and it was shut down, because it was OSS. But I am 100% sure because the IT Manager and Director had no clue about OSS.
coastfire50@reddit
No one to blame And lack of support
kampr3t0@reddit
support
More_Yard1919@reddit
I worked somewhere that did utilize a ton of open source. We had one very competent wizard that was able to select, understand, and configure relevant github projects or just build systems from scratch. I remember I even took custody of one of his projects and while trawling through the github repo I realized that he had committed a file I was reading. Long story short, it was a fucking nightmare because most people had 0 idea what they were doing with 90 percent of those systems.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
As my company owner says, when things go bad, you want a throat to choke. Otherwise it's usually yours.
whythehellnote@reddit
Blamestorming.
Your system is down for 2 hours once every 5 years - that's your CTO's fault
Your saas system is down for 4 hours once every 5 months - that's not your CTO's fault
CTO thus prefers shit-as-a-service, as they don't like to be accountable.
reelieuglie@reddit
Time to create a support service that does fuck all, but for $100 a month we'll hop on a call to get blamed for outages
whythehellnote@reddit
Nobody will take you seriously for that cost.
Charge $100k a month and you're talking. You'll need a few levels of people (or funny voices) to "escalate" to, and funnel about 10% into apology dinners.
The trick is to pay for Gartner to give you a tick so you're then in the club.
b87e@reddit
IBM already patented this I am sure.
cybersplice@reddit
This person understands sales 🤣
555-Rally@reddit
You'll end up spending $1k/mo on your insurance policy, and a further $1k on a PSA/Logging system, and a $10k/mo salary on a sales guy to sell it to them (with a hooker/blow budget and commission to seal the deal). Put $1k into the Indian call center that has an ai powered chatbot option... the rest is yours.
Once you make your first $5M sell it to someone who thinks it's got real value.
reelieuglie@reddit
Genius.
LiveShowOneNightOnly@reddit
Pay per apology.
"I'm sorry." cha-ching
"I'm sorry." cha-ching
"I'm sorry." cha-ching
cybersplice@reddit
Blamestorming is my new favourite word. Thank you.
kuroimakina@reddit
This is literally all it is. The entire enterprise world is literally just about offloading as much responsibility, risk and blame as physically possible.
The thing that I hate the most about this is that the users literally do not care if your services are offloaded to azure or whatever. They don’t know or care what OS your servers use. They ONLY care about availability- and if your service is unavailable, guess what, it’s your fault in their eyes. You can point fingers all you want, but it’s still your responsibility to the outside world. Same with if you leak personal data, or whatever.
But they don’t actually care about that. The higher ups just want someone to blame to save their own ass internally, and they want as much of the remediation and associated costs offloaded as possible - no matter how much that will degrade the long term operations and stability.
calle_cerrada@reddit
In a better world saas down would be CTO's fault too, because who is the moron who bought into the bullshit marketing?
RikiWardOG@reddit
The CFOs because capex
whythehellnote@reddit
In a serious world then the C-suite would be accountable for their decisions. That doesn't mean you get fired for every mistake someone makes, but it does mean you don't get a free pass because you outsourced.
But we don't live in that world. The needs of the business operations are very different to the needs of the people who managed to get promoted to the top.
spacelama@reddit
Which is funny, because it's me working at 3am restoring services, and the vendor has never done anything useful.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
Hell, lately reddit is more helpful than most vendors support. But there is value in being able to say "I dunno boss, looks like CrowdStrike messed up" lol
Geodude532@reddit
Chatbots have been more useful than vendor support. If they could ingest PDF files I wouldn't need vendor support anymore since the Devs that write the PDFs seem to be the only ones with answers and it takes forever to get to Dev support.
spokale@reddit
They CAN ingest PDF files. You can literally upload them in your ChatGPT question for example.
Alternatively, make your own RAG. I have AnythingLLM on my desktop, I just upload the PDF, .TXT, whatever documentation I want, plug in my API key, and I have an instant assistant that can identify useful documentation, read it, and give me answers with citations to the specific documentation.
Wooden-Can-5688@reddit
Could this be useful for an app admin to debug issues or a tech consultant? This is how I'm functioning currently and would love an assistant to speed things up.
spokale@reddit
Yeah, actually I use it in that capacity. I put all the technical/troubleshooting/usage docs for our in-house applications into it so I can more easily answer questions about either technical issues or general usage.
Wooden-Can-5688@reddit
Can I just feed it a bunch of URLs?
spokale@reddit
I think so yeah. AnythingLLM is free, why not try it out?
Wooden-Can-5688@reddit
Can I just feed it a bunch of URLs? Most of what I use is Microsoft public documentation.
Geodude532@reddit
I've been using the Google Gemini and it does not like PDF or walls of text. I appreciate the suggestion and I'll definitely have to learn more about advanced methods like RAG since it's becoming more common for companies to use them. It sounds like it could be a useful tool for when support goes on vacation.
spokale@reddit
AnythingLLM is really pretty straight-forward btw, no coding or anything required. You basically just select your LLM provider, authorize/add API key, then drag and drop documents into it and hit 'apply'
Geodude532@reddit
That is fantastic! This will definitely make it easier to solve some problems that are better left outside of support.
spokale@reddit
One more tip, for the system prompt, it may be useful to add a somewhat longer preface about your company. Like a short summary of tech stack, important products and their relationships, job roles, services, etc. Otherwise it'll only have context from whatever documentation it pulls from your initial search.
TheRealLazloFalconi@reddit
I'm envious, I've never had a chatbot provide a useful answer to me.
BrokenByEpicor@reddit
I figured I would try out copilot a few weeks back. I'm not going to say it was useless, but just about everything it gave me was wrong in some way. It did eventually help me sus out a way to do what I wanted, but it involved a good bit of search engine work besides to find the info I actually needed.
It's telling that powershell is such a fucking mess that not even Microsoft's own AI can provide a functional script.
TheRealLazloFalconi@reddit
I've had pretty good luck using Copilot to generate sort of boilerplate scripts--they don't work on their own, but I don't have to look up or try to remember the name of cmdlets anymore.
BrokenByEpicor@reddit
Yeah I've found it's okay for very pointed questions, sometimes for going over syntax, stuff like that too. I asked it how to set colors in a terminal today for instance, and it gave me that info straight away.
So it's a tool and I'm learning it, but as with everything in tech it's not the life-altering revolutionary holy jizz puddle that they sell it as.
Geodude532@reddit
Definitely how I've been using it. It's just one of many things that I use to get things figured out, but some times its nice to be able to speak plainly had have it give me the correct words I need to use in an actual google search to find the answer.
spokale@reddit
They're amazing for writing super complex regex
Geodude532@reddit
I've used it with VMware, but you do have to take some stuff with a grain of salt. Likely because VMware themselves are at least a year behind with all of their guides.
ZGTSLLC@reddit
Some chatbots do ingest PDFs, such as Claude and John and even DeepSeek...damn good job they do too!
projeto56@reddit
Try Google's NotebookLM. It's been amazing to upload multiple PDFs as references for one chat window.
unixux@reddit
It depends on the vendor heavily. Sun support used to be great before it went to shyt; Veritas support use to be great before it went to shyt. NetApp still does ok from what I hear. IBM z used to be Cadillac of supports
wrosecrans@reddit
Redhat, Amazon, etc. You can pay for support of open source software where it makes sense. Never understood this mindset where there isn't a whole industry of people happy to take your money to get yelled at.
If you do much cloud stuff, AWS is falling all over itself to buy your boss lunch to explain how you should pay them for help deploying open source stuff like nginx and kubernetes.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
Oh I understand that there are options and things like that. I am just making a statement to BS.
I personally am "head" of a two person IT team that can barely get a budget to cover the critical stuff. We mostly have to bang some sticks together and hope it solves the issue.
RamblinLamb@reddit
I've been where you are. Think of that place as a stepping stone to something bigger, better, badder. I ended up working for a very large aerospace company and ended up leading a team of amazing people doing amazing things with a large budget.
You're not going to be able to convince your current employer to spend money so go work for someone who can and will.
skyxsteel@reddit
Many a time where I’ve needed to set up a site to site VPN tunnel. Many a time where I’ve needed to configure it for the vendor…
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
I really love when you watch a vendor poke around on a system just whinging shit. Like, I could do that!
skyxsteel@reddit
Lmao mostly I give them an hour to figure it out then tell them what to do. Then i ask myself if its not too late to find someone else but then remember that others probably have the same crap tier support.
BrokenByEpicor@reddit
Yo I was trying to figure out how an email got into our environment despite our transport rules clearly not allowing it, and microsoft support tried to blame Mimecast because they saw in the email header that that's where our MX record points. They were literally looking at the email header. The email did not traverse through Mimecast. If it had, we wouldn't have been having the conversation.
I kind of lost my temper at that point.
skyxsteel@reddit
I had this asshole coworker who I and everyone despised. The only time I felt sorry for him was when he was on the phone with MS support for 2 hours. They said “ohhh we can’t help you with that. A different department handles that.”
He was on hold for an hour and his call was dropped.
Bradddtheimpaler@reddit
There is also a lot of value in being able to say, “oh, you want to sue me? Actually we contracted with these guys. They’re the liable ones.”
ophydian210@reddit
Again
eruffini@reddit
"Nothing I can do, Azure is down for the sixth time in three weeks."
DerpinHurps959@reddit
...or Spiceworks, or ServerFault or Tenforums, or any of a dozen self-help forums more responsive than vendor X.
Liquid_Magic@reddit
Yeah but they would get fired and not you!
Vadoola@reddit
I can feel this one in my bones. We have this one vendor, I've had to create support tickets three times.
uptimefordays@reddit
Did vendor pay an outage penalty for SLA breach?
shadovvvvalker@reddit
The key difference is many vendors, let's pick on Microsoft, have unchokeable throats, and are where the buck stops.
But if you go open-source and something stops working because of a decision made by cumscreamer23, then you are accountable unless you can hold them accountable.
Windows95GOAT@reddit
You telling your boss its their fault not yours is their usefull part :D
CptUnderpants-@reddit
If your organisation needs a certain response/resolution timeframe and your organisation hasn't paid for a matching SLA then don't expect them to do anything useful.
If C-suite come knocking for someone to blame, whoever signed the contract without that SLA is the logical choice.
Now, if a vendor is required to do the needful at 3am and they don't, document the fact and keep working and leave it for the post-incident report.
spacelama@reddit
SLAs of tens-of-million dollar contracts I've worked on only ever talks about time to respond, not time to resolution.
CptUnderpants-@reddit
Cool.
pc_jangkrik@reddit
But then your manager could blame the vendor. Outsourcing the risk is the real purpose
spacelama@reddit
Last tab I closed from another discussion was this one.
IncredibleBulk117@reddit
"Try shutting down this business-critical device that runs our service after you just told me twice that you can not power it down."
gangaskan@reddit
You can still pass the buck.
Imaginary-Pay5729@reddit
ehhh. not always. my CEO doesnt take "its so-and-so companies servers that are down" that well. usually ends in him telling the IT team to contact them and help them fix it.... *sigh*
Repulsive_Tadpole998@reddit
LOL! I had a customer a few weeks ago that had a new executive starting. Microsoft had some issues in their tenant where any new users created didn't have mailboxes and couldn't use teams. It was 100% a Microsoft back end problem, I explained this to their CTO multiple times who kept telling me to fix the issue for this new executive, as "it's been days and he can't work."
What the hell am I going to do to fix an internal Microsoft issue?
cybersplice@reddit
I had a customer affected by a European Teams outage. I passed them screenshots of the incident in their tenant and they didn't believe me.
Escalated to their account manager who called me in a fit of pique because I was "refusing to resolve a major incident".
I explained.
🙄
Repulsive_Tadpole998@reddit
yep, I was getting calls and messages late into the night and early morning about the issue, and "why can't you fix this?" I even included them in the email chain with Microsoft support so they could see the tickets and escalations....still blamed me.
DiggyTroll@reddit
Happy Cake Day!
We proactively claim to be in touch with our cloud vendor (providing important feedback and assistance) and give scheduled updates. It's all about meeting expectations, giving the boss some kind of estimate to look forward to.
cybersplice@reddit
Dude I just got off the phone to Satya, we're having beers later. 😏
IamHydrogenMike@reddit
This right here, if you keep them informed of any major updates then it makes it a lot easier to push onto the vendor since the update was known previously; it’s a vendor issue. It’s all about communication to who matters most and why the situation occurred.
Frothyleet@reddit
Sounds like your manager doesn't speak business very well.
It's not inherently wrong for the CEO to be demanding action or updates of some sort. The fact that they don't necessarily understand the structure of the product is not on them.
Even if you can't actually fix something, you should still own the incident response. Provide regular updates to management about what's being done (we've gotten these updates from their support / their restoration ETA is X / we've confirmed the outage from multiple sources).
Essentially, just keep them informed and do it in a way that looks like you are being proactive.
Imaginary-Pay5729@reddit
it doesnt matter how my manager tells the CEO. the CEO is stuck in his mindset that anything that has to do with technology is controlled by IT (even if it isnt our company)
cybersplice@reddit
I think a lot of us IT guys struggle with this. We tend to be good with "it's my fault so I'll stick to it until it's fixed" but conversely tend to sit back and let the other guy fix it when it's not our fault.
I didn't learn proper Jack Russell Terrier incident management technique ("where's my fscking update?") until I was senior at an MSP.
theolint@reddit
Lol, indeed. I had the CIO of a F500 company instruct me to reach out to Apple and pursue changing some behavior he found unintuitive on the iPhone. It was the fact that the Hot Spot turned off if you went away from the Hot Spot settings screen and if there were known Wifi networks to connect to.
Like, first, I'm the AWS infrastructure architect; I was just the first person you asked who figured out why the phone was doing that. Second ... ask Apple to change the IOS, personally, for your corner-case? Haa. Sure, let me call Tim.
Maximum_Bandicoot_94@reddit
Well he should stop buying cloud services then.
TaterSupreme@reddit
People say that a a lot, and it's pretty true in some cases, but we just got 5 hotfixes out of a vendor (the commercial support organization for an open source project, even) around a bug we found. Granted 3 of them were for better log and error messaging, but the other 2 actually fixed our problem.
I can tell similar stories many times throughout my career.
Ryuujinx@reddit
Yeah, when my job was maintaining a huge ELK stack(15 clusters, like 800 data nodes, 3k LS instances and around 130B events daily) we started running into this weird performance issue on the cluster that held windows event logs. Turns out some virtual desktops had future time stamps and this caused fuckin havoc on the metadata which tanked searches. Elastic was on calls with us daily and they were ultimately who spotted our little time traveling gremlins.
There is no chance we would have found that issue on our own. We also paid them a ludicrous amount of money though so ya know, get what you pay for or something.
UbieOne@reddit
Did you ever find out how those got future-dated? Were these vdesktops used by humans? I think ones I've used before were locked down pretty much, changing time was one. Or if I were using it, I'd have complained right away. It could have reason to cause issues related to the kinds of work I did.
Ryuujinx@reddit
We fixed it on our end with some sanity checking in all of our LS parsers to protect our stack from any future shenanigans and told the people that ran all of that infrastructure. Iirc they had fucked up their ntp configs so it wasn't syncing and it drifted a bit at a time for months with no one noticing.
turbokid@reddit
Sounds like you were the bottom of the throat choking chain and not the vendor.
the-recluse@reddit
I felt this.
stackjr@reddit
I had to reach out to Microsoft for support and that was absolutely worthless. I had to explain, in terms that a seven year old could understand, what the issue was and the dude still couldn't figure it out. I ended up having to send in a dozen or so screenshots just for him to say "oh, we don't support that".
NISMO1968@reddit
That’s a whole different story. Bottom line is, not all vendors are created equal.
coolest_frog@reddit
You still have to do the work but it's not your fault
vNerdNeck@reddit
But the c-suite can still blame the vendor. Otherwise they have to blame you.
IamHydrogenMike@reddit
It’s mostly for legal liability than for actual support, they can hold the vendor accountable at a legal level and get monetary con for an outage or something similar. It doesn’t have much to do with actual support unless they have a major contract with a named support person at their behest.
doubled112@reddit
Have you ever had the vendor break it a little more at 3am? I have.
admlshake@reddit
Is it because they can't, or is it because you are one of those techs that calls them 12 hours after you should have?
thestupidstillburns@reddit
Yeah, call first, continue to work the problem. If you figure it out, you can always have them verify or you just close the ticket.
spacelama@reddit
I once called my boss, our vendor's first level, our vendor's second level, our vendor's national manager, then left a call with our own NOC to please keep trying all of the above, and started working for half an hour before I got my first callback. The time was 7am.
Gabelvampir@reddit
Then the people that buy the vendor contracts should be informed of it. But yeah, unfortunately that's pretty standard, but it won't get better without pushback from the people that pay their bills.
Contren@reddit
When we hire consultants or outside companies for major projects, our leadership calls the fee paid to them "prepaying someone to throw under the bus" if it goes poorly.
HoustonBOFH@reddit
I joke about that with my clients as a consultant. My job is to take the blame. :)
cybersplice@reddit
That's basically the point of professional services.
There's two sides to it right? 1) you don't have time/expertise in-house. 2) you want the other guy's ass held to the fire when it goes wrong.
agitated--crow@reddit
Darth Vader likes this
Expensive_Finger_973@reddit
I find your lack of a support agreement disturbing.
Ron-Swanson-Mustache@reddit
This bickering is pointless. Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the executed contract by the time this Broadcom demand letter is due. We will then crush the potential lawsuit with one swift stroke.
BarsoomianAmbassador@reddit
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
_Volly@reddit
You may sue when ready
BassmentTapes@reddit
I just felt a great disturbance in the Broadcom cash flow, as if millions of licensees cried out and migrated to other platforms at once
skyxsteel@reddit
Broadcom: laughs by not providing you with support since you’re not rich
JustSomeGuyFromIT@reddit
so does every person with a choking fetisch
TurnItOff_OnAgain@reddit
David Carradine
The_Original_Miser@reddit
To me, that doesn't hold much water anymore.
Unless you are a very, very large enterprise, Microsoft and other large software vendors could care less about you. How does a small to medium business choke Microsoft?
If it's a small to medium software vendor we'll then sure. There's someone to choke. But thats the exception.
Complete-Disaster513@reddit
Sure Microsoft doesn’t care about you but the Microsoft partner sure does.
ingo2020@reddit
I think it’s less about being able to choke someone - and more about being able to CYA in a sense.
“Sorry boss. The CRM is having an issue right now with placing orders. Vendor is aware of the issue and is working on a fix. In the meantime , the most we can do is xyz”
Unless you were the one who sold management on the CRM in this instance, you’re not going to catch as much flak as you would if you had an in house, self hosted solution that your team is responsible for maintaining
The_Original_Miser@reddit
Very true. I'd 100% agree with the "vendor to blame" aspect. :)
itguy1991@reddit
If they could care less, why don't they?
Right-Big1532@reddit
It’s okay mate that mistake pisses me off as well and I’m saddened that the replies didn’t pick up on what you were actually saying.
CostaSecretJuice@reddit
Doesn’t matter. As long as there’s an official contract in place, leaders can say they did their due diligence.
Vexxt@reddit
Are you in leadership? Even small fry carry weight
waywardworker@reddit
What a weird attitude to have.
When things go bad I want a solution. Then I want to know why it went bad, and how we are going to avoid it in the future.
Code visibility gives me all of that. I can trace a fault through, see exactly what is wrong, how it mitigate it, where the fault came from, and can sometimes participate in ensuring that it doesn't reoccur.
Closed source I may get a fix, after an unknown period of time. I may get an explanation, if I'm really lucky it may even be true. I have zero visibility into their processes and zero assurance that something similar won't happen again next week.
Support is fantastic. And they are very good at promising that they will acknowledge your contact promptly. And then the promises seem to end... assurance on how long before a problem will be fixed, how many people will actually work on it, or that any decent information will be provided seems impossible to get. Managed services give you an SLA but the consequences of them breaching it is typically just that you don't have to pay them, which is something but it doesn't help much while it's broken, it's also hardly throat choking.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
You can't sue and open source project when it fails to live up to promises and causes real world problems for your company either.
There is no perfect solution most of the time, and at the end of the day it does matter what you can back up when push comes to shove. Having a corporation on the hook to help you fix it is not nothing.
superuserdonotdo@reddit
This is a terrible outlook from a CEO. I feel sorry for you.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
Owner, purposely not a CEO. And I wouldn't feel sorry for me. He's a fascinating guy who has had my back far more than any other C Suite level person ever has in my past career. There are far worse situations I could find myself in in the current world.
BarrySix@reddit
Is IT an exercise in passing the buck, or keeping things running?
Your company owner is an idiot.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
To answer your question, I think that is the essential question of life. And I would argue it's usually both, depending on the situation. Covering your own ass is not incompatible with owning up to mistakes.
asodfhgiqowgrq2piwhy@reddit
As I say, I'm gonna choke my chicken instead
Tymanthius@reddit
BBQ guys, is that you?
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
I might be missing a reference, but I would love BBQ...
Tymanthius@reddit
Guy I know worked at that company and they had that saying. It turns out it was a trigger he didn't know he had.
Sprucecaboose2@reddit
I assume it's a enough saying around bosses who like to "choke people", literally or figuratively. Mine is thankfully figurative so far!
yu210148@reddit
Support is a euphemism for having somebody to sue.
Not_MyName@reddit
Yep. Whose head is rolling when it goes wrong; and if the software is open-source and a community…. You’re the head that’s rolling
markusro@reddit
I wonder how many companies successfully sued? Normally, the other company shifts the blame either back or on somebody else.
not-at-all-unique@reddit
None, anyone who reads an EULA will have read about indemnity clauses and consequential loss.
The someone to sue idea is a myth perpetuated by those who do not know better.
thortgot@reddit
Gross negligence pierces those EULAs which is usually where it gets applied. Crowdstrike's outage is a classic example.
They had a contract that said their damages were up to the amount paid into their service. Quite a few companies got significant damage payouts that, allegedly, exceeded their amounts paid in on the basis of non disclosure and continued use. It's an off the record story told to me by 2 separate managers for medium/large enterprises.
RC_CobraChicken@reddit
No reason to sue unless the contractual obligation isn't met for how outages are handled.
I used to work for a Five 9s uptime(99.999%) DC, our contracts reflected guarantees on what uptime levels meant, how they were calculated, and our obligations in situations that were violations.
-rwsr-xr-x@reddit
Unless you use something like Ubuntu in the enterprise, where everything that ships with it, or is available from the repositories, is fully supported, secured, patched and indemnified.
Yuugian@reddit
Or just Somebody to ask. I had to open a ticket with Redhat recently for an issue that wasn't their fault, but they helped us figure it out. I could do that with Ubuntu enterprise license but it's not even available for Arch or Debian or Fedora.
So when this license is up for renewal, we aren't going with Arch or Debian or Fedora. Those are all solid, but we can't reach out to experts in a timeley manner
beren12@reddit
No, you cannot call Debian in in the middle of the night, but there are third-party support consultants that you can call in the middle of the night for Debian
bofh@reddit
So you're saying I need to onboard at least two vendors just to run one operating system and get support on it?
beren12@reddit
No, just one.
bofh@reddit
I see you don’t understand Enterprise procurement processes. No, it’s not just one.
igloofu@reddit
Why buy one, when you can buy two for twice the price!
Bright_Arm8782@reddit
Given the choice, I wouldn't have anything in my environment without a friendly voice being on the end of the phone when things go wrong.
rileyrgham@reddit
Voices of Humans still exist on support lines?
Bright_Arm8782@reddit
They do, and some of them aren't useless.
Mostly I don't want to implement something that comes back to me if it goes wrong.
flattop100@reddit
The other word you're looking for is 'liability.'
chuckmilam@reddit
Yet every single software license has some variation of this:
"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO...."
But yes, we're going to sue $MegaCorpWithMoreMoneyThanTheGDPOfMostCountries if we don't get satisfactory support for our problem.
Sure we are.
KingDaveRa@reddit
"Suepport"
MrGulio@reddit
Or someone that will pay someone else to get in their car to fix something.
akza07@reddit
Yup. There's a reason why Microsoft SQL servers & Oracle exist. Pointing fingers and blaming.
trueppp@reddit
And...they work...
Western_Gamification@reddit
No, I cannot believe that's a reason.
Cooleb09@reddit
and way too many shitty .net apps will only work on MSSQL.
Scot_Survivor@reddit
It’s all down to the ability for SLAs
irsupeficial@reddit
Huh? What stops anyone from SLA an open source software? :D
ZAFJB@reddit
So who is going to do something to meet that SLA?
irsupeficial@reddit
Let's see - the person/people/business behind the open source software?
Open source does not mean free, neither it implies it cannot have SLA, nor support, nor anything else which any enterprise "grade" software can. It is just open source. What's the issue? :)
bemenaker@reddit
Not just SLA but Liability.
ChknBall@reddit
This is a big part, especially when it comes to cyber liability insurance. Enterprises need to ensure their platforms will be compliant with the policy in the event of a breach.
Additionally, most enterprises will need to follow GRC in some form if they want to avoid auditing fines and industry compliance. Haven’t run into an open source platform that provides this service.
I have to point out that not all enterprises hate open source. With respect to OP, but their question is reductive. I’ve been able to convince C-suites to use open source solutions that they loved because it provided a cost saving measure in an area where compliance and support wasn’t required or high priority. Sure, most wouldn’t touch Linux for desktop due to user training or adoption rates, but as a server hosting an application or files? Certainly, as long as a provider was available with an MSA. Software like GIMP or Paint.net to replace expensive solutions from Adobe in areas where they just need to do internal design work? That’s an easy sell, as long as users are advised that they are on their own for support. How many enterprise appliances these days run on Linux and nobody bats an eye? You might be surprised as well.
So, this is my answer to OP’s question: There is no such thing as blind hatred for open source in enterprise. At least not in my experience. All that matters is one’s ability (or inability) to educate and sell the idea to executives about the business advantages. If one cannot communicate at least this much, they have no business being a sysadmin.
xsdc@reddit
Do you think everyone has as nuanced of a view as you have stated here? I have seen plenty of blind hatred - Maybe you just don't have much experience in enterprise scale customers - plenty will scream "buy vs build" then spend 5000 hours customizing a salesforce knockoff because they had to pay someone for it.
1esproc@reddit
My org has never successfully pursued a liability claim when a vendor fucks up. It is too much money, jurisdiction issues, whatever.
gangaskan@reddit
Yep, one team or person can go quick.
Or the project forks and you can get something else entirely
Comfortable_Gap1656@reddit
There exists proprietary software without any form of support. Some Open Source software has support and some of it is paid.
Imdoody@reddit
Support! Second that.
xeres01@reddit
AKA, a scapegoat to blame during the earnings call.
WraithSite@reddit
This guy really f̶u̶c̶k̶s̶/enterprises
Massive oversimplification below but:
When it’s decision making time after an incident and it’s you getting fired vs moving to a new vendor because of poor support what do you think most senior leadership will stand behind.
Plus for some open-source licensing introduces complexities which legal don’t like.
JaniceisMaxMouse@reddit
In all fairness.. Open source licensing doesn't even like themselves.
Linus Torvalds said it best.. The Free Software Foundation is like having three people at a meeting and one of them is crazy.
I'll let you guess who the crazy one is.
CatProgrammer@reddit
Stallman?
kenfury@reddit
Lessig is a bit interesting, but yea rms
JaniceisMaxMouse@reddit
More than just a little bit.. Yes.
CatProgrammer@reddit
You can get support contracts for open source software.
iheartrms@reddit
Been a professional Linux admin for 28 years. At some big companies including ServiceNow, Splunk, among others. They never had vendor support. And we never once needed it. A lot of the kinds of problems that you think you might want support for are caused by the closed nature of proprietary software where they keep their secrets and try to charge you for them. I briefly worked with a Redhat shop who paid for RHEL. Only reason I ever called support was to get help with a licensing problem which they caused.
I think looking for a throat to choke is unprofessional and it's not something I'm looking for in any employer if I want reliable infrastructure. Places I've worked were more focused on solutions than proactively looking for someone to blame.
I've never seen anyone successfully choke that other throat. What are you going to do, sue Redhat or Microsoft? Good luck, I've never seen it happen.
I'm a Linux server guy but even among our Windows desktop support folks, none of them call MS support. I don't even know if they can. When you buy windows does it come with a phone number? Not that I've ever seen. When they run into a problem they Google it just like everyone else.
If you really do want support for FOSS there is someone out there you can contract with for support for pretty much anything.
Ok-Light9764@reddit
This is it
OverByThere@reddit
What I've found from support is that it can sometimes take days for them to do a RCA, or even fix things that bring the service down, and we usually end up building a workaround. My boss keeps wanting us to go closed source, then gets annoyed when systems we can't debug go down.
Bagel-luigi@reddit
Sometimes 'days' is even extremely hopeful. Most times we go to MS for support, we're talking weeks.
anxiousinfotech@reddit
That's weeks without any actual solution in the end.
Bagel-luigi@reddit
Oh there will be a solution (or at least a decent workaround) that you eventually found yourself with no help from the external support besides "could you send us some more logs?", and then they'll happily close the ticket and ask you to rate their support after
rfisher23@reddit
Been fighting with a certain cyber security provider about integrations for months now, they don't even seem to know how it works.
Bagel-luigi@reddit
I don't want to just sound jaded and angry but I feel like most of these vendors/providers that offer 'support' only offer it because theoretically yes, to your superiors, you can blame the vendor if the support contract is there, but the vendor also doesn't particularly care cause they know how much cost/effort it'll be for your org to take their business elsewhere.
arvidsem@reddit
Support has almost nothing to do with them actually providing a solution. It's about it officially not being your fault that something is broken.
EraYaN@reddit
But if you have a well run business this is a lot less important than “oh my God there is 0 revenue for every minute we are down”. And good CEOs get that the blame game is unhelpful. A couple of days down time could mean many many millions in revenue lost.
GhostDan@reddit
Came to type this. "I have a ticket in to support and am waiting for a call back" is a quick way to get people off your back so you can do the actual troubleshooting and solve the issue before the tech calls (about 80% of the time for me)
beren12@reddit
To be fair, you can do this with open source projects too. It’s just the phone call bit is bullshit.
bfrown@reddit
Exactly
CaptainZippi@reddit
stueh@reddit
Have fun with that. Same shit happens with closed source. Workmate of mine once had a customer's ESXi host PSOD'ing every couple days for several weeks/months while VMware and HPE argued about the cause, and HPE finally agreed it was that driver and a couple weeks later provided a "bootleg" driver (that's actually what they called it!) to fix the problem.
Currently have a VDI customer who has a specific issue that basically a display scaling issue which has been there for years, with no resolution.
Tyr_Kukulkan@reddit
RedHat, SUSE, Canonical - "Are we a joke to you?"
They make all their money from support.
piorekf@reddit
From my experience, yes, Canonical is a joke. They botched so many things for us that I stopped counting. But we require Linux for what we do, Ubuntu was chosen long time ago, we built everything around it and corporation requires paid support, so we are stuck with them.
trail-g62Bim@reddit
Any chance a third party support solution would be acceptable? I would think there's plenty for Ubuntu.
Darthvaderisnotme@reddit
Makes no sense for the execs ¿Why use a third party? Hp supports HP, Dell supports Dell, but x supports Ubuentu... Red Hat it is
EraYaN@reddit
If you under the impression that Microsoft does a better job with Windows Server that the Linux guys do, I have terrible news for you. Unless you buy A LOT of MS stuff (like top 10 in your region) they will be even worse. Redmond based support is great but your spend is going to be insane.
Fox_and_Otter@reddit
Canonical's hiring practices are also a joke. I went through 3 interview stages with them, and they still wouldn't give me a salary range for the role. Hope they've changed, but I doubt it.
irsupeficial@reddit
One shall not speak the name of those who defaced Debian! :)
ElectroSpore@reddit
We had Redhat support for several linux VMs because redhat was one of only two distros supported for the app running on it.
Redhat subscription updates where LESS reliable than just using public repos / centos by far. We constantly had issues with VMs losing registration and Redhat blamed it on us not using THEIR virtualization platform instead of VMware at the time.
ExceptionEX@reddit
They aren't, but you have to admit in the whole ecosystem of opensource they represent a very very small minority that actually have an organization around them that provide support.
I can't tell you the number of times, we've used an opensource lib, only for interest in it to dry up and development stop. Then you either have to take on maintaining it, or rip it out and find a replacement, and refactor your code to function with whatever replace you found (if any)
I still love opensource, but there are dangers to it, so I get why corp, is resistant to its usage.
Clovis69@reddit
You mean IBM and yes their support is a joke
zxLFx2@reddit
I happen to know that Red Hat's support team, while they may or may not be a joke, is definitely still separate from IBM. As is their engineering org and product stragegy. Red Hat accounted for over half of IBM's profit growth last year, IBM is acutely aware that they have an anti-Midas touch when it comes to hurting their acquisitions, and they are trying to keep their hands off Red Hat's products as long as they're still a growth engine.
Tyr_Kukulkan@reddit
Shit, I forgot about that.
RikiWardOG@reddit
Yeah but that's "enterprise" open source. You're literally paying for the support. And that's the exception to the rule.
gangaskan@reddit
Closed but open sourced!
Mindestiny@reddit
This answer needs to be at the top and stay there.
Yes, I can absolutely hack together a firewall with some old hardware and an open source platform. But when it all goes to shit, who am I going to call to support it? "I'll just post a bug report on Github and hope someone answers" is not a feasible avenue for support when your production network is hard down and costing you millions of dollars.
BeltOk7189@reddit
Not to mention continuity.
You can hack some shit together but what if you get hit by a bus? Even if it's well documented some poor schmuck is going to come in with a completely different world of experience and be like "what the fuck..."
jaymz668@reddit
and who's going to support your hacked together solution when you are on vacation, or get a new job, or when IT is offshored, etc?
MrKixs@reddit
Vacation? what is this word? If they move IT off-shore, then that is their own fualt.
monoman67@reddit
Ha! .. you don't get a vacation.
abestheman@reddit
And legal "stuff."
Apprehensive-Pin518@reddit
exactly this. if you use an open support software and it doesn't work properly, in most cases there is no major support. and for the cases that there is, such as ubuntu, then the fact the code could have been edited by anyone is not a comforting thing.
RustyRapeaXe@reddit
Came to write a reply, but this is the correct one word answer.
When Production is down on a Saturday, Fortune 500 companies demand the system is restored ASAP. Get everybody on the line and fix it yesterday. If it ends up being some Perl module written by one guy who stopped supporting it 5 years ago, someone is getting fired. You better have enterprise software with live 24x7x365 support for any software you have installed.
webby-debby-404@reddit
I have never experience any follow up whatsoever on any of my requests for support, reported issues and feature requests. Our company's IT dept has the same experience.
nuclearpiltdown@reddit
Which is so funny to me because support is really just "we don't want to pay for competent people on our team because they're expensive." The majority of the "support" you get from most products is absolutely ass because THEY don't want to pay for competent people either!
totmacher12000@reddit
^this source use to work in enterprise.
perthguppy@reddit
So Ubuntu and redhat don’t have support?
Saying lack of support is a cop out. Every serious open source projects has at least one commercial sponsor, often of the same name, that offers support packages with SLAs that match on paper anything the enterprise vendors offer, and exceed it in reality.
It literally comes down to spend on sales reps. Enterprise vendors dump sickening amounts of money into sales, generally open source projects don’t spend anything on sales teams.
necrohardware@reddit
Linux on Desktop is a very expensive if you want to be compliant. With Windows and Mac you can use Intune, if you are an enterprise, you will get for free with a O365 account. There are tools for Linux that do that work, but then you need to spend extra to support Linux and Win/Mac, and have different rulesets, etc.
OP means more: Proxmox vs VMWare, containetd vs docker, gitlab(CE, selfhosted) vs github, pfSense vs Cisco/Juniper/etc, gcc vs intel compiler
hardolaf@reddit
The company that I work for has about 3x the number of Linux desktops as we do Windows desktops. The help desk teams are the inverse ratio in terms of size. Linux desktop has 1/3rd as many people supporting it compared to Windows desktop because Ubuntu and Rocky Linux actually works as baseline products unlike Windows which is a buggy mess.
segagamer@reddit
That just sounds like your Windows desktops aren't being managed properly more than anything else.
hardolaf@reddit
No, it's because we legitimately have basically zero issues with Linux desktops.
When I worked for a big defense contractor back in 2016-2018, it was a very similar story except it was slightly more unstable then. But even then, around 70% of Linux desktop tickets were exclusively due to issues with Nvidia GPUs having terrible drivers for Linux. But for everything else? Basically zero problems on Linux.
Heck when I worked IT for a mathematics department during college, our 11 Windows machines generated as many tickets from users as our about 700 Linux and MacOS desktops combined. Now sure, 6 of the 11 Windows machines were used by the least tech savvy members of the department. But the difference in the number and variety of issues being hit by users between OSes is staggering and Windows has constant problems.
segagamer@reddit
Nothing you said changes what I said. We have 40 Windows machines at our org and 20 Macs. Both generate the same amount of tickets, and 90% of them are more to do with things like the VPN, or general support.
If your getting that many tickets from Windows continuously, then you're not managing Windows properly. Are you doing stupid shit like running debloater scripts or something? What kind of tickets are you getting?
hardolaf@reddit
No. And a ton of tickets about random breakages every time a new update gets rolled out. Meanwhile, we've rolled Rocky Linux versions and Ubuntu versions with not even a peep.
segagamer@reddit
Well I don't know what do say. We've largely left our Windows PC's on auto update and nothing has ever broken for us, not even with 24H2.
necrohardware@reddit
Do you do ISO audits? Do you work with PI or PIIs? It's not about user enquirers, it's about proving on the audit that all sec updates are installed, that no side loaded users exist, that security policies are enforced, etc.
itsverynicehere@reddit
Lack of support isn't a cop out, it's a huge time soak and forces knowledge onto a very few people. Trying to run down every single possible issue through the debug phase on your own is an incredible waste of time.
Good luck with application support too. When the finger pointing begins, guess who gets blamed?
Couple that with 20,000 variants of each and every service, application support on their patches, the method of patching, all in constant flux and it's the opposite of the set it and forget it mentality.
I desperately wish this weren't the case but the same companies that have monopolized the markets are pushing unrequested changes so fast and furious it's impossible to deep dive into everything like you need to with OSS.
I personally believe that is their plan, same plan that keeps pushing us back to the mainframe model they replaced.
perthguppy@reddit
You’re missing the point. There is excellent vendor support in the open source ecosystem eg RedHat, Canonical, Oracle, SuSE, and that’s just for Linux.
itsverynicehere@reddit
I'm not sure I'm missing the point, the admins are the ones recommending the OS's. They are too busy, the problems generated at the desktop and application compatibility, functionality etc.. make it a hard sell to management. We're going allin on open source, is not just a marketing problem, it's a "execs don't care what tools you use, execs don't want to hear about user issues, and execs just want to do what everyone else is doing.
You get what you get with MS. Not a lot of "support" needed (or debate-ably offered/useful), that's kinda their whole thing is catering to the tech exhaustion and technical willful ignorance that is happening. (Ironically or strategically, that they more or less created too).
whatyoucallmetoday@reddit
Red Hat has commercial support in the form of RHEL. Fedora and CentOS have no commercial support. I’ve pushed to use RedHat in the gov’t agencies and commercial enterprises which use Linux. When they ask ‘why should we pay for an open source product’, I tell them is so there is a company support team to resolve any issues. With a non-commercial product, we would be left to the mercy of web searches and mailing lists to resolve any issue.
In the past 22 years, I’ve needed to use the Red Hat commercial support. Their managed kernel needed an upstream bug fixed for a network card we used.
spacelama@reddit
I had a ticket open for 2 years with them. I was surprised at the end when they actually incorporated the 1 line fix to ext3.c (which we found, not them in response to our endless stream of diagnostics in response to their "there's a new kernel out with changelogs that don't address this issue, can you please install before we'll offer to do anything else on your intermittent issue that only triggers every 4 months") into the upstream kernel and we didn't have to keep applying hotfixes to every kernel update. Because every single other experience with redhat support has ended with a 5 year delay then "EOL. WONTFIX".
whatyoucallmetoday@reddit
Yeah. The kernel mailing list nailed down the missing patch in a couple days. I had to custom roll my local kernel for a few months before RHT included the patch. I included the missing patch, oops log and successful output in my BZ report. The oops triggered much faster than 4 months. I think this was \~14 to 15 years ago.
perthguppy@reddit
Exactly my point, and yet I’m getting downvoted for pointing out open source is just as well supported as enterprise closed
SanFranPanManStand@reddit
Sure they do - that's why many corporations use them.
etzel1200@reddit
That is exactly why RHEL is dominant at firms that want support, vs. cheaper alternatives.
VNiqkco@reddit (OP)
May be i'm wrong but i've seen close source software where they charge also extra, sometimes lots, for support, is it really that expensive to support an open source?
discosoc@reddit
It's about accountability, not cost.
ccatlett1984@reddit
To phrase it differently, I want a "throat to choke" when shit breaks
surveysaysno@reddit
"One throat to choke"
If your boss can't throw under the bus for all your problems your boss could be to blame.
You can get support for open source, RHEL is a good example, but if you don't have a support contract with someone who can "make it right" aka fix the problem, you can end up owning the blame for not having support.
As an example, if you build your website on a fork of couchdb because it has a feature mainline doesn't have and your website hits a bug, how do you get that bug fixed and maintained? What SLA are you getting from the fork maintainer? Best effort? What do you tell your C level? "Some guy said he'll take a look"?
OR go Oracle with a guarantee 4hr response on P1 issues. Sure you might not get it fixed any faster, but you can tell your C level you had the SVP of enterprise web solutions on the phone this morning and "its priority one".
alerighi@reddit
Your boss should care that the system is operational, and that no money is wasted on useful licenses. For the price you pay Oracle licenses you can pay an experienced developer that works on fixing PostgreSQL bugs, that if there is an issue with the DBMS fixes it instantly, that can add new features, etc. And this person you pay not only benefits your company but also the open source community.
Money you spend on Oracle goes 1% on development, probably, and 99% on marketing, sales, management, etc.
surveysaysno@reddit
I agree but that doesn't seem to be how management thinks about things.
$600k/yr vendor support, thats smart insurance
$200k/yr developer supporting Postgres, that developer doesn't even do anything, downsize.
TheITMan19@reddit
Such an awful phrase that “one throat to choke”. Heard it for a long time in the industry but never a phase I will adopt. To me it suggests the customer will resort to violence and/or aggression when they require support. Instead I just use “single point of contact” instead.
derango@reddit
I mean, have you dealt with broadcom recently?
arvidsem@reddit
Violence against Broadcom is self defense
svideo@reddit
I'm not here to advocate for violence but also BRING ME THE SKULL OF HOCK TAN
Key-Organization6350@reddit
The chance the customer will resort to violence is thankfully low in most industries, but not always zero.
Ur-Best-Friend@reddit
The way I've seen it used is usually not in reference to the customer, but to leadership inside your own company.
If you're using something like a cloud service that you pay a monthly maintenance fee for, and something important breaks, you can submit a ticket, and then it basically becomes someone else's problem for the most part.
When something breaks in your open source software, you'll get a ton of shit even if you fix it within a day's time, if the software is important for the functioning of your company. And if you can't figure out the cause of the problem, the tool stays down and the company is potentially forced to overpay for a fast implementation of a closed source alternative, you might quite literally lose your job over it. Even if the tool worked without a single problem for years before that point.
bingle-cowabungle@reddit
It sort of depends. Support also means someone to hold accountable if something is wrong with the tool. Companies aren't paying vendors to fix issues happening on the vendor's end.
_skimbleshanks_@reddit
Okay, so? Who do you call when an open source software breaks or doesn't support a critical need anymore? Some anonymous team of devs, many of which have likely abandoned the project? What do you do when new devs take over and project and take it in a different or worse direction? Do you really think anybody supporting an open source project that isn't formalized behind a real company is going to allow themselves to be on the hook for your issues and show up to your daily calls or promise fix times?
As a counterpoint to your post: did you try thinking of absolutely any reason why people do use closed source software that wasn't "companies = stupid"?
finobi@reddit
Support = some one else to blame and demand answers for.
Gold-Swing5775@reddit
Yes liability is the reason. I guess you could explain the cost of licensed product vs open source beforehand.
No-Author1580@reddit
Having someone else take on liability is expensive, and so is their time. For commercial applications, this is more likely to even out over 100,000 subscribing customers than for Open Source products.
Then again, most enterprise subscriptions are more expensive for a reason.
samtresler@reddit
In a word. Yes.
I have a secondhand story of an early conference for a content management system where some corporation was interested and they raised this question about support.
Guy looked at all the core developers and said, "What keeps you from just developing whatever feature you want instead of supporting your customers".
Everyone laughed and said "what customer?"
He said he wanted to invest a lot in the software, and if they wanted company X's involvement then he was their customer. "If I have a problem, you have a problem".
One developer looked him dead in the eye and said, "No. I think you still have the problem."
The truth is most open source projects wind up with a set of core developers who chart the course of the project, a whole lot of contributors whose chanhes need to go through the core group, and if it gains popularity anyone in either group is in high demand, because if someone with money wants to use the product they want someone in house to support it.
And if they can't have that, the developers get bored or move on eventually and the project stagnates, or new core developers take it down an unpredictable path.
But when you're trying to pick a software solution to last a decade or three, you want predictability in what you're choosing.
There are exceptions, of course, and both camps have merit. But when you can't compel someone to an SLA, then you need a high value guru. If you can't get that, the software won't be considered for 'serious' use.
TurboFool@reddit
This is everything. I can't tell you how much the difference between good support and no support makes. The difference between Googling for hours and cobbling together information online that vaguely hints at the cause of my issue, and me being able to call or submit a ticket to a company we pay for good support with and having a technician immediately say, "yes, here's what's going on. Let's fix it." Even when it's not that clear cut, it's 100% THEIR problem to solve (unless they can point to what problem it is of ours, in which case, still job well done), and the timeline and clock is on them, not me. I don't have to be an expert, because we pay THEM to be.
dengar69@reddit
"Vendor has been contacted"
usernamedottxt@reddit
Really that simple tbh.
wason92@reddit
This, BUT they don't mean good/useful/effective support, just something that is not inhouse.
Support that you can charge your company through the nose to not fix an issue that wouldn't have happened had you been self hosting some decent FOSS thing.
Took me a bit to catch on, enterprise isn't about making the systems as good as they can be for as little as can be it's about making as possible someone else's fault.
maximumtesticle@reddit
Really not sure why anyone else even bothered to reply, this is the answer.
alerighi@reddit
I don't think so, try contacting the support. I've had more luck opening pull request on GitHub on open source project, than contacting support of closed source software.
And in the end if you have an open source software you can fix the problem your own, if you have a closed source software and the developer doesn't fix your problem, you are stuck with it. And there are the cases where the company that builds the software goes bankrupt, and you are stuck with a software that nobody supports and you can't even go to other people to fix it.
To me closed source software is a big risk because you tie typically something important to your business (and I'm not talking about Windows, but to a ERP software that managers every aspect of your company, for example) to a company that if that company for some reason no longer exists or no longer wants to offer you support... what you do?
ZippySLC@reddit
Not necessarily. I'm also a big fan of open source software and use it where I can, but I'm not a programmer and if there was some obscure bit of the code that creates a race condition and crashes my environment I'm kind of SOL - especially if it's some edge case that only happens in my environment.
At least with corporate support I can open up a ticket and have a reasonable expectation that it'll at least be acknowledged and addressed. In my experience with open source software if the developers are overworked, salty, or dgaf anymore your issue is less likely to be taken seriously. I've seen people involved in open source development be downright abusive to people asking for help. In a situation where critical business functions are impacted do you really want to deal with that?
jeversol@reddit
And legal liability — someone they can sue.
cats_are_the_devil@reddit
Regulations demand support. If I have one dude at the company that is an SME for product xyz and he's on vacation that's a huge problem.
If I can't call support for that issue it's a failure on my part as a leader.
netrixtardis@reddit
not only support, but also liability. When shit breaks, or gets compromised - they have a company to sue for damages
No_Promotion451@reddit
The lack thereof
TryLaughingFirst@reddit
Yup, to extend further for others, that's not just calling for help. This also means that patches, updates, fixes, releases, etc. are developed in a timely manner, (semi)predictable, stable, and properly tested -- or at least more likely to be.
LankToThePast@reddit
That's a bingo, half of the weight for any software purchase anywhere I've been is "What is the support agreement?"
sea_5455@reddit
aka blamesourcing.
"It's not our fault it's $SUPPORT_VENDOR who's the problem!"
Artwertable@reddit
*CrowdStrike left the chat*
They did nothing for us.
Defconx19@reddit
This is it, if there is no vendor support it doesnt go into production. Rare exceptions but its the general rule.
Satoshiman256@reddit
Also, no support
thedudesews@reddit
random_character-@reddit
Came here for this comment.
👆
bingle-cowabungle@reddit
The only thing that needs to be said.
phoenixofsun@reddit
I don't think enterprises hate it. But, it boils down to an enterprise is going to pay regardless of open-source or closed-source. Open source, they will pay in man-hours to get it up and running and keep it running. Closed-source, they are mostly going to pay the licensing costs.
Most enterprises go the closed-source route because their staff are already busy and don't have the man-hours to spare. And, hiring additional staff is more expensive than the licensing cost.
sys-eng-adm@reddit
Support and you don't have any one to blame/sue if it goes wrong.
---Cloudberry---@reddit
Familiarity and personal experience
Marketing
And yeah - support, and perceived reliability.
I don’t think it’s hated as much as not as heavily pushed as “the answer”. OS aside, big organisations may use all kinds of different software and some of that could be open source with too much risk. But someone has to know about it and decide in favour of it. Who is advertising free open source software?
Most people don’t care if it’s open source, businesses just need something that works.
Dave_A480@reddit
Some people get a warm fuzzy paying for vendor support.
I wouldn't say open source is hated per se (I mean, at least for the big tech firms it's the core of their business in almost every case)....
But back when CentOS was still a thing, I had one employer who questioned why we weren't using RHEL for a particular project instead because then we could 'get support'.
Did not say 'well that's what you're paying me for'.... Did think it....
Fuckspez42@reddit
Corporate IT has a lot of interesting challenges, but the most prescient one for this conversation is ever-changing needs dictated by higher-ups that don’t necessarily know what they’re asking for.
Imagine you put together a Linux/FOSS setup for all employees that meets everyone’s needs perfectly. Then, one day, your CEO gets wined and dined by a Microsoft rep, and starts demanding that your company use Microsoft Teams. You can make Teams work on Linux, but it’s more of a hack than a solution, and is prone to break when updates are applied. This makes you appear incompetent, despite the fact that it was the CEO who demanded the change that broke everything.
Say what you will about Windows, but there’s far less friction in running software that companies typically want to use in Windows than there is in Linux or MacOS. I don’t like it, but it’s true.
Centimane@reddit
It's wild reading all these saying it's support. Microsoft products all offer support - which isn't worth a damn - and it still gets bought.
The biggest reason - and the real reason any company should be worried about: Free Software Foundation V Cisco Systems Inc
The Free Software Foundation sued Cisco on the grounds Cisco had violated the terms of the GPL with firmware on devices they sold. Cisco settled out of court to fix their violations and donate an undisclosed amount to FSF. Open source licenses have requirements that you are bound to. The effort to understand and adhere to those requirements is the "cost" of using Open source software - theyre never really free. If the effort to understand and adhere to an open source license is greater than the cost of an off the shelf product (which usually have much simpler licensing terms) then it can be more economical to purchase software. Some companies don't even consider the open source licensing and are open to problems if they were discovered.
rileyg98@reddit
Simpler terms? Have you READ Microsoft's licensing?
Also, GPL V2 is: if you provide a copy, even modified, you have to make source available. It's not difficult, cisco was just deliberately avoiding it.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
Coping doesn't change the fact that zero support and and support available is superior risk mitigation.
Centimane@reddit
Commercial products often have terrible support that doesn't mitigate any risk.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
Zero support is never better than bad support.
Centimane@reddit
I disagree. Bad support will waste your time and still not help you.
At least with zero support you resort to solving the problem yourself right away instead of losing time to a pointless support ticket.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
lol cope however you like. you will never be relevant.
bulliondawg@reddit
It's an ecosystem problem. MS Office is a must and Windows is most economical way to run it. And now you need a way to teams to collaborate and share those files. Perpetual licenses are very expensive and subscription has accounting benefits (OpEx favored over CapEx). So now you have E3 licenses for SharePoint and Office. But now you need a way to manage these windows devices. E3 has Intune included. So now you are a full Microsoft shop, all because people need to open excel spreadsheets without trouble. And I hate to admit it because I hate SharePoint but there's really no competent replacement for it.
And sysadmins tend to be overworked these days, expected to wear a dozen hats. open source products tend to be very DIY oriented. You are expected to have to dive in, learn it then build it out in your environment and figure out how to work around the quirks. And if anything breaks or doesn't work right it's in you. Or, you can just buy some shit that's supposed to "just work" and have less in your plate. and if it doesn't, well at least I got someone to blame.
Drakoolya@reddit
Liability bro. Liability! Has nothing to do with security and has everything to do with risk.
ProCommonSense@reddit
So many open source projects lack any form of value in the support chain.
I don't need a smart ass on the support page of a git repository telling me I'm stupid for not knowing that the workaround for a known bug is contained in a forum posted 3 years ago that still reads "will be fixed sooner or later"
ranfur8@reddit
This. 100 times this.
In my eyes, I don't pay for the licence, I pay for the support that comes with it.
Tmoncmm@reddit
This and the post above exactly!
You’re paying for the commitment of the “greedy companies that ‘over charge’” to actually develop and support the software. Open source can become abandon ware at any time.
master_reboot@reddit
Because sea level consists of a bunch of morons who know nothing about technology, only how to run a business.
AfternoonMedium@reddit
Enterprises are all about risk transference of non-core functionality , not outcomes & ownership. Paying money is perceived as part of transferring risk, particularly non-technical leaders without experience in risk management (which is almost all) “Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft” is a mantra. (It’s also technically false, but it’s mostly true).
MrPipboy3000@reddit
Support and liability.
AlexisFR@reddit
Because free software is socialism and we don't like that in companies.
ZY6K9fw4tJ5fNvKx@reddit
We call it agile...
Angelworks42@reddit
On Windows Open source projects often don't have any code signing or versioning meta data. Sometimes they break rules on client inventory as well - or the apps don't install properly as system because they rely on shell cars that don't exist as system user.
That said I don't hate that kind of software - I just recognize that it was made by Linux heads, fix their problems and move on.
SDN_stilldoesnothing@reddit
I consulted for an Org that was trying to un-fuck their entire IT department from opensource.
They had hired these group of guys in the mid-2000s that wanted to do everything opensoruce. Server, storage, Voip, desktop, office software, firewalls, the whole thing end to end. The only think that wasn't open source was their networking.
Then one by one as the guys would resign or retire management found out that so many aspects of their IT were managed by that one guy and the other team mates didn't know that part of the system. and when they went to hire from the street few people wanted to job because they either didn't know that open source tool or couldn't figure out what that first guy did.
Last time I checked they just ripped out the last PFsense firewalls.
brokensyntax@reddit
Open Source is fantastic, a lot of enterprises want to know they have a vendor they can blame if there's a business impact (some kind of SLA.)
Sometimes you can get this from Open Source implementer groups, or paid support, but generally its "at your own risk" software, and enterprises are risk averse.
Best_Taste_5467@reddit
People suck at their job. They would rather buy something that they can get support for than have to use their brain a bit. I ran into a dude that literally had every aspect of his network outsource to 3rd parties. I was really confused on wtf he did all day. Go over contracts?
pobruno@reddit
The statement is wrong. Companies love opensource, just see that the biggest opensources are from private companies.
lilelliot@reddit
There's open source and "open source". I used to run the enterprise apps org for a F500 and we did a massive migration away from a MSFT stack to FOSS options from around 2009-2012. Everything that was .Net, MSSQL, Windows was either redeveloped or deprecated and replaced with Java/JS, PostrgreSQL, Linux.
When CIOs and other IT leaders "hate" open source, it's not directed at things like Rocky Linux (or CentOS before it) or PostgreSQL, or even Apache projects like Airflow, Beam or Kafka. It's aimed at single developer projects where everything is best effort, the project might disappear overnight, and the entire reason for using it in the first place is that you don't have your own devs on staff who know how (or have time) to do the same thing from scratch. Lots of FOSS software is really simple and basic, but without support or continuity (like code escrow) guarantees it's a non-starter for business critical / mission critical / regulated workloads. This all makes 100% sense, but it's resolvable by IT leaders and FOSS project owners with appropriate licensing -- or paid support.
Heck, when I was doing the stuff I mentioned above, we used CentOS for dev/test but used RHEL for prod/HA -- just because support.
carlwgeorge@reddit
This is a common pattern, but outdated. Red Hat now gives customers free RHEL in non-production environments.
https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/developer-subscription-for-teams-overview
lilelliot@reddit
Yeah, I'm aware (I think SuSE does the same, but I'm not sure about Ubuntu). Back when this was happening (2009-2012) that wasn't the case. Thanks for clarifying for readers.
Ok_Bathroom_4810@reddit
Companies don’t like GPL because it is difficult to work with, but they are generally ok with MIT and Apache licensed software.
brokenpipe@reddit
So many have already said it but it comes down to support.
I'm a big fan of open source. I've used it to monitor systems, I've used it to test out new software, run CI/CD pipelines, etc. However if there is no company and/or enterprise funding the open source, then all it is someone's hobby. It is always secondary, so I'll never put it in the critical path on where the business generates income. No different then in the years prior I ran CentOS on D/T but RHEL in Prod.
carlwgeorge@reddit
This is a common pattern, but outdated. Red Hat now gives customers free RHEL in non-production environments.
https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/developer-subscription-for-teams-overview
brokenpipe@reddit
Yup, you're absolutely right. Which is great that they do that!
Also goes to show my age in when I ran prod environments in anger for the last time ;-).
Flabbergasted98@reddit
Support and accountability.
Open source is absolutely amazing... Until something breaks or a vulnerability is found.
I had to have a chat with my development team just last week over why their servers were suddenly talking to china. They had no Idea.
The answer?
Open source.
Famous-Touch-4580@reddit
I think it’s a mix of reasons. Enterprises often worry about support and accountability, with closed source, there’s usually a vendor contract and clear responsibility if something goes wrong. Open source can feel riskier if there’s no guaranteed support or if the community around a project isn’t strong enough. That said, open source can be incredibly secure and flexible when managed well, like you said with the SolarWinds example showing closed source isn’t immune either. It’s really about how it’s implemented and maintained rather than open vs closed source alone.
Expensive-Rhubarb267@reddit
Because at 2AM when production is down you don’t want to hear “oh yeah, we have a really great forum…”
Comfortable_Gap1656@reddit
Then use something with support?
Open source don't mean free of charge
HoboGir@reddit
"We take support questions on our Discord!"
Expensive-Rhubarb267@reddit
2020: Person describing literally the exact issue I'm having.
2024: "anyone find a fix for this?"
NoCrapThereIWas@reddit
"Use the search function, don't start a new thread"
Or my favorite
"This helped me!" [img from photobucket or some other deleted/deactivated service] and then 400 people quoting the deleted image as "wow 100%" with no one typing it out.
aes_gcm@reddit
That is outright infuriating.
ThinkMarket7640@reddit
Every “enterprise support” I’ve experienced was absolutely worthless.
Professional_Chart68@reddit
Actually VMware was quite good. Literally saved our cluster for a few times on the weekend, and at night hours. And reaction time wise like less then an hour
mister_wizard@reddit
WAS....not so much anymore. Dell enterprise support for the EMC line of products so far is still good IMO except when it comes to hardware support, they send some questionable people.
hurpederp@reddit
100% this.
gundog48@reddit
For the low price of £50/user/month you can get the Small Business Experience where support is a potentially-human chatbot and you must pray they do not alter their API, features or pricing any further!
The problem is that business don't really know the difference between 'support' and support. Sometimes what could very easily be some relatively simple custom software, or a suitably customised open-source solution, ends up becoming a house of cards of SaaS providers and having to manage all these additional points of failure. Or even in cases where there's no added complexity, when the business see's 'support', they think 'when warehouse system no work phone provider and man in suit will fix', or even just 'some support must be better than no support with open-source!'.
But then I've seen huge amounts of money being spent on external providers with a good image who will implement non-standard solutions and have inadequate support, if you're lucky they may have a forum which feels like victims looking out for each other. Or they implement an open-source or otherwise widely-used solution, then proceed to modify it in the most bizarre, ungodly and proprietary ways, provide no documentation, and often remove some of the ways you may be able to redeem it in the honest goal of 'simplifying the UI'. One of these was a booking system where I used to work. Something so standard with many ways we could implement it. It ended up getting done as part of a local company doing the website, because they showed up with a few guys and a presentation, they offer support, great, they're the website people! What you actually get are weeks of furious emails because something is broken, no meaningful documentation or technical information going on, but the same dudes in suits have turned up and had 2 meetings about it, until me and my friend are off the production line and picking through the incomprehensible, uncommented shit that abused WordPress to such an extent that meant pretty much any changes to the site had to be done via edits to this code, and we can't even get support on Reddit because this is bespoke garbage. Ultimately, we were able to determine that the names of the events cannot be changed using the UI, the way that users were told to make changes to all other content on the site, due to the code that displays the booking product info + booking calendar does so by displaying the info of a particular SKU, which it looks for by looking for a fucking item description string! I guess they just thought we'd never change any of our event product names, add new ones, or fix the capitalisation error in one of the product names, which is what caused it to break!
Sometimes it is the business not really understanding that they're not willing to pay enough for the kind of support they envision, what they are able to pay for is basically solo-dev level of support, but even some support must be better than no support, right? But even when they do pay top-dollar, and are legitimately trying to do the right thing by seemingly reducing responsibility and workload on an already overstretched IT, they can still ultimately get crappy support that does nothing to reduce the workload! I knew their support would be shit because there's not enough margin in it to pay for both good support and 3 briefcase bois rocking up in 3 separate cars to ~~make the sale~~ do the consultation! But small businesses are really vulnerable to Terminal Technical Deficit when they lose the experience needed to know who's tech advice they should take, who they should consult with, who they should employ. We should listen to advice, but at the same time everyone knows better than their mechanic's advice because they're just trying to sell them parts, and there's a lot more bullshit-merchants in this industry than there are running repair shops!
But pretty much any online service where you're not big enough of a customer to be 'partner' or get a point of contact just boils down to arbitrary limitations, lack of any kind of 'business logic', a support bot and a forum. The feature you need is a simple export or minor customisation to make something work and you find that it's the most upvoted feature suggestion and has been for the last 6 years. You can't talk to anyone and when shit goes wrong you can only speculate on the forums with the 1,000 kindred souls in the same boat.
Site-Staff@reddit
Thats the key. Support.
gamebrigada@reddit
I've had several issues on github that had more complex issues resolved faster than simply issues with 6 digit annual support contracts. One cool part of OpenSource is that you OFTEN get a stack trace of a crash, and can do a quick search to see where the issue is. Then it takes all of 5 seconds to resolve. With closed source.... no stack trace, no way to trace it out.... you have tiers and tiers of support people just to narrow it down, then open a ticket with actual engineers that will give you a workaround for now and it'll make it into the next release. The support is totally different. I do agree that you need technical people supporting FOSS systems. But there are companies out there that offer it, and they will OFTEN beat anyone elses support just because its FOSS.
spacelama@reddit
Which is funny, because my trackrecord with getting timely bug fixes via bugreports.debian runs at far greater than 50%, but redhat? 2 years minimum wait to fix so far, and a success rate of about 5%.
I prefer running Free Software because there's a hope in hell I can get my problems fixed.
Pallidum_Treponema@reddit
As much as I love and prefer Debian, they would not have sent over a team of engineers across the world on Christmas Day for a critical bugfix on a production system.
Mind you, we were a very important high prestige client for them and the hardware vendor, where there would've been a huge amount of negative press for them both if the issue hadn't been fixed quickly.
The issue turned out to be a race condition in the kernel for a NIC we were the first in the world to deploy in production. We had a team on location in Europe, plus I don't know how many engineers working in the US sacrificing their holidays to diagnose and fix our issue. This level of support will never happen again, but it did happen that one time.
tankerkiller125real@reddit
So long as your using actively maintained open-source I've found that the authors/community are more than willing to provide support. Sometimes there is a delay of a few hours, sometimes not, but there's almost always some sort of well reasoned well thought out response, and if it is bug related usually it's patched pretty quickly, not same day or anything (although sometimes), but usually by the next release, or release after if it's a significant enough bug with no work arounds.
New_Enthusiasm9053@reddit
For the amount enterprises pay for some closed source you could put the authors of Foss tools on retainer.
Not to mention the business continuity risk. Redis went closed source and AWS had a fork in months that was FOSS.
But VMware hikes prices and you're fucked.
Arguably popular FOSS is therefore much safer than closed source.
radenthefridge@reddit
They didn't fix it right away, but I did get Redhat to admit their docs were wrong and update their site with how the process actually behaved. That was pretty cool, but also Rhel6 so not useful anymore.
Expensive-Rhubarb267@reddit
To be clear, I have no hate against running open source. We run serveral critical services on various Linux distros.
But you need the in-house expertise to carry you when things go wrong.
sobrique@reddit
Agreed. That's a much higher cost than a lot of places really recognise and consider.
And so they are all too prone to seeing a 'too large/too expensive' IT department, compared to place that instead spend the money on vendor support contracts, and see opportunities for downsizing.
It's not always more expensive, but it's also not always cheaper, and a lot depends on 'acceptable' levels of risk to the business vs. the cost.
Once you have a pool of in-house expertise, you've an element of sunk cost too - you can probably take on a few more things that needs that expertise without significant additional costs (because you had some overcapacity anyway for coverage reasons, didn't you?)
Key-Pace2960@reddit
I don't even think it's that, I'll take a good forum over let's say Microsoft's support hell hole any day.
But it's more so that if Microsoft fucks up theres is someone you can hold accountable to fix the mess.
anonaccountphoto@reddit
"Hello this is Radjinidah from SAP Support can you please send us unrelated logs, rollback windows updates from the past 6 weeks and follow those 5 KBAs that have nothing to do with your issue" is much better.
sigma914@reddit
Sure, but you have someone you're paying who you can call and receive no useful info from
Top_Boysenberry_7784@reddit
Some of the larger open-source products do have options for paid support. The biggest open source headache I have is everywhere I go I am one of only a couple or I am the sole linux support. Since many open source softwares run on linux this is a roadblock for some items as lack of internal support. I know this is different in some companies but everywhere I go it seems to be a bunch of people that are afraid to do anything outside of Windows.
alerighi@reddit
Because you take up the phone, call Microsoft, and think they will solve the issue instantly? Good luck.
To everyone that takes this argument in favor of proprietary software, I have yet to see a story where you called Microsoft or whatever and they fixed the problem on the phone. Because it does not exist, even because Microsoft doesn't have access to your infrastructure, and the best thing they can do, proven that its one of their bugs, is to release a fix in the next days, not instantly at 2AM in the morning.
While if you use open source software, you have internally the tools to fix the problem your own, without waiting for Microsoft or an external company to act. You get a bug at 2AM that needs urgent fixing? Call a developer and ask it to fix and deploy it. Of course you have to have the skills internally, but a company should value more building the skills to operate on software internally, rather than paying probably much more to buy software from external companies that maybe works on fixing it instantly.
timbotheny26@reddit
Oh my God, I'd chuck my computer out the fucking window.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
Instead you can hear crickets chirp while your P2 support ticket gathers dust after you found a bug they have no interest in fixing or can't understand.
Or they close the ticket with "not a critical bug, won't fix until next major version" - looking at you, Redhat.
Brugauch@reddit
Or a documented bug, but they will not change it and ask you to code if you want the commit. I totally understand that they work for "free" and you should expect nothing, but in production you can't hope for a fix, you paid for a support who will fix their shit if you paid them. We have often paid for software who write code for us.
isuxirl@reddit
And shortly after that you read RTFM.
Comfortable_Gap1656@reddit
I think the comments here show exactly why it is hated. A lot of your more "seasoned" sysadmins come from a time when Microsoft was spreading anti foss anti open standard propaganda.
Some Foss stuff has full commercial support with a company backing its development. Some stuff is just a few hobbyists making something useful. Choose software based on business needs. Don't assume all Foss is the same. I personally favor Foss stuff as it tends to give me the most control but that's not always the case.
antihippy@reddit
It's not hated. Tons of open source is used.
Why do sysadmins like myself find the open source community frustrating? You'd be surprised at some of the responses: gatekeeping, poor support, a lack of good UX, fractured ecosystems, the karen from accounts problem(or hr or senior management), lack of coherency.
I also think relying on people giving their time for free is a massive mistake. People's priorities change but it's also a form of exploitation.
But despite this tons of open source is used. We run Linux servers, app services etc. depends on what you mean really.
I'm not putting Linux in front of end users, especially because most of them work from home & I'd have to support it.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
The key benefit of open source is transparency.
The key downside is its nearly impossible to monetize.
my_name_isnt_clever@reddit
People creating free software of their own free will is exploitation? But 40 hour work weeks at jobs we hate is totally fine? You have some odd priorities.
antihippy@reddit
Call me old fashioned but I think people should be rewarded for their work.
You're the one bringing up the 40hrs thing.
FarmboyJustice@reddit
Your problem is you see no possible rewards other than money.
my_name_isnt_clever@reddit
I promise the people contributing to FOSS projects don't mind. It's bizarre to frame free will to make and share software as exploitation. Especially when almost every working class person is exploited every day of their working life.
Random-Poser-@reddit
A lot of companies don’t have the processes, talent, or time to handle the technical debt and documentation associated with Open-Source applications.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of open source.
However, Close source is more turn-key and requires less time to tailor it to a workflow.
shadovvvvalker@reddit
To add.
If enterprise weighed the benefits of open source higher than the challenges of open source, there would be no cloud either. They run on the same principle. Spending money to offload responsibility.
ZorakOfThatMagnitude@reddit
That's a bit of an oversimplification. Especially considering how many enterprise solutions run on open source at some point in their stack.
Enterprise loves open source, uses open source, but buys open source packaged as services so they can focus on their own workflows and tool chains.
Few places are building from scratch when it's ready off the shelf.
tankerkiller125real@reddit
Every firewall with VPN capabilities I've ever seen is literally just OpenVPN packaged up in a fancy GUI (or more recently Wireguard). Most firewalls take it even further than that and basically the whole damn thing is just a bunch of open-source products smashed together with a GUI or CLI interface tossed on top. It's only when you get into the extreme high performance ASIC level firewalls that they start using custom software, and even then most of it is based on open-source tooling.
ZorakOfThatMagnitude@reddit
A bunch of Citrix's VM platform was(probably still is) build on the Xen platform as well.
gehzumteufel@reddit
Citrix has never been shy about that fact. They've been huge contributors to the Xen hypervisor. And it wouldn't be where it is today without their contributions and commercial re-use. Literally every open source hypervisor has the same result. Big corporate sponsor adds tons of things they want at the baseline and the whole community benefits.
ZorakOfThatMagnitude@reddit
I had a Citrix contractor/instructor with a corporate-sized ego(literally showing pictures in I think a T-45 in his intro slides, talking about how he flies jets for a hobby), literally yell me down for answering "Xen in Citrix sauce" to his question about what was their product under the hood. Rather than screen shot my terminal session showing the Xen version on our citrix servers, I just let it go...
Glad to hear the rest of Citrix is not shy about it...
gehzumteufel@reddit
Those kinds of assholes always exist unfortunately.
Random-Poser-@reddit
I’m not writing a dissertation. It’s a common reason for a lot of companies. Not the only reason. Just offered a single answer in the sea of many applicable answers.
ZorakOfThatMagnitude@reddit
Perhaps not a dissertion, but the distillation saying that closed source is more turn-key is fallacious because it's not closed source that companies buy these days, it's services. The services don't open source all their secret sauce, sure, but it's getting increasingly difficult to find services that don't use open source at some level.
Perhaps it's better to say: Buying services is more turn-key than building the service in-house with the same components, allowing more time to focus on tailoring the service to your company's workflows.
That would be a more defensible statement. The number of services using closed source products is dropping because, frankly, there's no money is trying to sell closed source software when everyone's trying to sell the end product that is made with the software and the open source software was often better, if not as robust as the closed source solutions.
Even MS open-sourced their .NET platform because 1) it makes it easier to drive integrators to Entra as a platform to make and sell their services rather than go elsewhere.
Jtalbott22@reddit
You can literally get anything sorted out by command line, a couple of debug sessions, and ChatGPT now. Who needs support to tell them to use the calculator to figure it out?
barryoff@reddit
I often find the proprietary software has worse documentation than open source.
nullbyte420@reddit
They have great documentation, it's just for execs and not for you.
derickkcired@reddit
And by documentation you mean sales decks.
nullbyte420@reddit
Yes
admlshake@reddit
CIO: "I was just on their support page and I think I found the solution to our issue. Here is the link"
Tech: *clicks link* "Product just works. If there is an issue, tell tech to click link. Tech will see, our product just works."
Catsrules@reddit
Not only documentation but cases/issues as well. I love how I can just search the cases on Github. 9 times out of 10 someone already had my issue or something very close to it and I can see their solution and fix it. Or comment on the case and say I am having the same issue and we can all work together and try and solve it.
Vs the traditional support. I have to open a case, tell them about my problem, send logs and whatever they required. Hope they don't ghosted me.
I get there are reason the vendor and honestly their customers may not what cases like this to be browser able but it is super nice for troubleshooting.
ScreamingVoid14@reddit
There's a RADIUS bug that, last I checked, is about to start high school. Just because someone has the issue doesn't mean it is actually getting fixed, just a decade of "just restart the service when this happens."
knightofargh@reddit
Golang has entered the chat.
Complete documentation which is terse to the point of uselessness.
silence036@reddit
The go docs are usually completely missing examples or explanations for what a field represents, which is the only things I'd really want out of them
knightofargh@reddit
I’d take examples. That would be great.
Having to stare at a func that references two structs while trying to remember pointer handling gets old.
It’s even better when every online tutorial is years out of date.
Joe-Cool@reddit
Reminds me of: {{ Fill in the Synopsis }}
it's still there: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.servercore.sconfig/?view=windowsserver2025-ps
emanuele232@reddit
With good documentation there is no need for support :/
I_FUCKIN_LOVE_BAGELS@reddit
Gotta sell support contracts somehow ;)
Random-Poser-@reddit
I’m talking about the internal documentation that details the custom implementation that has been created to fit the business needs of the company.
I agree with your statement. Just not what I was referring to :)
Phreakiture@reddit
I do not agree with this assertion.
Random-Poser-@reddit
Very cool.
Fallingdamage@reddit
Thing that irks me about closed source is that sometimes to get that coffee cup, you have to buy the whole kitchen.
Bubbagump210@reddit
I think it largely depends upon the open source project too. Apache, Nginx, MariaDB, PHP etc. are tried and true and getting support for them is trivial. I think the major headaches really come with open source that may not stick around. An example being a Ruby gem. Do you really want to build your enterprise application around a Ruby gem ORM that may not be around in a year. And while you can point out that ActiveRecord isn’t going anywhere, there’s dozens of other whizbang examples that the 21-year-old straight out of Boot Camp may choose and will bite you. So it’s a whole ball of thinking and evaluation enterprises just don’t want to do.
pdp10@reddit
Not the stuff for which the vendor wants to sell professional services, certainly.
Not for a lot of the rest, either. I'm thinking open-source webserver versus IIS, Linux versus NT, PostgreSQL versus MSSQL. Some cases could depend on whether one assumes central management like Ansible or Pulumi is required, or whether a one-off GUI configuration is fine. Also, whether a whole infrastructure is already in place for PXE booting or spinning up VMs, versus tabula rasa.
corruptboomerang@reddit
Not just this, but you've got someone to ~~pay for support~~ blame.
perthguppy@reddit
So anyone who deploys Linux never ever ever gets it from Redhat or Canonical?
Puzzleheaded-Dog-728@reddit
If I'm being paid to deploy a solution ,I want that solution to come with developer support
If I deploy open source solutions I am owning every issue that ever comes from it, no support, the enterprise gets to enjoy the solution while paying peanuts to have the software supported while the engineer gets shafted with supporting some poorly documented slop where I own all the responsilitt of keeping the app running, while enjoying none of the benefits this would usually bring (like a proper salary).
I love open source at home, I hate it at work.
reddit_user33@reddit
I think it's funny since a lot of software is built using open source libraries.
Gullible_Thought_177@reddit
Like the old saying. Open source is only free if your time is of no cost. Also if you want or need support thats usually more expensive and harder to get than closed-source.
Mister_Pibbs@reddit
It’s the same reason most enterprise organizations don’t want you writing custom scripts. General support and licensing. They don’t want to put prod in a position where it needs support from unmotivated, underpaid maintainers
bno000@reddit
Want T4 support? Bad luck!
ChampionshipComplex@reddit
Because there is no such thing - It's a BS term used predominantly by people who want to hate on Microsoft.
Nobody is developing code for free, there are no armies of altruistic unpaid software developers living under bridges writing code and giving it away because the love everybody.
People who are developers get paid.
Now they can get paid either writing the code or they can get paid supporting the code, or sometimes both.
Microsofts model is get paid to write the code and then give the support for free - The billionaire 'Open source' companies like Redhat do it the other way round.
But the Opensource companies shout that BS matrna like you do about greed which is nonsense.
Then some people will proclaim 'oh I don't need support so it IS free' - That's also BS. This is the 21st century, every line of code is an attack vector for breaking into a business and destroying it. It is a total myth that Linux is more secure than Windows, it used to be true but now Microsoft are the world's largest security company and an application is worthless if it doesn't have constant updates to ensure compatability, resilience and security.
Using an Opersource app without support is a bit like deciding to use a hang glider than you found at the side of the road. Not safe.
ithakaa@reddit
You’re delusional
ithakaa@reddit
Enterprise is all about ass covering, that’s it.
If the IT manager chooses an FOSS solution and it goes bad it’s his job in the line, if it’s an “enterprise” solution he can plane the vendors
That’s it
ph33rlus@reddit
Because the CTO has buddies with licensed software that does the same thing. So why use free open source options when CTO’s buddy gets a kick back from a contract he hooked him up with?
Mukimpo_baka@reddit
I think it’s down to Support (SLA), security (updates), compliance
License and support cost outweights when your environment got compromised because of open source or freeware software
Insurer I think also demands these
robsablah@reddit
Support and risk.
Enterprise can't stop, won't stop AND needs someone to blame. You can't blame a movement so it's seen as a risk.
whythehellnote@reddit
Enterprise stops all the time when crappy designs and crappy closed source solutions break.
SambalBij42@reddit
Yes, but in those cases the enterprise can blame (and if necessary, sue) the software supplier.
While when open source breaks, you just get to keep the pieces.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
Crappy design and crappy solutions perpetually describe the vast majority of open source projects. Of those that don't, poor backward and forward compatibility perpetually describe those.
Dal90@reddit
Point?
The decision makers don't care that it broke, they care they're not blamed for it breaking.
They chose the Gartner upper right quadrant and move on, and if it really blows up point to the contract and what that vendor had promised and is now failing to deliver.
There are very, very few enterprises whose IT systems are any sort of competitive advantage any more than electricity is -- both are simply what is needed to be in the marketplace.
Enterprises do not generate their profits by being economically efficient, they generate their profits by spreading costs over mind numbingly large numbers of transactions.
whythehellnote@reddit
The first two statements are clearly wrong. Enterprise stops all the time. It's entirely the ability to blame someone else.
Yup, they'll get a 3 day service credit, which can go into the C-suite bonus pile.
MagnificentMystery@reddit
Huh? Enterprises are full of open source. Just not on desktops much.
daHaus@reddit
Support but also mandatory (e.g GPL) open sourcing of your code means you must make it available to everyone in order to comply with the license.
redditduhlikeyeah@reddit
It’s many things, as everyone has listed - but polish and ease with certain applications. MS SQL server can be up in 5 minutes and used much easier than some open source options. It also has a much wider compatibility with other enterprise software. In the world in which I work, I can only name one or two software solutions that we use that even give an option other than SQL server. What’s funny is, many organizations are using open source software through some closed source ecosystem. Solr and Apache are everywhere - built and used inside closed source systems.
ZestyRS@reddit
We are a small company but knowing EL is an ecosystem with very quick support in most cases is very valuable to businesses. The idea of fully open source is nice but there are some things that are incredible to be open source in general.
Clamav blows my mind because keeping virus definitions current is a labor of love. That’s just the first example that came to mind.
tarkofkntuesday@reddit
Enterprise=empire Empire comes from doing business and open source is good for humanity, not good for profit. Prophets over profits.
rearl306@reddit
Imagine buying an open source car with parts supplied by hundreds of vendors that each think they are supplying a better add-on widget with no one supervising to make sure every part works with every other part. And now that you’ve got XYZ Company’s widget instead of ABC Company’s widget, you have trapped yourself into a corner for future upgrades that require the ABC widget.
Less_Ad7772@reddit
It really depends on the company. Amazon loves open source, they make so much money from selling their services.
tankerkiller125real@reddit
Amazon loves open-source so much that open-source products are changing their licenses specifically to tell Amazon to go to hell.
aes_gcm@reddit
AWS is just like: okay, we’ll start a fork.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
Because amazon is fixing the products the open source projects couldn't manage
Less_Ad7772@reddit
I know. Good.
SAugsburger@reddit
A lot of very large orgs do because licensing gets expensive when you have that many VMs. It's about scale. The larger the scale the easier to support internally.
n_dev_00@reddit
because they make a lot of money off it by using it. hahaha.
but yeah they do spend a lot of money on supporting it.
autogyrophilia@reddit
You can more or less divide things into consumers and builders.
Builders love opensource because they take a platform and can easily expand upon it. Which is why you see it dominate in a lot of new workloads (IaC, DevOps, things of that nature).
Consumers just want to application to work, and someone else to fix it if it breaks.
AvonMustang@reddit
Work for a very large enterprise and server side is mostly FOSS. My division alone has 6,600 servers (last time I saw a count) all on RHEL running mostly FOSS or our own internal applications built on FOSS. Yes, there is some closed source (e.g. Oracle) but it's mostly all FOSS.
BTW, yes, we pay for support from IBM. There are even onsite IBM employees in our corporate headquarters. They have their own row of cubicles...
Scared_Rain_9127@reddit
Excuse me? Not my completely MASSIVE company.
blade740@reddit
As the old adage goes - "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
The main problem is that the person who is on the line is it breaks is you. There's no vendor to pass the buck. So the people who are most knowledgeable about FOSS, who should be the main evangelists, don't want to put their career on the line and set themselves up for future headaches. The less technically inclined (i.e. management) get their opinions on FOSS from them, and so ask they know is "it's a headache to maintain and there's no support".
Yes, you can get a support contact for FOSS products. But then you're foregoing the main benefit in management's eyes - cost. A support contact for open source software is often nearly as expensive as licensing the closed software in the first place.
When Microsoft software breaks, we go "billion dollar corporation can't even get their shit together". But nobody goes back and asks "who decided on this platform in the first place?" - the closed software option is often the "name brand" that everyone has heard of, the "industry standard". And so fuckups get placed slowly on their shoulders. Whereas if you are the one championing Open Source software, any little hiccups, they'll come back to you asking "why did you recommend this crap in the first place?".
Experienced sysadmins don't want that headache, and so they'll often be the first to say that FOSS is a pain in the ass. And they're the experts, so everyone else tends to listen to them.
AvonMustang@reddit
Work for a very large company and we switched from SUSE Linux to Red Hat Linux when IBM bought Red Hat - mostly because we could roll Red Hat into our already existing IBM support contracts...
vonarchimboldi@reddit
nobody got fired for buying IBM but sometimes, as a frequent user of many many many of their products, someone at IBM should have been fired for allowing a product to be released.
vacri@reddit
The state of Queensland in Australia forbid IBM from government contracts, because they'd fucked up too many times.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/queenslands-ibm-ban-lives-on-420969
blade740@reddit
To be fair, the saying is much older than that.
vacri@reddit
Also to be fair, this position was taken a dozen years ago, and they're not the only ones to cut ties with IBM for poor service. They've been crappy for a long time
The adage needs to die. No-one ever got fired for choosing linux either. Or postgres or apache or whatever. It's just a marketing slogan for IBM, a company that clearly underperforms its contracts and has for quite a while.
blade740@reddit
It's not meant to be taken literally. The adage isn't just referring to IBM, and hasn't for years. Fill in the blank with Microsoft, VMWare, Oracle, etc. the point is that the big name brand software provider is seen as the "safe choice", specifically for all the reasons in this thread - because it gives someone to shift responsibility to when things don't work correctly.
Fallingdamage@reddit
good. I like products that i can support. Issue in production? Fixed.
Or I can open a support ticket and wait 12 weels. In the mean time, someting is down and were losing money and productivity.
lysergic_tryptamino@reddit
And what happens when there is a code or a security vulnerability? Are you going to work on the hotfix yourself also?
Fallingdamage@reddit
No, but I would do my best to understand what it is im implementing first. I mean, thats why people use expensive closed-source products to being with. They dont understand the inner workings of many open source products to begin with. Many (especially Jr admins) want to call themselves "professionals" while only wanting products with big buttons to press.
Zncon@reddit
Some of us like to be able to take a vacation with the phone off and come back to still having a job.
Fallingdamage@reddit
If your environment is that fragile you should work at building some redundancy or resiliency.
blade740@reddit
And hey, if you're willing to take on that responsibility, and you're confident in your ability to fix those issues, great! I'm just pointing out why this is not the case in so many companies.
If the issue is one that you can fix on your own faster than a ticket can be resolved, then it doesn't really make a difference whether you have a support contract or not. I don't put in tickets for something I can easily handle myself. The problem is when there's an issue you CAN'T fix immediately, and that's where it's helpful to have a vendor to offload things to.
insomnic@reddit
Experienced another flavor of this first hand as well. Rather than what happens when it breaks, what happens with it's the entirely wrong software?
Place I worked bought software suite for project management and after a year of using it - after a year of messy implementation - found it was entirely the wrong product for how they did project management; so what they wanted to do and how the software was expected to be used clashed (the software expected PMI\Agile system ... the PMO followed their own made-up system despite requiring PMI certification for their PMs; that's a whole other thing).
Additionally the software setup revealed how little actual PM effectiveness the entire PMO had because suddenly visible accountability beyond what a PM wrote on a PPT was built into the tool. In other PMOs the visibility would have been useful for driving schedules and providing visibility on status, for this place all it did was show the lack of adherence to any schedule or priority or costs.
No senior leadership came down on the director who selected and championed it as the PMO tool silver bullet solution that cost a HUGE amount of money and time. They blamed the software for not making things work the way they wanted (and luckily not me very often as the admin when I said "the software isn't designed to do that") and just kinda used it how they wanted mixed with their old PPT routine. Ultimately another team took it over in a more fitting move while that director was championing a new software solution with everyone somehow having rosey view of the last time...
So going with vendors and having it not work out is definitely a factor of support and liability it's also a way to keep failures of decision making separate somehow too. I assume because if a senior exec calls out a cohort's failure, their failures would then be called out a well and can't have that...
ohiocodernumerouno@reddit
Most hunters will fling poo on a more successful trap.
_nc_sketchy@reddit
Because the people making decisions don’t understand the technology
BearGFR@reddit
It's all perception. The perception is that they have a vendor to hold accountable when something goes into the ditch. Anyone who actually interfaces with vendors these days knows that most vendor support exists to convince customers that every issue is their own fault and not the vendor's problem, but still the perception persists. Sort of like that other erroneous perception that mainframes are "too old" and "too expensive".
HeathcliffOG@reddit
My IT director and network manager refuse to entertain any open source because of "security" I gave up trying but I still enjoy saying things like "Proxmox wouldn't have this problem" whenever there's an issue with our "enterprise" software/hardware.
musiquededemain@reddit
Uhhh....gotta disagree with you on this one. Every company for whom I've worked leveraged open source in some capacity, whether it was on the server/infrastructure side or desktop side. Also what hate are you talking about? Please list examples and cite sources.
PeterJoAl@reddit
It's the lack of enterprise-grade support. Many companies require this, and open-source often lacks it unless it's open-source provided mainly by one company who then provides support as their income stream.
KareemPie81@reddit
Peole love to forget this about red hat. Sure it’s open source but they charge the fuck out of you for enterprise support. You always pay.
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
The issue with red hat is that you are paying not insignificant amounts for access to the support that is crap outside of their normal business hours, for a platform that has a poor ecosystem around monitoring, tools, automation, etc
Barrerayy@reddit
Their support is actually really good though
hiakuryu@reddit
Yes it is, and it's why we pay for it happily.
KareemPie81@reddit
That’s my point, you get what you pay for. I have nonissue with open source, I have issue people thinking it’s free alternative
perthguppy@reddit
Have you tried lodging a bug ticket with Microsoft lately?
HealthySurgeon@reddit
Yes and many other times before that. My most recent time, was the best experience I’ve had yet. The others….. made me wanna throw a brick through the window.
They’re not perfect, but they’re good, and frankly, most things, you can actually fix yourself if you’re smart enough. Some things are still locked behind closed doors, but a whole ton of it is open source now. I think interacting with their repos and pulling requests with them and learning their processes through that is part of what made my most recent support experience better since I learned the lingo and knew what everyone needed to push my things to the right people.
DaemosDaen@reddit
Actually yea. It's a mixed bag just like every other service out there. Sometimes you get a resonable tech, others you get someone wiht a 3rd grade reding level.
Dell's actually be reliable, but then we get the Pro Support+
Expensive-Rhubarb267@reddit
Microsoft Development team - otherwise known as the black hole of support tickets
perthguppy@reddit
Why get your engineers to answer support tickets when you can just outsource the whole process to a v- in some other country and set an arbitrary limit on how many escalations to product group they can make a month
tankerkiller125real@reddit
And thanks to them doing that shit, you end up getting shitty emails and phone calls from v- sales people trying to push you to get more licensing and shit, not matter how many times you tell them that you have a CSP/VAR that handles all of your licensing.
perthguppy@reddit
I wish I had the time to take them up on their offers to show me how we could be saving money by implanting a solution we already ruled out as not meeting our needs
tankerkiller125real@reddit
Oh they really keep pushing emails with "we noticed your using legacy products and we'd like to discuss replacements". Ah yes, our legacy product of SQL server 2012 (because ERP system) and a few other minor things that I've either already replaced (and were finishing out our 3 year contract on them) or have a replacement in mind that will be sorted before the license renewal.
perthguppy@reddit
They really don’t like that we have ADFS deployed and really want to help us deploy Entra Cloud Sync instead (we already use Entra Connect to sync on prem to Entra as part of the ADFS deployment)
tankerkiller125real@reddit
Lol, every time I do the little wizard thing it tells me I still need to use Entra Connect and not Cloud Sync. They can push all they want it's not happening yet.
Expensive-Rhubarb267@reddit
You also get to play the super fun game of 'whack-a-case' woth Microsoft.
"Oh I can see the issue is for Windows Server 2022 > Hyper-V > Storage > Storage Spaces Direct & you've been waiting 2 weeks for an update. This is the indows Server 2019 > Hyper-V > Storage > Storage Spaces Direct team. Please open a new case... Good bye
No_Resolution_9252@reddit
Is that a serious question?
Prestigious-Ad8209@reddit
I used to work for a major software and systems company and they were very much against open-source and were not really big on reuse of solutions.
Then they had a major change of heart, embraced open source and reuse and bought a major developer hub.
One thing that happened pretty quickly was we got cheaper for our clients, because reuse was promoted and actually encouraged.
Blattnart@reddit
Open/closed source is an irrelevant distinction to companies. They only care about function/support/liability/cost. If your open source product can do the job, there is a meaningful support contract with clearly established SLAs that can be paid for and which are binding on the vendor, and the company has people who are either familiar with or willing to learn the product, then there isn’t a problem with open source.
The decision is multivariable. Open source often means community support. If you can get an actual support agreement with established SLAs at an acceptable price, the product does what is needed, there is someone to sue in case of a breach of any agreements, the price in terms of $ and employee time cost over another product is acceptable than the open source product has a chance.
Inf3c710n@reddit
From what I have seen, a lot of it is because the software can be used and acquired by threat actors and can be reverse engineered in a way that makes it vulnerable by default. Also, there's no user agreement so you cannot sue anyone in the even of bad coding/updates of the software creating vulnerabilities.
ironwaffle452@reddit
Never found an open source alternative that is better than paid software... Is that simple
BamaTony64@reddit
If you buy support it costs the same as any for pay software and some times more. If you do not pay for support you have to have some sharp techs to take care of it.
RetroHipsterGaming@reddit
The TLDR of this is the same "support" answer others give, but there are some more considerations I threw in the longer explanation below.. so yes.
There is this part of me that wishes to create an environment for like.. pennies using open source. I know I could make an environment using open source everything and it would be just as capable as the fully commercial stuff. The reality that I've gone through over a few decades of doing this though is that doing those open source environments essentially becomes too big of a hassle. In particular, it's a problem to find staff who can do the support and that is pretty irresponsible as a like.. systems architect. The whole show shouldn't rely on you being there. You should be able to be hit by a bus and be able to have someone come in and take your place. It's not just about doing the cool thing or saving some money, it's about the whole show continuing to run so that all your coworkers can keep doing their jobs. And the more non-standard stuff you have the more you have to train.. and if it turns out that they person you hired can't be trained on that many things, then it is all on you again.
I've totally been in environments that are largely open source. OpenLDAP, openoffice, samba fileservers, etc... and the thing that was always in common with them is that there was always one guy that could do everything that you couldn't live without and the other thing was that nothing was ever particularly up to date. I've actually been the replacement version of that guy in a lot of the environments because I can do a ton of different things. Particularly in this place I've been the last 8 years though, I've been moving us more and more away from the open source and more into established products with support contracts. I'm trying to not be "the guy" for everything.
The last thing I'd say is in regards to the whole "support contracts" bit. I happen to think that we are finally hitting a point where things are too expansive in various subjects for someone to be the "everything guy" and do a safe job. There is too much related to security, too much related to proper setting up of server, etc.. to expect one person to do all of that and not make conceptual mistakes. It's also really unreasonable to expect that you are going to find someone that knows the bulk of the open source projects you are relying on when you go to hire for coverage. It's hard enough finding people that know several of the main things you use, but not being able to supplement their knowledge with 3rd party support is just a killer. It comes down the this as a question: If you weren't available for a few hours or a night, would the company suffer enough financial loss to justify the cost of the closed source software? The answer is pretty much always "Yes" and almost always many times the cost of the closed source software. No one wants to be down for 24 hours hemorrhaging money because there is only one person who can fix a problem and no 3rd parties that can get in/fix the problem.
dmoisan@reddit
+1! It weighs very heavily, the smaller your shop. You just can't get some combinations of specialties in one person. Some mindsets are not compatible between positions.
Substantial-Cicada-4@reddit
support/planning/licencing/availability/responsibility - these come to mind at first.
73-68-70-78-62-73-73@reddit
Same reason a lot of people buy Dell over Supermicro. If you don't have a good support contract, you will make up for it at your own expense. I love opensource software, but I also value my time.
motific@reddit
It's not about open=good and closed=bad.
Ultimately if you're deploying thousands of desktops then you care about responsibility, risk, and supply chain. If you do any kind of development (even as a service) then you need to think hard about licencing.
Companies don't want that minefield, it is far cheaper to pay to avoid it.
04_996_C2@reddit
Lack of service contracts with tangible SLAs and/or support obligations.
Enterprises run on principal not principle
niomosy@reddit
Plenty of open source software with enterprise support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example.
04_996_C2@reddit
💯 agree but have you ever tried to get a manager to shell out money for something you had previously said was free/low cost? 😂
niomosy@reddit
See, we were already using Solaris and AIX. Moving to Linux was a savings.
Upstairs_Peace296@reddit
Proxmox has paid support. and tell me where to find support for hyperv cuz you're on your own
asic5@reddit
Proxmox support is a joke. No phone number and a 2 hour response time during Australia business hours only.
For Hyper V you can get information here, then call your VAR: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-unified/plan-details#tab-unified-enterprise-pricing-details
Upstairs_Peace296@reddit
I've never had cdw or insight have someone useful for hyperv support
Also proxmox is German company not sure what you're talking about Australia business hours.
asic5@reddit
My bad, not enough coffee today. I read Austrian as Australian, lol.
You are correct, its CET. Which is better, but doesn't help you much if production is stopped in the middle of an American workday.
Might be good enough for European customers, but 2 hour response time on critical incidents is still rough for something as important as a hypervisor.
Upstairs_Peace296@reddit
That's why you run multiple nodes. For example I run multiple domain controllers on different hosts at different locations
I ran hyperv for years with zero support under hyperv server. Ee simply csnt afford VMware. Especially now
Gloverboy6@reddit
As others have said, it's because of the lack of support
If anyone can edit the code, then it can easily be broken with no one really knowing who did it
Smart-Item-9026@reddit
A lot have mentioned support. And that is true.
Another reason is most deals are done on the golf course. Especially big ones. Big closed source brands will "wine and dine" their clientele offering big kick backs. An example might be: Pay this price and we'll throw in the first three years of support for free. Or maybe by product X and we'll give you product Y with it.
It'll seem immoral to a lot, and perhaps it is. However; its how a lot of the corporate world works.
txthojo@reddit
Support and liability are the biggest reasons.
nijave@reddit
Some companies are so worried about liability (the company is worried about being sued if a change made by one of it's developers breaks someone else's stuff) it's practically impossible to contribute back to OSS so you end up maintaining your own fork which is maintenance overhead.
With a vendor, you offload that liability, too.
Working_Astronaut864@reddit
Next time you have an opportunity look at the weekly vulnerabilities for software published by Tenable or Qualys.
KareemPie81@reddit
I think the problem is people assume open source = free. Part of commercial or SaaS licensing is having support and maintenance. You either pay internal support or external, no such this as free
nijave@reddit
It was kind of interesting seeing internal pricing back when I worked at JP Morgan Chase. Iirc (at the time) Elasticsearch-based logging was the same or more expensive than Splunk.
That was the cost global tech would bill departments using the internally managed service and included total cost for the service (hardware, licenses, support staff). They had an internal product catalog like AWS (but much crappier, slower, and more manual ha)
terriblehashtags@reddit
To further explain the "lack of support" issue, here's an article on the latest Ivanti CVEs.
Ivanti is stuck notifying everyone, removing code, patching, etc. because of a flaw in the open source code they used in the product. They're now liable for someone else's work, because the open source developers of whatever two libraries they used aren't providing support.
That's by design for open source. It's a community project, with contributors and maintainers not paid, so they're not expected to operate with service-level agreements (SLAs) and whatever else.
So whoever uses that code has to accept the liability of that code... And that's expensive for organizations. The risk is too high.
Horsemeatburger@reddit
Ivanti is stuck notifying everyone, removing code, patching, etc. because of a flaw in the open source code they used in the product. They're now liable for someone else's work, because the open source developers of whatever two libraries they used aren't providing support.
No, Ivanti is just incompetent. They didn't follow basic security principles and got pawned - and not for the first time either.
Anyone using them deserves everything they get.
terriblehashtags@reddit
It was a surprisingly timely example!
And many incompetent (and competent) developers don't think about the open source libraries they use, because they're under the gun to produce to sprint instead of thinking of security.
That's just a side effect of a "move fast and break things" company culture, regardless of the skills of the company.
(Specifically for this example... While I believe they have shuffled off a lot of the purchased product original developers and outsourced coding, this specific product suite wasn't built in-house, but rather was a later acquisition by -- from all outward appearances -- investors buying into buzzwords. Inspecting the code base and repairing it takes a long ass time and a lot of money, with no new functionality to show for it. 🤷 I don't think this same product purchased by a different company would've faired better, flawed as it was from the get go.)
apalrd@reddit
It seems like they are just blaming their poor user data sanitation on a library that is involved in parsing their requests. Nothing wrong with any libraries involved.
https://labs.watchtowr.com/expression-payloads-meet-mayhem-cve-2025-4427-and-cve-2025-4428/
whythehellnote@reddit
Ivanti could fix it themselves, or pay someone to fix it
Far better position than if they used some non-open-source software and were vulnerable
nijave@reddit
Besides having someone to blame, it's frequently cheaper to have the vendor customize and implement than temporarily in-sourcing a team which first needs to become experts.
A decent vendor will provide a decent first implementation/config that doesn't need months of testing and validation. The vendor delivers a built "solution" which most open source doesn't provide (although some come close).
Another reason--invest in your core competency as a company and buy/outsource everything else. If you're a lumber mill, by all means in-source the software to control your machines and supply chain but don't waste time building mail servers and HR systems.
drivelpots@reddit
Support. But also contractual obligation
SwiftSpear@reddit
Enterprise doesn't "hate" open source. They heavily utilize open source. There are two core issues though:
Legitimate_Put_1653@reddit
I would say that anti-OS sentiment is in the minority. Over 80% of commercial codebases contain one or more OS components. On average, the TTR for vulnerability fixes for OS products is a tiny fraction of that of commercial products. Even NSA uses OS products for some of its work. Whenever people start spouting “lack of support” and “security” arguments they’re usually based on opinion rather than fact.
meiko42@reddit
The cost of an off the shelf solution with support and SLAs look great when compared to the engineering staff you'd have to hire for R&D, testing, implementation, and ongoing maintenance / feature development / bug fix.
Unless the technology you're building is also the product you're selling, there's very little value in managing all that staff required to build it yourself and do it well. Integrate (between off the shelf solutions) when you can, build when you must.
tlotig@reddit
There is no-one to blame when it breaks, When your licensed copy of widows breaks you have a recourse.
coolasbreese@reddit
Support. But it kinda doesn't make sense as Vendors rarely do most of the work that a sysadmin would do. But that's the reason still. There is some accountability
artlessknave@reddit
There is an attitude amount those who have that those who have not would take anything free, so anything that doesn't have a cost MUST be subpar, because only if you paid for it can it be worth using
LaHawks@reddit
Its supports the open source bullshit that IT doesn't do. If there's no service contract, you can go find a different product. And don't get me started on open source, Ubuntu-only crap. I don't get paid enough to support that shitty software.
SpaceGuy1968@reddit
Support
Microsoft and big box vendors provide business class support
theottoman_2012@reddit
There's a couple of reasons why enterprises don't like open source, and a lot of it can be shown by how you experienced log4j.
Many open source projects do "the thing" well, but many projects don't come with a good bill of materials so you (the user) don't have assurance as to what is actually in the project. That isn't to say that some OS projects don't list an SBOM, but this isn't the norm.
AdmRL_@reddit
If my company pays for Solarwinds, and Solarwinds has a major security vulnerability, that's on Solarwinds. If my company allows me to implement an open source alternative, and it has a major security vulnerability, that's on me.
Open source also often means patch work architecture as you get a specific OS thing for one task, another for another. Overall it just presents a lot of risk and overheads for often little to no gain.
Then, even if you have all the processes and procedures in place to implement and document an open source system, who says you will in 5 years? Or 10? Sure a proprietary provider might go bust, but then we just pay a new one to migrate us over to there's. What open source project is going to lift and shift our services for us when another project dies?
Next_Information_933@reddit
Generally it's around support, having 15 open source project being chained together and a change in one breaks everything , or having most things be dev mindset vs user mindset.
Yokoblue@reddit
Because most open source mean a lot of configuration and a lot of configuration means a lot of documentation that will get lost.
Dependent_House7077@reddit
depends on the vendor. one thing is lack of support, other is integration and time savings.
you can do a lot of things with opensource stuff. until security team comes in and you are burdened with patches and integrating various SSO solutions and other security requirements that software you pay for typically does OOTB.
i work in IT in Linux dept and we are steadily losing ground because of Intune (and its ever increasing set of policies) and o365. it's truly becoming a hassle to support this on our machines.
PappaFrost@reddit
SURPRISE! Most 'closed source' has open source components inside of it! Remember after Log4Shell when people were making those crazy lists of vendors to figure out what had Log4j inside of it! Fun times!
teriaavibes@reddit
Development costs, nonexistent support, no job talent that knows how to use it just to name a few.
Vivid_News_8178@reddit
Plenty of job talent knows how to use open source software. The internet quite literally runs on open source software.
hiakuryu@reddit
What engineering culture do you need at an accounting or PR firm?
Vivid_News_8178@reddit
I probably wouldn’t work at an accounting or PR firm, honestly
TheCollegeIntern@reddit
It’s justified. It’s support as mentioned in the comments. I lab and I use Linux love Linux but I don’t use it for a few weeks I already have to download new shit because apparently it’s broken somehow or the features are not in this district natively so I need to download and sometimes it’s a fucking mess. I can see why gaming on Linux isn’t widely adopted as an example.
Great when everything is working but it’s a shit show depending on what the open resource is when you need support and there’s no kb article or support hotline to call and the best you get is a fucking forum post with a buried comment from a deleted user on Reddit that you can’t follow up with lol
Medium_Banana4074@reddit
Is it though?
My experience is completely different. They sometimes want a support contract, so RedHat or Oracle it is. Otherwise, Linux everywhere, at least on the servers.
Platocalist@reddit
Can't send a lawyer after open source when something goes wrong.
Delta31_Heavy@reddit
It’s called TPRM. Okay. How is this open source witchcraft supported? What is their update schedules what is their upgrade schedule. What is impregnated though the code? Can I reliably run this in an enterprise environment. Do we know the developer’s? Etc etc
SchmeckleHoarder@reddit
Short answer convenience.
Plam503711@reddit
Hi,
CEO of a fully open source software vendor here. I'm not seeing exactly that at the moment. To be honest, it's partially true: being open source is far from the first argument to convince people to purchase our software stack. It's merely a bonus, but still: I haven't really seen bad reaction on discovering we are fully open source.
But I think it's also there's a difference between Open Source and Free software. To me, Open Source is more coined to match the fact a company is selling its expertise on a Free software (because they co-build or build it themselves).
It's an interesting debate but I can tell that being "commercial" (ie "selling it") is important to create trust for a customer.
I can give you a concrete example in the virtualization world where I am: on one hand, you have some very very very... "commercial and closed" software companies (Broadcom, Nutanix, MS). On the other side (far far away in the other direction), you have a far more "grass root" free software with Proxmox (no 24/7 support from the vendor for example, a company not very vocal or expressing a lot of "thought leadership" online -no judgement here-).
We've seen that you can work on delivering best of both worlds, ie being fully open source while adressing "commercial" users (in our case, people coming from VMware) can lead to great successes.
That's the kind a balance you need to find (as an open source software vendor). Obviously, we are in a market where the market leader is absolutely evil (Broadcom) so it's easier for us to be an alternative, "even if" we are fully open source.
So I suppose the issue is more with "free software" (without any commercial support or service), because there's nobody to blame if something goes wrong, and IT leaders hate that.
GhostInThePudding@reddit
The main thing that I've find guides any corporate purchase decision, is the ability to avoid accountability as much as possible. The usual "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM," line.
All software has problems. But if you buy the Microsoft product, or the Adobe product, you went with the market leader, so it isn't your fault. If you go with a vastly superior product, even if it has a much lesser problem, suddenly it is your fault because you went with some lesser known and thus "clearly" inferior alternative.
badlybane@reddit
Open source outside of competent people is a train wreck. Many people do not want to relearn office tooling. Nor care to learn in general. They just want to show up do work and go home.
There are lots of things that can go wrong. Ie if a HD dies. Unless you have network folders for their profiles that work is lost. Lots of folks do not like using web versions of office either.
Its not IT thats usually holding open-source back.
Spicy_Poo@reddit
It has little to do with whether it's open source or not and more to do with if there is commercial support. RHEL, for example, is open source but has commercial support.
feelingtheagi@reddit
You’re right — the issue isn’t that enterprises hate open source, it’s that they fear the lack of vendor accountability, support, and perceived security risk. Even though SolarWinds (a proprietary product) had a massive breach, the myth persists that open source = risky.
I’m building an open-source ThousandEyes alternative for this exact reason. It runs synthetic canaries (Ping, DNS, HTTP), tracks BGP visibility, and feeds everything into Prometheus + Grafana — fully self-hostable, no seat licenses, no lock-in.
Enterprises don’t need to reject open source — they just need open source that’s built and documented like a product. That’s what I’m trying to do.
no-dupe@reddit
Because you need someone to blame if things go south, and if you got it for free, you’re to blame. That’s the logic in the enterprise.
pat_trick@reddit
Because they can't go after someone specific when it breaks or if there's downtime. Outages cost money. You can go after a company that has an outage to recover that money. It's not as simple to go after an open-source project if there's an outage.
Forsaken-Discount154@reddit
A big reason enterprise stays away from open source is support and version control. If something breaks, they need to know it won’t be some abandoned project with no updates or help available. There’s also the issue of accountability, if there’s an outage that causes real business loss, they can push back on a vendor. You can’t really do that with a GitHub repo. And with enterprise software, you’ve got options. In-house IT, MSPs, even vendor support; there’s usually someone who knows how to handle it. That kind of coverage matters a lot when you’re running critical systems.
Common_Scale5448@reddit
Everything needs to re reassuringly expensive, or how could you trust it?
michaelpaoli@reddit
It's not ... if you actually look at what they truly do. Most enterprises heavily use/leverage Open Source. So, mobile phones, what % are Android? Yeah, that's (at least mostly) Open Source. That % of servers are based upon Linux or BSD? Yeah, Open Source. Heck, even macOS, much of that based upon Open Source. A whole helluva lot of the software, libraries, etc. that enterprise relies upon ... yeah, again, Open Source.
So, even if they don't "get it", a whole lot of enterprises are very heavily using and dependent upon Open Source ... even if they're rather to quite unaware of that.
Alas, profit motives, etc., many enterprises suck off the teat of Open Source, while at the same time, doing as much as they can to make money off of closed source software, etc. And likewise, many, often through their ignorance, will spend lots of money on closed source, wastefully spend money on support, etc., through their ignorance, when better choices are available. And of course many fairly large enterprise environments are quite the mix, and aren't all that particularly consistent.
ragogumi@reddit
"Enterprise" doesn't hate open source at all. In fact, enterprise companies are, by far, the predominant contributors to open source projects, making up nearly all of the top contributions over time.
https://opensourceindex.io/
Additionally, many of the larger open source project have support available through various sources.
With that said, while open source solutions often appear cost effective initially there are usually additional costs that blow your ROI out of the water. You have to factor in hosting expenses, labor costs, internal training costs, support costs, and potential risks from limited or absent support. These things also usually translate in an increase in downtime.
MerleFSN@reddit
For my workplace, we need solutions that either are already certified and guarantee xy in a certain aspect, or we will have to certify conformity to xy ourselves. Which can be a huge hassle, financially and also in workload. The seemingly cheaper option will have its fair share of needed configuration and individualization, many vendors of more expensive products already got that „niche“ (or not so niche) parts covered.
Examples include like ofork and jira für ticket systems.
Ever used something locally installed to replace outlook? Hmm :/
Visio? Replaceable, but not similar. Adobe PDF? Replacement-tools sometimes won‘t fulfil all standards in signing.
There are a lot of reasons tbh. Open source can be cool and all, but often a lot of understanding is required. Of the underlying platform, of the program, often deep linux stuff. And php knowledge and database knowledge also often is required. To do it correct, safe and hardened, will further increase needed knowledge. (Compare Cacti/LibreNMS with commercial solutions/out of box v-Appliance from whomever.)
Its not just gold at open source. Its also work. Much work.
Big_Man_GalacTix@reddit
I have a counter-argument for the "hatred".
Enterprises DO use OSS extensively, whether or not by proxy (often without realising) or directly.
Many large proprietary softwares use OSS software, libraries, or snippets of code. A lot of that is disclosed publicly in the licenses, for anyone who actually reads them.
Have a website? There's a very high chance you're using a Linux or BSD server running Apache, NGINX, HAproxy, etc. While also a non-0 chance you're running something like Wordpress, or using a DB server like MySQL, PGSQL, etc.
Using Windows? That's full of Open-Source software, you just don't realise it.
Your routers, switches, FW's, IP phones, and other misc networking hardware? A lot of that runs Linux or BSD, especially if it's newer hardware.
Large enterprises also heavily rely on Linux, a lot of the GNU utilities, etc for their day-to-day running.
The whole "OSS BAD HURR DEE DURR!" thing, at least as far as I've seen, tends to come from nicher projects or user-facing software, especially in orgs that run random software they bought back in 1970 and haven't updated since. Things like accounting software tend to be a lot more localised too, so having a single project for all can cause auditing and compliance failures due to not having certain certifications or similar.
As for things like support, that really depends on the size of the org. Say Jeff's Cakes and Co., a small 10-person business have an office, they're not likely to have a dedicated IT team. They're more likely to be using a handful of PCs and laptops with individual user accounts. They don't want to have to maintain their systems more than they may have to, and rightly so.
Larger enterprises, on the other hand, do often have a dedicated IT team that can spend the time to diagnose faults and other misc. issues in the network as-and-when, and they often have the resources to hire a dedicated Linux guy, or for whatever OSS they rely on.
Amazon, for instance, rely heavily on OSS for AWS and their internal systems. They have teams of people dedicated to maintaining that, and pushing bug fixes to the core projects they rely on.
Support-wise, that also depends on the project. 1st-party support isn't always available, however 3rd party support is usually available for the more common and larger projects either by hiring X-project specialty engineers, or by going through something like an MSP.
TL;DR: OSS isn't hated, nor do enterprises usually actively avoid it. The problem whittles down to the lack of need in some cases, and just plain ol' idiot managers.
SAugsburger@reddit
This. There is plenty of OSS that gets used. In smaller orgs though it is a lot of indirect use. e.g. A proprietary application that runs on top of a lot of OSS.
Belbarid@reddit
In addition to the others, there's a greater incidence of FOSS switching to a license that requires anyone using the software to also open source their code. It's easier to not use FOSS than it is to monitor every FOSS library you use.
Clean-Machine2012@reddit
It's always about support and speed of resolution. If it's open source you are relying on someone to fix it when they want. Senior teams need speed, reliability and very much accountability
Finagles_Law@reddit
This is not true for many web based enterprises. Everything we have that's customer facing is open source, Java and tomcat based. Two data centers plus AWS, several thousand hosts.
Now on the IT side, they don't like Linux laptops. But we only have a couple cranky deva who try and insist on those.
Ok-Section-7172@reddit
We have customers that won't even work with us until we prove that we make huge profits. These companies want you there, they want you to need to be there. It goes so far as to if I give a bid that's too low, they'll go with another company because your profit margin is in their best interest.
ryder242@reddit
They want a throat to choke
Roanoketrees@reddit
Its because it leaves you holding the bag. There's no vendor to yell at when it all goes to hell.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
Because when something goes wrong management needs someone to blame, sorry thats all there is to it
PrestigiousStatus711@reddit
Support
bentbrewer@reddit
While support is a big reason open source software is sited as not used in enterprise there is also another reason that much harder to define. Open source software is about as contradictory to the modern business model as possible.
A product you can use and modify as you like without having to pay anyone!!! An ethos that if you make any improvements, please provide those so others can benefit (if you want, you don’t absolutely have to though). Basically… From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Thanks for supporting open source software and being a socialist. (A joke, but only a little bit of one)
Liam_M@reddit
I’ve always worked for Open Source friendly companies but based on the selling tactics of enterprise vendors and the few contacts I’ve had over the decades I think it really comes down to if they pay someone for something they can shift blame to them when something goes wrong, it’s a cover your ass tax for management and decision makers
MrKixs@reddit
I had the same thing happen to me a while back. IMHO opinion is has more todo with not wanting to have to hire people smart enough to run them. Smart people cost more money.
Public_Warthog3098@reddit
It's called having the ability to shift the blame. If it's open source you have no one to blame but yourself. Lol
povlhp@reddit
Open source often has better support and faster bug fixes than closed source.
But…. You can not open a support ticket and get a clueless engineer to walk you thru the docs. And blame the vendor.
And most outsourcing companies don’t have skills to support OSS at customer installations.
Even IBM AIX has lots of packages available, compiled by and made available by IBM. But not with official support. So when we had outsourced operations to IBM it would at least require a risk letter to get them to install IBM delivered OSS software on an OS based 90% on OSS.
We have lots of RedHat. There you can buy support and they have people that are ready to help you find your problems. A skillset rarely delivered out of non-western countries.
nwmcsween@reddit
It completely depends on where you are working, a high tech f500 company will do amazing things with OSS and base billions in revenue off of it because they have the talent.
Haunting-Prior-NaN@reddit
Because there is no profesional support, like somebody who will actually pick up the phone. Compare it to Microsoft, in which there is.... ummm never mind.
Ironxgal@reddit
Bc companies want to keep shit secret so they can profit. Supporting open source leads to competition. They also would rather stimulate corporate profits and buy something vs hire a team to manage things in house.
woodburyman@reddit
1. Risk.
Many others here touch on it. Support. Vendors. etc. But what it boils down to is company risk.
No Support replying on forum posts only? Risky. No dedicated Dev team to fix a random business critical bug? Risky. No one you can file a lawsuit against if SLA isn't met? Risky.
saysjuan@reddit
It’s not hatred it’s having one throat to choke for support without being gauged on pricing. Red Hat was loved by the community until IBM acquired them raising prices on critical infrastructure just like Broadcom did for VMware. The only difference being that Broadcom decided on a more aggressive scorched earth approach whereas IBM was more gentle. It’s a tale as old as Silicon Valley with acquisitions and being burned that started as far back as the Sun Microsystems acquisition by Oracle.
This is precisely why we are skeptical about migrating from VMware to Proxmox as they are small enough to be an acquisition target if we were to make the switch.
WWGHIAFTC@reddit
Open source without support puts too much risk on the manager. The illusion of support keeps bad managers comfortable.
On the other hand we pay 10s or 100s of thousand a year for support that we never use...
primalsmoke@reddit
Nobody got fired for buying IBM.
When you buy "the best" the one with support, your ass is covered.
Even if open source is the best option, when there is a problem, those that run the company will see open source as a risk that should not have been taken
doyouvoodoo@reddit
My organization (a very large one) utilizes a very wide selection of open source software. On the Microsoft side, i see a lot of support for open source software while also seeing relentless, unbridled hate for many of half-baked windows installers provided for said open source software. We've gotten better at packaging and pushing such to machines, and we've just accepted that the software is worth the installer hassles.
Add1ctedToGames@reddit
Not that it properly gets to the heart of the issue, but one time I suggested we use a specific FOSS to solve a compliance requirement and got told it would be a quicker and easier process to spend $400k on having one of our main vendors develop a product for us than it would be to get our company's support for the FOSS
HLKturbo@reddit
lol all corporats getting triggered by this XDDD
diito_ditto@reddit
It's not 2002. Hatred/distrust for open source isn't a thing in any serious organization anymore. Everyone uses it. The government uses it extensively. The tech people who make the architectural decisions all use and like it personally. The benefits and success of open source is obvious. You need to understand how businesses make decisions. As someone who's been in that position let me tell you how it works?
GeneMoody-Action1@reddit
Lack of support, and ignorance. Support is the killer, but ignorance is a highly contributing factor.
bofh@reddit
Disagree. I've not come across anyone in "enterprise" that hates Open Source.
I've come across lots of open source advocates who don't understand enterprise well enough to advocate for open source effectively in that space.
simpleittools@reddit
Everything I am about to say is from my own personal experience and I have no statistics to back up what I am saying. My statements come from the fact that I have been in systems administration and software development (both closed and open source) for more than 20 years. Most of that time, with direct interaction with upper management.
There are quite a few broken reasons I have come across for this thinking:
All of these are based on errors. I was much more detailed, but Reddit has a comment length maximum. Someday I will get around to making my blog and include this.
bordumb@reddit
Pretty strong disagree.
Pretty much any large enterprise relies deeply on open source, and many of them actively build new open source software completely from scratch, or contribute to existing projects.
I can of course come up with company’s that have completely proprietary software (SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Windows, Tableau, etc.).
But I’d say there’s an equally long list of tooling and open source projects that enterprises use and support (Apache is the best example I know of as a data engineer).
changework@reddit
Misunderstanding. They don’t understand that the world runs on open source software already. They think buying a software program entitles them to excellent support from the seller, which it doesn’t. Open source gives the company many options to purchase support from, but they don’t like making decisions.
I see this mostly as a “I don’t trust my IT team to do its job, so I’ll trust the vendor” problem.
In my case, most all of our systems are ran on open source except those that are mandated by the OEM’s we franchise with. Guess which parts of the company work flawlessly vs which ones we have constant problems with.
deltaz0912@reddit
Consistency, support, security, accountability, availability of people with adequate skill sets, organizational continuity. You can say that all these can be addressed, but a vendor with a product is expected to already have answers for these concerns.
TheAnniCake@reddit
Good enterprise support and people getting paid for their work
Iseeapool@reddit
Because the Gartner is the Bible for all sorts of CIOs and the weaks of mind.
Remarkable-Rise3285@reddit
Support and indemnification
equinox6k@reddit
We're not exactly a huge enterprise. (1200 employees, 7 people in IT) I don't like the opensource tinkering. I just need a working, stable, supported product fulfilling it's purpose. I rather buy SaaS than tinkering around with Linux and docker.
AnomalyNexus@reddit
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM effect.
Well ok these days you might...but that's a different story
scubajay2001@reddit
Was gonna come to say support and upgrade ease but seems like those have already been chatted ad infinitum
pants6000@reddit
Because "enterprise" wants the "sysadmin" role to be: mouse in one hand, phone in the other, not much braining, not much pay.
RCTID1975@reddit
If something more takes "braining" ie, time and money than another option that does the same thing, regardless if it's paid or open source, what sense does it make to go with that option?
slick8086@reddit
This is just one example of a company that debunks all the claims that you can't professional support for open source software.
https://www.openlogic.com/products/support
pizzacake15@reddit
It's not hated per se (from my experience at least) but it is avoided due to no immrdiate line of support.
Companies can't be submitting GitHub issues and pray the developers will answer them in a timely manner. Companies need SLAs for when shit hits the fan, as the others have said here, they'll have a neck to choke.
Not saying no enterprise has adopted FOSS before but usually those that do have niche business needs for it.
luckynar@reddit
The open source cost is very high, you need high level admins to keep things running smooth. While closed source has a very high cost in the product acquisition and support expenses.
It's a trade off, but generally CEOs don't like to pay much to their employees, it reflects badly in the stock price.
slick8086@reddit
Open source/free software isn't hated among enterprise; it is hated among psychopaths.
sid351@reddit
A combination of support & legal concerns.
Not all open source projects are licensed equally, and legal challenges can be a nightmare to deal with, especially once something has been built and distributed.
From a support point of view, hitting an issue that impacts 1000 users and having to get community support in a forum is not good enough for business continuity. It's even worse if it transpires that the project relies on one developer that lost their interest in the project 3 years ago. Alternatively the business builds a silo of knowledge internally around this niche product and is then in the lurch when those knowledge people leave the organisation.
serverhorror@reddit
It is?
We prefer open source and we spend money and resources on it.
BarrySix@reddit
I've not seen enterprises hating on open source for a very long time. Linux won. It's the most used OS on every cloud and every server application. The majority of internet infrastructure is open source.
Any company not using open source where it makes sense is badly mismanaged and burning money.
Newbosterone@reddit
And how, says the guy who has supported at least a dozen variants of SysV, BSD, and mashups like Apollo’s Aegis. HP-UX and AIX were the last survivors at my current company. Both phased out in the last five years.
BarrySix@reddit
Yes. Linux won over the many UNIX's before it started winning over Windows. And it won on cost long before it was winning on reliability. I still don't know how it won over FreeBSD.
The real shame is that really different OSs like EROS, Beos, and Plan-9 disappeared. HP-UX wasn't great and AIX was UNIX with a registry, if I'm remembering it right.
RCTID1975@reddit
I don't think it's at all hated.
The answer here is support. If something goes south, I need people to reach out to for assistance. We can't just "figure it out", or wait for people to post on a forum.
I think the only people that don't understand this are early in their careers and/or not decision makers.
lost_signal@reddit
>I am an advocate for open source, i breath open source
Big fan. At work we ship a lot of stuff upstream.
> I hate greedy companies that overcharge for ridiculous licensing pricing
Hard disagree. That money pays for engineers, and maintaining stuff. I can't stress just how expensive staff engineers are.
I'm not saying open source may be costly to implement or support, but I just can't fathom why enterprises hate it so much.
We don't hate it. We just have SLA/SLO's and it's cool you like Ceph, but if I don't have a contract from Redhat to support it, Ceph is the name of one of 50 people I need to hire to sort through this OpenStack thing you said would save us money. Also, it's cool I can see the source code, but If I don't have kernel developers on staff, I'm not sure how quickly "Jimmy" who advocated for building our own cloud on Gentoo Linux (Custom complied for speed!) is going to be able to get a hot patch for this issue.
OpenSource powers a TON of the internet.
fried_green_baloney@reddit
Many companies run on open source.
Linux, both desktop and servers.
Python/Numpy/etc
FOSS office suites, less so.
For some things like Photoshop and Excel, maybe no real FOSS substitutes.
Smiles_OBrien@reddit
It has it's place, but as others have said, support. In my environment (K12 public school), we mostly use it for non-critical stuff. Our documentation is Bookstack, for example, and we're working on Zabbix network monitoring. Not to say they aren't important, but if they go down or wig out, we don't ruin our staffs' day.
We had SmartDeploy for imaging, but had to drop it because we couldn't justify the cost of that AND PDQ Connect which had more functionality that we needed vs SD and overlapped in a few critical ways. We moved to FOG for imaging. It has been such a mixed bag for us, I'm working on getting Autopilot ready and saying goodbye to imaging altogether. I rue the day we drop Connect, but hopefully that's still far off.
Kardolf@reddit
100% support related. If you can't point the finger at someone else for support-related issue, then it's YOUR fault. Even if the support vendor does nothing, it takes the pressure off of you, in most cases.
vNerdNeck@reddit
Yes it's justified.
Enterprise IT shouldn't be your science project.
You may be fine, but what about after you?
It's a risk assessment to use open source, if you have the talent and know you can easily replace the talent then it works. Otherwise, it's just a ticking time bomb.
It's all about support and liability.
analogliving1971@reddit
support, support, support.
and open source is not hated.. if it was we wouldn't have linux deployed all over
Kakabef@reddit
Enterprises dont hate opensource; i am sure most of them like the idea of being able to inspect the code. It comes down to two things: Support and blame placement.
sep76@reddit
The killler feature for enterprise, that open source do not have. Is the ability to point the finger, say it is their fault, you have made a ticket.
With open source, you have all the parts, all the power, except the ability to blame someone else.
DocDerry@reddit
1 throat to choke. Support/Provider/Company publishing the software.
In house support - Easier to find people that work and understand closed systems than it is to find opensource engineers. What you save in licensing you spend in managing/hiring/admin costs of supporting the system.
Patch management and vulnerability scanning.
BasicallyFake@reddit
nobody in an enterprise hates open source anything
noThisIsIt@reddit
Open Source = when system breaks or goes down you can’t point a finger at the enterprise and say it’s their fault to avoid regulators
medicinaltequilla@reddit
it requires tremendous resources to track CVEs, keeping your use of open source updated without breaking stuff, and there's nobody to go to for support except yourself.
Prize-Grapefruiter@reddit
Ignorance mainly. They don't have the personnel that knows about it, and they are too eager to pay someone to fix things for them.
da4@reddit
If it's not Microsoft it must be sCaRyHaCkErStUfF
lostmojo@reddit
Gotta blame someone else, c level won’t take the blame for anything, so support mostly. IMO you have to face the fact though that they also want to run systems well beyond support to save money and not always renew support because it alone is expensive. So is it really that or they believe that a product with support has a better product or that it’s what they know and what C level peers say?
Boolog@reddit
Maybe in the ones you encountered.
I worked in two enterprises (huge ones, over 100k employees) in which open source was preferred because we want to know what's inside. Mind you, we had enough internal IT software developers that could actually audit these tools
Leucippus1@reddit
The inverse to that is that huge companies that could pay will wait for one developer who is maintaining a project to fix some bug and get arrogant and pissy when the fix isn't implemented yesterday. You want to say "we are getting what we are paying for."
My last job was like that, they made 11 billion a quarter and hiring a few developers to make fixes to the FOSS they use was somehow far too much of an expenditure.
TryLaughingFirst@reddit
I can only think of a few very rare times where I met a colleague who was so dire-hard on a platform that they "hated" Open Source. I've known many enterprises that run Open Source solutions in different parts of their environment.
Plenty of pfSense/OPNsense, Proxmox, and linux servers running LTSB editions, as well as Open Source tools and solutions (e.g., port scanning, network mapping, proxies, limited-use spin-up services, etc.).
OP, not being critical of you, but your attitude is much more common when there's some level of antagonism between open and closed source solutions. Anyone who has worked for long enough has had the experience of a new hire who come in and starts talking about how 'we need dump M$ and move to Open Office, kill every Windows server and replace them with [X distro of the hour]' and so on.
It's not that your colleagues are "brainwashed," they just have a better view of the landscape and understand more of the variables in play: On the infrastructure side, what's the stability, support availability, environment complexity, and expertise talent pool like? On the end-user side, what's the familiarity level, professionalism, feature set, and compatibility like?
Also, you seem to miss that many Open Source projects are funded (in part) by their (partially) closed paid counterparts.
ofnuts@reddit
I worked for plenty of European banks and insurance companies that have data centers loaded with Linux machines running Java servers with JavaScript interfaces, so open source is not hated everywhere. Of course they have support contracts (RHEL...,)
sdrawkcabineter@reddit
The people that hate it, generally, have no perception on the reality of software development.
I suspect the actual issue is that it empowers individuals to produce without the need for a corporate structure (in most cases) that is plugged in to a greater "observe, speculate, and control" thoughtform shared freely upon maintained lawns.
Also, it would require decision makers to be more accurately "rewarded" for their poorly researched choice of vendor/product. Having a 3rd party to point at gives a certain type of person, peace-of-mind knowing they can readily blame "issues with x" on a vendor.
The dissolution of expertise continues.
ML_Godzilla@reddit
Often leadership is thinking about open source in the same way engineers looked at open source in the 90s even if the ecosystem has changed. I wrote a blog post about it here
https://medium.com/@keeganjustis/the-case-for-open-source-a4bff9acf4b5
VirtualDenzel@reddit
Yeh tldr.
It has nothing to do with it being open source. It has to do with liability and support.
If either one of those 2 is a no go then open source does not enter.
ML_Godzilla@reddit
Support is a large portion of it but there are open source companies that provide SLAs and support as a managed offering. Look for elastic stack for example. You can perform your own install on your own hardware for no fee or pay for managed offering or a support contract.
My experience working with windows administrators, most still hated these options because the perception that open source was lower quality and users would spend more time on terrible interfaces.
VirtualDenzel@reddit
Like i said before
From management perspective. We need liability.
We could host our own exchange and infra easy. But its easier to use azure/365, own dc with redundency would be easier. However if something goes wrong we want to point to someone instead of saying ugh we fucked up.
Same goes for support. If something is amiss for 10k employee's. We just want to get the vendor in and say we gpt issues and a SLA. Go fix it.
Other then that we care not at all if something is open source or not. It is purely accoubtability and risk manouvering away from own management team.
Nothing more nothing less..
ML_Godzilla@reddit
I worked at defense contractor a few years ago that was using red hat and the windows administrators hated anything open source. We had support but the powershell admins were very vocal in their opinion that ansible and red hat Linux were garbage even if we had enterprise support.
Support is a huge component of it but it far from the only factor for some enterprises. I work as a consultant and I run into so many IT leadership personnel who aren’t technical or have years of windows admin experience and bought into Microsoft sales talks from the early 2000s and haven’t changed their mind since 2002.
VirtualDenzel@reddit
Lets agree to disagree. I worked all my life in companies (5000+ employees) and now as one of the heads of MT for over 10k employees. And in all my lifes experience (and thats more then i bargained for 🤣🤣) it always came down to these things : support and liability. Costs are irrelevant, hate against OSS is irrelevant.
Rest is really nothing special. And yeh sure you got some fossils that 5hink like the 2000's. However they should have been replaced long ago since they would not be able to handle modern it.
LANdShark31@reddit
Because enterprises want a throat to choke when things go wrong, and you can hardly go on the war path with a load of people working for free.
madcomm@reddit
1) support - quality of service and reliability is incredibly important at higher levels. A paid API over a free one means people will listen to and fix your access issues.
2) no long term benefits - unless you are on your way out or are generating future clients or users, you do not really have benefits in releasing your stuff with open source licensing
3) short term profit maximization averse - which is how most CEO run publicly marketed companies
KickedAbyss@reddit
Lack of support. Many orgs require developer level support contracts for software they use.
This is why RHEL SLES and such exist, to provide Linux enterprise support.
It's not universally hated though. Many enterprises utilize open source, but have teams of developers who contribute to those software platforms and thus are their own support.
rsysadminthrowaway@reddit
Which is a fucking joke, because enterprise support usually means calling an 800 number and talking to some clueless script monkey on the other side of the world.
Getting support for an open source product? Post to a mailing list or in a forum, and there's a decent chance you'll get a response from the guy who wrote the fucking software.
bv915@reddit
Because they don't trust "free"... after all, how can they buy off their interests?
kyriosity-at-github@reddit
I can't agree remembering NewtonJSON.
What companies do hate, is to donate
Academic_Patient9562@reddit
Because basically all open source licenses exclude creators/maintainers from any liability. If open source screws up, even if they sued the creator/maintainers, they would just get laughed out of court “you got it for free, stop complaining.” But they can get contracts with closed source software companies that can legally promise stability and security so when it fails they can recoup losses from someone else instead of eating it all themselves. Take Crowdstrike for example. I forget if they actually got taken to court by anyone but I bet you there were quite a few fat payouts behind the scenes for that screw up.
zed0K@reddit
Ah young padwan. Support my good sir, that is why.
caseynnn@reddit
As many said, for someone's throat to choke. My COO said Ubuntu is not an enterprise solution. No commercial company is using it. There's no enterprise support. 🤦♂️
Literally said, if issues happen, who's going to be liable for it. 🙄
mitharas@reddit
The most important thing in an enterprise is someone to blame. FOSS is too unspecific to blame effectively .
canyuse@reddit
Enterprises actually love open source. They build a massive platform based off of it and use it as a core part of their business strategy.
The only thing they don’t do with open source is pay for it…
pdp10@reddit
Your premise may not be entirely accurate.
Enterprise is the target of massive investments in sales, marketing, PR. Quite seldom is any specific open-source product sold or marketed to them. In fact, much of the collective commercial effort there, as it were, is to push enterprise away from open source:
oyarasaX@reddit
your typos in your post answer this question.
BloodFeastMan@reddit
What I'm seeing here is that admins are okay with being phased out, as long as they can blame someone.
MastodonMaliwan@reddit
No support. Longevity is questionable.
tesseract4@reddit
It's about theoretically holding the vendor accountable when something goes wrong.
JerryRiceOfOhio2@reddit
no chance of kickbacks with open source, so people in charge aren't interested
Captain__Atomic@reddit
Enterprises don't hate open source. Almost every enterprise uses it in some way.
Enterprises hate risk tho, especially unknown, uncontrolled risks.
Agpl or sspl gives lawyers heartburn, gpl gives a slight sense of unease. Senior leadership doesn't want to give too much latitude for issues, so they put strict controls in.
Then there's one team that chose an abandoned oauth library that nobody noticed had a critical CVE, or the ORM that wasn't compatible with a certain JBoss version and took production down.
My experience has been that senior leaders and enterprise legal teams absolutely understand the value of open source, but they cannot comply with copy left terms, and cannot accept risk nobody is accountable for. Having done some time as an EA, I get it. There's rabbit holes everywhere and you have to plan for the lowest common denominator - so simple, clear strict policies end up in play.
Turdulator@reddit
When it doesn’t work correctly, there’s no one’s feet you can hold to the fire about getting fix patched in ASAP, you gotta just sit and wait while volunteers from the community patch what they feel like patching.
Osayidan@reddit
Everyone typically says "because of support" however when a multi-billion dollar organization takes 3-5 business days to even get someone competent to start looking into your issue, while some volunteer open source maintainer codes a patch for a bug you reported same-day, you gotta ask yourself some serious questions. I rather throw money at open source these days.
wtjones@reddit
You need competent engineers to run open source software. Competent engineers know when VPs are frauds. VPs existence is based on no one finding out they're frauds.
Dry_Inspection_4583@reddit
The best reason I've heard isn't against foss, but an argument against immature software. Just because it's neat, doesn't mean it should be done. There's many foss options implemented in several orgs I've encountered
OffenseTaker@reddit
because when there's an outage there's noone else to pass on responsibility to, fir both financial and/or PR purposes
buttonstx@reddit
Enterprise wants a support number to call if they need to escalate an issue. They want this support to be 24/7 and have SLAs if this is something mission critical. They don't want to hear that you are posting a message on a support forum or mailing list for a solution. They also want someone else to point at when there is an outage.
JustSomeGuyFromIT@reddit
usually a lack of support.
Zazierx@reddit
Aside from support (as many people have said), I also find many higher ups don't trust open source stuff, as strange as that sounds.
chuckaholic@reddit
Business culture. (Besides what others have said about support) Bill Gates was a big influance early on discouraging the ideals of open source. His message was that freely distributing software discourages ingenuity and hinders high quality software availability.
Of course his assertion was completely incorrect because most devices in existence today run on open source. Unfortunately, a lot of his ideas were accepted and are still put into policy decisions. A lot like the idea that cutting taxes for billionaires will benefit the working class. Completely and unequivocally disproved, but still widely accepted and in-use.
Hungry-King-1842@reddit
Support and SLAs. You can pay for support for various Linux distros, but not many will offer a SLA on a distro nor an environment. As others have said many view it as a mechanism to hold over a vender to get its shit together.
etancrazynpoor@reddit
Are you an advocate of open source or free software ?
SteveJEO@reddit
Cos open is historically unreliable, unpredictable, non interoperable, expensive to train staff in and expensive to support.
If you fix all of those issues then yeah.. it could be good.
Newbosterone@reddit
What hate? All the large corporations I’ve worked for used FOSS. We try to buy the most cost effective solution. That’s often FOSS, but not always. We also look at self-support vs purchased support. If we are using a product at scale, purchased support is pretty cost effective.
ReasonablePriority@reddit
Having someone else to blame or come up with a fix is useful. When upper management are jumping up and down and saying why isn't this fixed you can point a finger at Red Hat (IBM) and say 'they are looking into it if you want it done faster his the escalation route...".
But also it's very useful to be able to pass things off to them, even if you still keep looking at things yourself, as it reduces the direct pressure on you allowing you to look at the problem without being interrupted so much.
Redemptions@reddit
I had an idiot CTO in the early 2000's who banned any sort of open source systems. His reason was "It's less secure, people can look through the code." sigh This is after we got hit by Code Red & Blaster.
He eventually came around as the dot.com money started to run out and he needed to become more strategic in spending.
ThePathOfKami@reddit
Finger pointing, if you buy in a product and shit goes to hell, you need to point towards someone with open source that tends to be difficult
ihavenospeed@reddit
Lack of knowledge.
Sincerely, An all open source adm.
aintthatjustheway@reddit
Because it means paying people what theyre worth.
baw3000@reddit
A lot of great answers listed like support, security, etc.
I'd like to add longevity and consistency of the software. How long will this project be maintained? Migrating and changing software on the enterprise scale is a huge lift.
asic5@reddit
Its not. Fortune 500s love Red Hat and Zabbix.
Enterprise likes things that are easy, reliable, repeatable, and come with a throat to choke. Large commercial projects fit that bill. If your business depends on it, you need a support contract.
What they don't like is poorly documented pet projects that rely entirely on one or two persons, and go to shit when that person is gone. If that was tolerable, they might as well build an app in-house.
For critical systems; free as in speech is fine, free as in beer is not. Ultimately, business doesn't give a shit about the development philosophy, they only care about the deliverables and the support.
walks-beneath-treees@reddit
Lots of FUD in this thread, for sure.
If we're talking about support, then Ubuntu, RHEL, SuSe Linux also have one you can call in case something happens.
Community distros like Debian don't have one, but they're are also supported as-is, and you have mailing lists you can resort to. But would you run critical software on Linux? Many companies do.
It's basically a matter of thinking whether you and your team have the expertise to run Linux.
bytecode36@reddit
- Support. If there is an issue with the application, companies need an entity that can quickly resolve the problem. Several hours of downtime can easily end up costing more than the license for a proprietary application.
- Features. Many open source projects just don't have all the bells and whistles that proprietary applications do (many of which large companies need).
- Security. Depending on the project, the people contributing to the code base are relatively unknown. There have been instances of bad actors attempting (successfully in some cases) to inject malicious code into projects.
- Skill. The vast majority of open source software takes more work to maintain than their proprietary counterparts. This is the "value add" with proprietary software, so it's not surprising. Many companies lack personnel with knowledge and talent to manage this work.
- Blame. If something goes wrong with the software, managers will want someone to point to when the C-Suite calls. Whether it's for CYA reasons or legal reasons, decision makers want to keep themselves out of the "path of destruction".
This is not to say that open source is all bad, it just depends on the project. The US government themselves say that not only can open-source software be good, but actually helps them be more secure than proprietary equivalents. https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/. Using open source software from well known, established and funded groups (Linux, Docker, Chromium, MongoDB) is largely not a problem. Many companies are already using these open-source projects (whether they know it or not). The problem is when you start introducing software that was written by a random programmer in his basement.
waywardworker@reddit
Marketing.
Closed source companies pay a lot of money to market to decision makers like CTOs, CEOs, etc. Open source companies like redhat market a little bit nowhere near as much.
The specific issues raised here, support, license concerns, security etc. are all the marketing points.
PrettyFlyForITguy@reddit
Open source software for a lot of projects are backed and funded by some very large companies. The web is basically built on open source software.
However, there are a lot of projects that aren't in the same class as the ones mentioned above. You have a lot of cases where the software mostly works, but some features don't entirely do what they are supposed to do... and its impossible to get anyone to fix it. You are lucky if someone acknowledges your bug request. When they do, its very likely it will be brushed aside.
Money has a lot of power, and without the threat of pulling your $$$, no one is going to have a lot of motivation to make you happy and fix the issues. Of course this is an over generalization, but its true for a lot of projects that aren't well backed and well funded.
Mister_Brevity@reddit
Lack of support. Often poorly curated documentation.
michaelhbt@reddit
support and cyber security concerned with code dependencies which would normally be dealt with through a ...support agreement
Asleep_Spray274@reddit
Because when the 2 main dudes who maintain it have a falling out, and one decides to fork it and run his own and the other dude says screw that and starts on a new project.
_haha_oh_wow_@reddit
I mostly agree that the hate for open source is unwarranted.
When someone starts talking about how open source doesn't have a place in enterprise, I like to point out that almost all of our servers are running Linux (as is most of the Internet).
We actually do use some open source programs where I work, however, I do concede that some open source programs can be a big hassle sometimes both for the end users as well as support and infrastructure.
Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's top notch software (but that doesn't mean it isn't either). That said, a lot of people also don't want to learn something new, including how to run and support some OSS thing. Even when they do, time spent supporting that costs money and if that exceeds what you'd pay in licensing and time spent supporting proprietary software, then it's not worth it.
Still though, I bet if there were honest assessments made, a lot of places would be surprised at how viable some open source stuff is. Many also offer paid support for enterprise, so IMO, it's worth including open source in your assessments going forward. It might not always be the best answer, but there are probably cases where it is and could save your company money.
thatgeekfromthere@reddit
The owner of no starch press gave me the best answer years ago at HOPE..."They lose the ability to point a finger".
largos7289@reddit
Problem is support. With open source it's like some guy whipped this up in a basement somewhere and was like hey this is cool and here is the source code, good luck! never to be seen or heard from again. That and maybe he does keep it up, but then one day decides F**K it i'm done with it and walks away. Now it's your problem with no recourse. With a license software, you always have the leverage of law suits and cutting ties.
NotQuiteDeadYetPhoto@reddit
Legal.
With all of the different types of open source licensing and the requirements of 'turning it loose' ... it's a nightmare. Even with a very deep legal team it took over 6 months to make a determination if we could use a package for an application I used under Gov contract.
Most lawyers don't want to touch it. I don't blame them.
Much easier to pay someone that has done the work and shifts the blame.
ianpmurphy@reddit
Think of like you would the security system in the building. While you could get some local guy to rig up a system based on some electronics designs he found on the internet, connected to door controls he printed up on his latest generation 3d printer, with a nifty app which sort of works in conjunction with the pieces, and a few scripts that interact with some cameras you found on Amazon, but when you can't open the door on Monday morning and there's evidence of a weekend breakin but no video recording, who's going to help you?
BuffaloRedshark@reddit
Support, licensing, copyright
pertexted@reddit
Time and money. Time to self-support, money to pivot with to replace something that might not work. The real problem is technological acumen.
sed_ric@reddit
Because you need competent peoples and be responsible for your actions. Management hates this.
degoba@reddit
Its not. People in this thread seem to be misunderstanding open source as only community supported projects. Open Source simply means you can view the source code of the software. Depending on the lisence you have to contribute to it or you can just add features, box it up and sell it.
Go into any major enterprise and you will most likely find open source software thats being paid for under a support model.
wezelboy@reddit
These days you get better support for open source solutions on reddit than what you pay for in a proprietary product.
SoonerMedic72@reddit
If they have been around for awhile they may have been burned on an open source project that was abandoned. The most likely answer is support though. Most enterprise like paying for a bundle including licensing and support, but hate paying for support for OSS. Its weird.
PntClkRpt@reddit
Risk and supportability. It is also hard to find people with a ton of experience with the products. With that said the LAMP stack and Containers on Linux are in pretty heavy use across the enterprise. With the stupidity of Broadcom with the handling of VMware, you will start to seem the KVM stack, Proxmox, and XCP-ng in the enterprise replacing VMware.
vppencilsharpening@reddit
The big piece for us is, just because it's "free" does not mean there is no cost associated with running it.
Sure we could all run LibreOffice and it works fairly well. BUT there is a massive cost for training users who have grown up using Excel (or Google Sheets).
In addition, there is user satisfaction, which leads to retention. If your competitor is using Microsoft Office and you are using LibreOffice that may be a deciding factor in a job offer or retaining staff. I'm like 90% sure not offering Apple laptops has lost us at least one candidate/employee (and it's still not worthwhile for the business to support a 2nd ecosystem).
This is kinda self-perpetuating, but the smaller user base means you are more likely to have to solve a problem for the first time. If a user is trying to do something semi-advanced in Word, there is a good chance someone has written about it already. That is less likely for LibreOffice so you may be the one who has to figure it out. Which requires time and resources (that are not free for the business).
--
I write all this as a proponent for open source software. I've been able to make some small contributions to the code base of projects I use. I'm not against it, but the license/subscription cost is not the only factor in a decision.
AccountNumber478@reddit
Sustainment and security?
I know of one government agency that's sticking with a product even though it moving from open to closed source is imminent. That doesn't seem to be the norm though.
Idenwen@reddit
Support and lesser safety for continuity, compatibility, tests run and thoughts about UX.
Not that it is guaranteed by commercial software but it's more predictable in most cases.
Special_Luck7537@reddit
I worked in a hospital setting as a DBA, and we had a bad issue with a lib that allowed us to upload and download information from insurance providers for healthcare.
The connector used 3 separate open source apps, chained together - two translation apps and the bridging app. The bridging app had a data type issue. This was included as part of a solution by a provider. When the provider was approached with the information, we were told that we had to get the open source code changed, that they did not provide support for that 'part' of the app. This basically rendered a high price piece of software worthless.
Since that little example of less for more, it was a std question for me during discovery whether or not the solution provider included open source code in his app.
DumbSkulled@reddit
Open-Source isn’t hated, it just isn’t the place for it.
You need products and tools that have enterprise support as well as accountability.
xlecterx@reddit
Really two words. outsourcing risk.
You basically want someone to be held responsible. And paying some company to hold the risk looks lot better.
If you see most open source EULAs the part where "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." makes our lawyers really nervous because we got no one to sue if anything goes wrong.
roiki11@reddit
I have a love/hate relationship with open source. Particularly the ones that gate useful features behind expensive lisences and where the "open source" acts as little more than a demo.
On the other hand there's tons of great open source stuff. The world practically runs on it.
And enterprises tend to love it until they have to pay for it. Managers tend to hate it because they can't offload responsibility to other people and people who manage them are more expensive.
Bonobo77@reddit
It usually comes down to support. If we can’t call or email someone with the issue, we are not getting it.
Also, if something fails, or is compromised in an enterprise solution, it’s the vendor’s responsibility to fix it. If something is found to be wrong with the open source piece, it’s the company’s fault.
ashcroftt@reddit
Yet half the world still goes for Microsoft, when MS support is a synonym for utter hell...
Dal90@reddit
Not if you're actually an enterprise.
As I'm typing on a conference call about this topic, with the author: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/coreinfrastructureandsecurityblog/decrypting-the-selection-of-supported-kerberos-encryption-types/1628797
Bonobo77@reddit
If your replacing MS enterprise solutions for an open source one, then you go from "utter hell" support to no, to a pay per incident model.
I can not image what that would look like.
kixkato@reddit
Have you heard of Canonical? Pretty sure you can pay them for Openstack support and they'll answer your call at 3 am.
Best part is once the in house people learn the platform, you can stop paying Canonical and keep using Openstack.
Full enterprise support exists for open source software. People are just scared because if it's free it can't be as good as the one that costs $$$$.
alerighi@reddit
So your company values more having a mail from Microsoft that says "we are working on it, we would let you now in whatever days if we fix it" than having the problem fixed?
Because my boss values more of having the problem fix, and the mail for Microsoft is just toilet paper... for this reason he prefers using open source software, where you usually get better support, and if not at least anyone of our company has the skills to work on it, fix the issue, and submit a patch.
For example once my boss itself submitted a patch to asterisk to solve a bug. BTW, a lot of parts of the Italian railway system uses asterisk for VOIP, including emergency communication between stations, not some random proprietary software than maybe in a couple of years will no longer be supported (and these systems remain in service without anyone to touch them after commissioning even for 20-30 years).
Cobra-Dane8675@reddit
There is essentially no support for most open source software. The 'Greedy Companies' have to provide support resources and QA for their products. That costs (a lot) of money and provides gainful employment for many thousands if not millions of people. I enthusiastically use open source for my home lab and personal use, but if I ran a big corporation, I would have to pay for a certain amount value in QA and support. That said, there are clearly some open source products with commercial support available now that are worth a look, and the rise of linux in the enterprise is a notable case-in-point. But IT managers have to be able to run an environment even if their open-source zealot moves on to another job. It's professional self-preservation. I don't think I've ever (in decades of employment in the industry) run into a case of 'hatred' of open source. There's certainly a bit of disdain, but for most it's simply not an option for most enterprises.
30yearCurse@reddit
Solarwinds hack was because of other things, long term play by russia.
it has been mentioned below, support...
waxwayne@reddit
Because there is no one to be held accountable when things go wrong but yourself. The reason large enterprises buy best of breed products is to give themselves some cover when things go wrong. If everyone is using Microsoft and Cisco then no is gonna blame you for that.
valdecircarvalho@reddit
Support! How old are you OP?
Feisty_Outcome9992@reddit
I don't think OP has any real world experience in this area at all.
Mirror-Candid@reddit
Open source is great. But if it requires me to hire a developer to administer it I need to ensure there is a pool of developers to hire from when the implementation person takes a new job elsewhere.
Also if I can spend 100k on a software license that does 90% of what I need I'd be happier doing that than spending 3mil on a team to customize open source.
MarkZuckerbergsPerm@reddit
Because who are you going to call for support when things break? You might be able to fix it yourself, but what if you aren't?
AdorableEggplant@reddit
you have to understand what you are doing
philly169@reddit
In my opinion, open source is great but sometimes needs a bit of work to get up and running, and often some specialist knowledge.
Commercial tools have that all down, so you don’t need to worry (yes that comes with the cost) but as mentioned earlier you also have someone to point at when doesn’t go right.
Sunshine_onmy_window@reddit
Theres open source and open source. From a cyber perspective, some of the more community type programs can take a long time to be patched, meanwhile attackers know the flaws. Supply chains can be difficult to follow, and attackers can publish things that have hidden malicious intents. It can be hard to confirm who or what is responsible for a software.
Thats not to say open source shouldnt be used, see apache, MySQL, NGINX, openSSL etc.
mr_data_lore@reddit
Open source isn't the problem, support is. For the few open source projects that provide competent enterprise grade support, I have no problem using them for business critical things.
nullvector@reddit
The support quality of it is directly tied to the employees you have, which is a variable that can quickly change. You can get professional Linux support, but less so with other open source things that you’d get on GitHub, etc.
I’ve also tended to see some forking or dropped support, or corporate buy-outs between open source products, databases, etc. This happens with enterprise products too, but contracts slow that down a bit to a time frame that’s manageable for change.
malikto44@reddit
Open source isn't hated... companies love free stuff. Look at OpenSSL and how many people use that without caring to help with the design of it.
There are a few reasons for the "hate":
Vendors want to take an OSS product, add some stuff to it, sell it for insane amounts. After a few paid for vacation trips for CEOs. deals are made.
Vendors want to make their own stuff, to try to get people to use their products. It would really be nice to have a scalable, F/OSS directory server (FreeIPA does scale somewhat, but not nearly as much as AD/Entra). However, this is unlikely to happen. Same with a backup program (I've not had good luck with Amanda and Bacula.)
Companies want to palm off blame, even if support is impossible, thus support contracts.
Pretty much it boils down to the bottom line. Ironically, were it not for GNU, BSD, and Linux, almost none of the current Internet companies would even be possible. Most likely, we would have Microsoft, IBM, Accenture, media companies, Prodigy, and AOL, but not much else, because without an OS and compiler, one isn't going far.
DefinitelyNotDes@reddit
Because in the past, it would work like crap for a VERY long time until they got the kinks worked out with a tiny staff. So people got it in their heads that open source is unreliable, second rate, and bad.
mfraziertw@reddit
Liability and accountability. Lawyers and the legal/risk departments in companies don’t like it because it’s impossible to have “someone else” hold the risk. Companies like it when someone can be held accountable for mess up. Especially when that someone is beyond the door of the company. Open source pushes that risk inside to who ever choose to use it.
NoCream2189@reddit
exceptional marketing and brainwashing by Microsoft … no other reason.
Support - rubbish - you can train staff in any tech and open source is often better supported by a diverse community than closed source. As other have commented - MS support is shite (at least they have the bare minimum) Google is non-existent
SLAs - again rubbish - companies don’t go getting SLAs with the likes of Microsoft and Google - they used to (part of the brain washing) - if you really really large, maybe. And let’s be honest SLAs are just a sales tools and fundamentally rubbish. Vendors breach their SLAs all the time and nothing ever happens, some mea culpa and that it
Someone to blame - again this allows falls on the sysadmins - - if a head is going to roll, it will be an internal staff member. Nobody at Microsoft is gonna get the blame for their faulty shit - maybe on some rare occasion when they have really f’dup
Senior management have all been brainwashed by the lie that open-bad, microsoft - good.
I’ve been doing IT for 40+ years and trying to convince a bunch of C level fucktards (I’m also a C’level fucktard) - that there are better options around is impossible.
I have several clients who insist on using OneDrive/Sharepoint - one of the worse cloud storage solutions on the planet - been trying to convince them for 10yrs that there are better solutions out there - but because this piece of shit software is free, they wont budge and we are talking clients that have 1500+ people globally, with many offices in place where the internet is 700ms latency and your lucky if you can get more than a 10Mbps internet connection and they want to have use a solution that has no local server caching capabilities - which would save a ton of bandwidth.
i’ve been an advocate for the best tool for the job… not 100% MS or 100% open source.
I did work for 1 company, where I managed the whole infrastructure team, which consisted of both a group of linux guys and group of MS guys - working side by side… using the right tool for the right situation - was one of the best teams I ever managed.
Thebelisk@reddit
Another item to consider; you will struggle to find new hires which can slot into the team in an Open Source environment. And when you do find a suitable candidate, you can be assured they will cost a lot more than other candidates on the market.
Companies try to reduce risk, and going Open Source for most organisations is a risk they could do without.
NorthStarTX@reddit
Over the years, the arguments I've heard against open source tend to fall into one of a few categories:
1: If it was valuable, it wouldn't be free. <- usually stated by someone in finance or management unfamiliar with open source norms.
2: If something breaks, who do we call for support? Can we get someone on the phone in an hour? <- Pretty legitimate, open source documentation can be sparse and out of date. So can big box software, but at least then you have someone to blame.
3: Licensing concerns. <- This can be a big one, as the GPL has many provisions that employers haven't and don't want to test.
4: Indemnity <- Having support when things go wrong is important, but having someone else to sue when things go wrong is often more valuable from a business perspective. This is why most companies who go open source buy either Red Hat, Oracle, Ubuntu or Suse, as they offer indemnity for software in their repos.
armandcamera@reddit
Open source is great! For non-mission critical purposes only. For business purposes, the software must work flawlessly if you’re going to charge money. Think the difference between Photoshop and The Gimp.
irsupeficial@reddit
What events/situations made you arrive at that conclusion?
How is open source "hated"?
In what regard?
Hated like - a given enterprise does not want:
> to open source its own product(s)/service(s)?
> to USE open source product(s)/service(s)/tool(s)/libraries?
All Fortune 500 - 5000 - USE open source libs to the very least. I doubt if there's a single exception (could be, I just doubt it).
Now if you are wondering why big enterprises do not offer their products/services as open source - why should they? It's a business decision after all.
I think it is GREAT that enterprises have ridiculous fees. That leaves A LOT of room for competition. :)
Make it better, make it more affordable - figure out how to sell it - there you go - great niche. In a world who (for the better part of the last 20+ years) became exceedingly greedy (on both personal and business level) - that's awesome!
buzzlightyear999@reddit
We’ve been burnt by open source projects that have then gone enterprise/paid, for example we use a open source document generation library for .net for years, suddenly the project changed to a ‘paid use for enterprise’ model, and wanted to charge us ££££. Also been burnt by open source projects that stop being maintained, so no security updates etc.
zero_z77@reddit
Main thing is the lack of support. A big part of why enterprise grade software is so expensive is because it usually comes with a 24/7 support package. And when i say "support package" i'm not talking about some random person with no actual technical knowledge reading from a script/prompt. I'm talking about a support contact that knows what they're doing and will usually bend over backwards to solve whatever issue you're dealing with.
Second thing is leverage, if you're paying tens of thousands to millions of dollars for a piece of software, you have a whole lot of leverage you swing around to get new features that you want in future updates, and the threat of looking at the competition or a FOSS alternative carries a lot of weight when negotiating future buisness.
Third is CYA, in a lot of cases, open source software can't meet certain legal requirements or doesn't have the appropriate certifications/rubber stamps from the powers that be, so using them is a big risk because if something does go wrong, they can potentially be held liable for not using software that's certified or pre-approved. You'll see lots of this in the medical field or in government work.
Fourth is longevity, open source projects get abandoned all the time, new ones spin up to take their place, maintainers change, etc. And long established companies like microsoft aren't likely to just suddenly stop development, or get bought out & gutted anytime soon. You may have heard the term "bus factor" before. Most open source projects have a bus factor of 1-5, but big name software companies are huge and have a rather large bus factor. Buisnesses strongly favor consistency & stability, and they are willing to pay top dollar for it.
Fifth is entrenched software ecosystems and the skillsets attached to them. Most buisnesses already have an existing software ecosystem that both their IT staff and employees are trained on. Transitioning to an open source alternative would involve lots of retraining and downtime with tons of mistakes made along the way which would effect productivity. For example, at my last job we used windows servers for everything. I often proposed standing up linux servers to save money, but the main reason i was shot down was because i was the only person on our IT staff that was familiar with linux. These guys had been using the windows ecosystem for years and knew it inside and out. Switching to linux would've basically meant starting over from scratch and relearning everything for them.
Sixth, the main security concern with open source software is keeping it up to date, especially after a project has been abandoned. Going with what i said about longevity, when an open source project gets abandoned, it no longer recieves security updates, and this can happen suddenly and without any warning. That software could stick around in your ecosystem for years racking up unpatched vulnerabilities. With enterprise software, buisnesses are usually notified well in advance if software they've purchased is no longer going to be supported, or if any serious vulnerabilities have been found (which is a part of that support package) and that will give them both the time and a gentle push to upgrade or find an alternative before the software becomes a serious security risk.
physical0@reddit
There's an old term that sums this up nicely. FUD.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Companies don't make money if you are not buying their software. Collectively, they all market against FOSS software and they have done a pretty good job convincing a number of people.
Many people in this thread cite 'support' as the main reason. This excuse completely ignores that there are literally companies out there that you can pay to support your FOSS software installation. Many software groups that provide software make their money selling support for their free software.
Enterprise hates FOSS because big software companies don't sell FOSS.
User1539@reddit
I had this conversation with my boss last Thursday.
We have a VPN provider that's absurdly bad, and at the same time we run our own servers and have a literal staff of thousands of IT people.
It makes no sense to not be hosting VPN.
What we find is that the upper management goes to trade shows and finds out what our competitors use, and they want that. Also, we often get trash we need to integrate with our system purely because a really good salesman let a VP win at golf.
Because purchasing decisions are technical decisions, but the people doing the purchasing aren't technical.
ns1852s@reddit
Depends on the product and use case. We use open source products in my enterprise environment. Even moving to Proxmox from VMware. Yes we will purchase a license for Proxmox.
But to name a few notable open source products we use heavily:
Cmake OpenDDS Qt (license obtain for this....qt has become more evil) Proxmox Truenas (soon) Opencv Vsg (Vulkan based build of Osg)
kremlingrasso@reddit
Open source almost always require in house knowledge and companies don't want to be dependent on people. Rather pay 5x or 20x more then a senior SME + one-two junior would cost, but have poor support and documentation from a vendor.
They like us interchangable.
Elpardua@reddit
There’s no hate, just reality checks. Most tempting way to adopt open source for a company is the “it costs you nothing” thing. We all understand it, I’ve even pushed for it back in the days, when I still had hair. But most open source projects won’t offer paid support, at least not as high as regular software companies. They don’t have the structure to back up an SLA for example. So, when you’re buying a “closed” solution, the truth is you’re paying a scapegoat for the moment everything else fails, even knowing there’s better open source solutions. Working several years in operations teach you that valuable lesson. A former boss and friend of mine always replied to my suggestions of open source solutions with “Ok, ok, I get it. But, who’s gonna come to the DC when this goes down?, You?”
hypen-dot@reddit
“Hated”? We need to tone down the use of words that don’t apply. Less drama and less clickbaity headlines, please.
Free isn’t free. There are risks associated with any software, but especially in terms of malware and vulnerabilities downstream dependencies. Analysts and monitoring of code you don’t control or have an entity responsible for doing that on your behalf is necessary otherwise you roll the dice on hoping nothing is discovered in the future.
Analysis and monitoring takes time, effort, knowledge, and constant vigilance, which many companies don’t have. It’s a far better investment to just buy software with a responsible party which can be held accountable should something go wrong with it.
For all of the “openness”, the sea of dependencies odd to vast to manage effectively and the “community” isn’t a valid defense. Malicious code can sit undetected for years: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-pypi-package-hides-rat-malware-targets-discord-devs-since-2022/amp/
It’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of trust.
mad-ghost1@reddit
Log4j …. e.g.
samskeyti19@reddit
Accountability
codewario@reddit
For us, it’s more than whether the software is open source or not. We don’t have an issue with open source software, but we prefer software that we can purchase support packages for this is not because we are not capable and cannot troubleshoot our own systems, but organizationally we want someone to fall back on when we have production issues with that product.
We do at times write our own software or we get approval to use open source software without support packages. And support isn’t the end I’ll be all, either. We also care about the reputation of the vendor. So there’s a lot more that goes into it than just whether it’s open source or not.
SilenceEstAureum@reddit
To parrot everyone else here, it’s because of “support” largely being relegated to forums and setup requiring a steep learning curve.
Take network monitoring software for example. I guarantee I could get anyone in my department to spin up an instance of PRTG in less than an hour. But I guarantee it would take one of our best techs most of the day to setup an instance of LibreNMS
Ok-Whatever-397@reddit
NOBODY wants to help you, it's just "RTFM" as everything breaks around you.
sryan2k1@reddit
3 main things, support as everyone else has pointed out, the lack of internal talent to maintain it, and lifecycle.
Most companies want products not projects. I know vSphere will be supported in 5 years because I have a contract that says it has to. Who knows if uncle Dave's hypervisor on git will ever get an update ever again.
We use a wide mix of closed and open source, but we understand the risks of community supported stuff.
Annh1234@reddit
Usually you can't fix stuff in Open Source, you need to wait for the project owner to do it, and that might or might not happen.
Usually ou can't fix stuff because you don't have the in-house skills to do it.
You might have the in-house skills to install it, deal with users asking questions about it, but if you find a big or need a new feature, you need to developers for it.
If you have those developers, then usually you can fix or find temporary workarounds, so it's fine.
But usually you fix whether needs fixing, and use it internally, not publish it to the world.
The developers usually want to publish it to the world, but they also want the company to pay then while they do it... And the company is for profit, it usually won't do it. And the developers won't work for free... So close source it is.
Gishky@reddit
2 reason:
1) better surpport because the company can charge for it
2) might have worse security, but at least not everyone can read what security it has. The best security is worth damn near nothing if everyone knows how it works
charleswj@reddit
Are you saying this or are you saying someone else says this? It's nonsense whoever says it.
pozazero@reddit
This might surprise you OP but I've heard more pro-open source sentiments from private sector IT managers and CISOs than anti-open source sentiments. (This surprised me also)
Common thread: they want to avoid vendor lock-in. This makes perfect sense, If I'm an IT manager about to launch a project that X Vendor goes bust or gets taken over (and new buyer not interested in providing XYZ solution) that leaves my project possibly stuck in the mud. If open source, I can just migrate the data to another provider.
Stupnix@reddit
As usual, the answer is money and anxiety.
Money because the free to use software needs expensive to train and pay specialists on site. And backups for the backups of those specialists. A company providing the same service for a few grand a year is nothing compared to that.
Anxiety because if something goes wrong, someone has to take the blame. If you have picked the specialists and it was your responsability to make sure they did their job right, you need to know what they have to do and learn. So you need to be a specialist yourself. If you are not: "How could you know what they need to do? Bad decision, we can't have someone so naiv in our leadership team". If you are and something goes wrong: "You had to know this was going to happen and take action before this outage. You didn't see this coming? Why are you even in your position if you can't keep track of potential risks?" An external company that can act as scapegote gives peace of mind.
Brad_from_Wisconsin@reddit
scapegoat factor
When things go wrong, and things will go wrong, IT managers can blame a vendor and use the time between problem onset and first damage control meeting to set up a "waiting for vendor response" status. This directs attention away from the local IT staff and onto the "incompetent" vendor that has not returned our phone call yet.
This gives local staff time to compile logs and begin to troubleshoot.
Once the problem is resolved, the heroic local IT management and staff will work up a root cause analysis that involves some level of blame of the vendor.
The CFO likes paid software subscriptions because they provide a fixed cost for the budget cycle.
The CTO likes paid subscriptions because the contracted response times give him / her assurance that they will get a phone call returned and they will be able to escalate the problem to experts.
HR likes support contracts because they do not need to pay to keep subject matter experts on staff. They can have a second tier tech (cheaper) who acts as the remote hands for the contracted support staff employed by the software vendor. The support contract protects them from staff turn over.
ezrapoundcakes@reddit
Nobody to blame if things go tits up. That's why you hire smart people who know how to fix open source software instead of buying a shitty, expensive license. Pay for people, not for shitty, non-existent support from a nationwide vendor.
Own-Refrigerator1224@reddit
Because lack of litigation when shit goes south.
NonRelevantAnon@reddit
Every enterprise is have been at uses open-source applications not too sure what you mean hate open-source source. What enterprises prefer is supported software. So software that they can pay to have good support with. There are open source projects that you can pay for support. So I think you are not understanding the situation nobody hates open-source they just prefer software they can get support on.
RevWaldo@reddit
With the support issue, can't you just hire a vendor to provide that support (and have someone to blame if they fuck up?) More to the point, you'd have a number of vendors to choose from, so you can find one that best suites your needs? And not be locked into the same one for twenty years?
Icetorn@reddit
The Flow of Shit. There's an old an infamous meme, about how shit trickles downwards, from regional management, to local management to team leads to the grunts. With Open Source you just have no outlet for it to trickle down. The 16y old's metaphor not withstanding, it is impossible to demand of anyone to fix something OS that breaks. Even for upper management.
bgdz2020@reddit
Because my boss is a commi /s
Horsemeatburger@reddit
The main reason is that businesses, especially enterprises, tend to behave like lemmings when it comes to IT, i.e. they use whatever everyone else they know is using. It's the main reason Microsoft has such a strong foothold, and the same is true for many other vendors with a similar shitty track record (such as Solarwinds or Ivanti, why the hell is anyone still using them?), and the resulting monoculture consisting of shitty solutions has been a constant gift for bad actors.
The issue is that there's a common perception that just going with what everyone else is going with is low risk. In addition, c-suite is rarely well versed in what other options are available out there, and also doesn't really care unless it directly affects their bonuses. Also, especially in larger businesses the focus is often on short-term profits so whatever works now is seen as good enough.
FOSS also suffers from the common belief that open source equals "no support", while in reality there are just as many support options for all kind of FOSS platforms and applications. Red Hat, SuSE and Canonical are just a few examples, there's also IBM and Oracle (shudder) and many other vendors.
rire0001@reddit
Not hate, but simple risk analysis. Support for open source must be provided for internally, adding to the personnel cost of maintenance, as you now have to find the right sysadmins and retain them. Higher risk. However, our agency has shied away from some COTS products for lack of quality supposed, so it works both ways.
We've also used open source stuff when it's supported by contract, either built in like Red Hat or provided by a third party or systems integrator, like Accenture.
Security is also part of the risk analysis: Is someone/something that I trust explicitly going to go through all of the code? Should I compile it all locally, to insure that the codebase matches the executable?
Plus who's going to insure that the product has all required CERT patches?
hastinapur@reddit
Can’t find decent support for open source products… support quality in general is going down IMO
PsyMx@reddit
Mad respect to you for breathing open source. But in a company everybody should be replaceable, and it would be a very difficult replacement to find, someone with the precise stack of open source tools specialization that specifically you selected for that company, a nightmare.
weggooinaam2@reddit
Supply chain attacks are becoming a bigger risk.
identicalBadger@reddit
Support. Not just so we can call them for help, we rarely need to escalate that high. But so the higher up can point their fingers at someone when something goes wrong. And honestly, as little sense as that makes, I'd rather them point their fingers at a vendor than at any of us rank and file employees.
Take the VMWare debacle. Like everyone else, they have priced us out of the game and we are actively migrating to something new. I'd asked off the record if Proxmox had been evaluated and was told they hadn't looked any further than to find that the developer didn't offer 24x7 support, and that there were third parties we could contract with didn't matter to them.
That was surprising to me initially, we have a deep bench as far as Linux expertise goes (granted our sysadmins deploy and support Redhat) so it didn't seem like too much of a stretch for us to be able to support ourselves. And we could hire a couple additions to the Linux teams with the savings. But was told privately the decision is more to cover all of our own asses than anything else.
That's what we only deploy RHEL, etc. Nothing to do with the product, all about having a vendor who can absorb the brunt of it if something goes wrong.
dflek@reddit
Support is a big factor for sure. There's also something about incentives being aligned, especially if it's a competitive industry. If vendors need to compete, we can be confident that the product will develop over time and the vendor is incentivised to keep the product secure, as bug -free as possible and to keep improving functionality.
carlovski99@reddit
Other part of this, 'enterprise' level, closed source products often have to play nicely with other similar products. Your average open source maintainer isn't necessarily going to have the access to build and test that.
davidogren@reddit
And when people say support, they don’t just mean “someone to call when it breaks”. It also means security and patching. I had a nightmare summer with a spreadsheet of community supported open source dependencies and their CVEs. Some didn’t have fixes, some only had fixes in versions that were painful to upgrade to, some were semi abandoned. It took forever to get through that spreadsheet.
njoYYYY@reddit
Stupidity mostly
olinwalnut@reddit
Open-source advocate here.
I have successfully implemented open-source projects and applications into my org, with a big one recently being Guacamole. It was a fight and I had to prove the “free” application was better than a $5,000 solution.
There’s also not even an open-source issue but it’s just like any other field - if it isn’t the brand name, then it must be garbage according to our C-level team. We recently went through the exercise of evaluating hypervisors not named VMware (thanks Broadcom) but I abandoned ship early because all I heard from our CIO was “Even though it is more expensive, why would we ever leave the gold standard?”
Gummyrabbit@reddit
1 - Because they don't have faith in your ability to fix something if it breaks.
2 - Because management has never been on the phone with paid support. They don't know the money they spend for support is to have someone reading off a scripted troubleshooting document.
SevaraB@reddit
Strawman- our enterprise hates anything that isn’t open source, because we’re tired of vendor support contracts having us over a barrel. Having a billions-in-revenue business means we potentially lose * literal millions* each day we have to wait for vendor escalation processes.
angrypacketguy@reddit
Too many barely competent windows clowns.
housepanther2000@reddit
I use open source in my business wherever and whenever possible because it is simply better software.
housepanther2000@reddit
I think most enterprises have this misguide notion that they have somebody that they can sue if things go wrong. Clearly, they haven't read the fine print of the ToS.
BestReeb@reddit
Sunk cost is a big factor surely. Admins having spend years learning the idiosyncrasies of the Microsoft or VMWare ecosystems would see their knowledge decrease in value. On the other hand, for enterprises it becomes more and more difficult and expensive to switch to open source the more they become entrenched in proprietary walled gardens.
caribbeanjon@reddit
The answers to your question have been listed (several times) but you attack all of them ("oversimplification" "copout" etc...). As someone who works large enterprise that utilizes both open and closed source, I can tell you the choice of which software package to use is complicated and involves a number of factors including those listed here. But you don't seem to want to hear the answers. You seem to have started with the premise that "open source = good, closed source = bad" which is the only actual "copout" on this thread.
AcidBuuurn@reddit
A company I know used LibreOffice for a long time. But it introduced so much friction when communicating with other organizations that they switched to Microsoft Office. So one reason is standardization. I have a couple clients who use Google Apps internally, but have to convert to .docx or .xlsx when sharing with other orgs.
kidyus@reddit
Google docs and meetings are both aggravating to me as a non-user.
hudsoncress@reddit
we use a ton of open source, just so long as its vendor supported. “Enterprise” doesn’t want to become software developers If that’s outside their core function.
gumbrilla@reddit
So, depends on the application of the solution..
If it's core business then sure - so we're a SAAS supplier, we use plenty of open-source. Infact I'd say most of our technology stack is open source. We also spend a lot of time working on it.
If it's not core - like running our website, or user management, email and messaging and all that, then we're farming that out, we don't have the skills, we don't want the skills, and will happily pay and get a solution. It's just a commodity. Could we do something clever? Sure, but why would we waste bandwidth on something that's not core?
It's also why we don't host corpo IT on-prem. Mucking around with servers, and licenses and the like, bleh.
p3ac3ful-h1pp13@reddit
You see enterprises like to make promises to their customer that nothing will ever break down. Open source doesn't come with support. You will see companies like IBM, Oracle and others take open source software repackage them as their own and then sell them with support. A few examples of these are red hat, open shift, a lot of Oracle software, etc. You have contract base support, enterprises can provide more "assurity". Personally I'm a big fan of open source but ever fortune 500 company I've worked for favored shitty closed source alternatives.
PM_THE_REAPER@reddit
It's all about the need for contractual liability and support with enforceable SLAs. You need to be able to hold the supplier to account, especially if you're an MSP with customer contracts that if breached, could cost a lot of money. Otherwise, I'm all for open source.
IamNabil@reddit
Open source is fine, until you just want a simple answer from someone because it is getting late and you fear you will need to rebuild some custom, undocumented, taped-together, bullcrap application, left behind by the cheap previous sys admin, that you haven't gotten around to replacing yet.
jsand2@reddit
As a business, I will trust something tried true and tested over believing our 1 guy who knows open source doesn't screw up and leave a security vulnerability somewhere.
Nietechz@reddit
Most IT folks don't want learn something new. Also, it's easy yo says "not my fault". It's better when you have someone to blame in case of failure.
SaucyKnave95@reddit
There is no free lunch. Even OSS includes a cost or a shortcoming somewhere. Maybe it's in capabilities, maybe it's in the tight focus it has to just one task. Maybe development and support just disappears one day (this is pretty obviously the reason enterprise doesn't like it). I use a variety of OSS tools at work, some I've even donated to, but I don't think they're better than closed source just because I got them for free.
ah-cho_Cthulhu@reddit
Funny part is most closed sourced software uses open-sourced technology. They just wrap hardened support around their product offering.
VNiqkco@reddit (OP)
This is my point
enjaydee@reddit
Enterprises generally don't care if a product is open source or closed source. It's as the vast majority of answers here, the most important thing is support.
pl2303@reddit
Lack of cover-your-ass potential.
whatever462672@reddit
People literally don't know how much of their tech stack is actually OpenSource. They just want to manage liability, is all.
perthguppy@reddit
Because most open source projects can’t afford to hire slick sales people in suits to take middle managers and execs out to lunch and dinners. I’ve literally had clients veto me for suggesting an open source project even tho it’s the defacto standard for how to do that function (eg, a fucking remote proxy for a web application. No we can’t use nginx on Linux, we need to get Zscaler or some shit)
SandyTech@reddit
Support and compliance are the two main factors. The big secondary one, for me at least, is someone else to take the blame for an outage.
dean771@reddit
Because when something goes wrong you cant shift the blame
ozzieman78@reddit
It is the support agreement that comes with the yearly software and support bill. There is no other reason than that. If the shit hits the fan and the team has exhausted all options being able to get a support case in can be a life saver.
In saying that when you do product evaluation also take into account the reputation of the vendor's support. This was one of the reasons why I was a Commvault fanboi for years. Their support used to be best in their field.
Grimzkunk@reddit
Lack of support. Hard to share software knowledge amongst the IT team when a solution is custom configured/developed by one guy. It lowers the IT budget, and when it's time to go back to non opensource the director has to work hard to get back the budget.
token40k@reddit
No such thing. Enterprises love shit they don’t need to pay for. We have open source programs office with budget to contribute to projects that make us money, pandas and such. But also when you use open source you need to make sure licensing is in compliance, a lot of open source while open requires proper licensing which can open companies to legal risk if devs just willy nilly start installing libraries. Also did yall forget all the malicious code injected via supply chain attacks in seemingly safe node repos? Or when the repo is spelled close to the real good one
lostdysonsphere@reddit
Honestly, if you use open-source software in your enterprise I myself expect either of the two: Pay for support or put some engineers on it and contribute upstream.
I don't think there's a hatred for OSS (the same could be said the other way around really) but it's just purely business. Like people said already, support and that phone nr to call is worth a LOT of money. Some compliance rules also don't allow software unless security and governance boxes have been ticked.
jonblackgg@reddit
Support, utilizing budgets (use it or lose it), compliance.
It seems enterprises are okay with FOSS that can run on end user machines, but when it comes to self hosted server based operations they tend to be against it.
Kyla_3049@reddit
That's what I think. Companies don't second guess installing Chrome, VS Code, VLC, 7zip, etc on end user machines, but anything to do with infrastructure they avoid because they usually can't get support from the developers.
ananix@reddit
Because it makes you into the provider.
chandleya@reddit
Support, responsibility, influence, commonality amongst peers.
And sometimes, advantage. Cost is rarely an advantage - time to implement, features and templates, heavy automation, list can go on. Open source generally addresses commodity.
And if you work in documents, spreadsheets, and presentations all day, you positively do not want to use OpenOffice. Let’s be real.
dkopgerpgdolfg@reddit
To all "support" answerers:
You are aware that the developers/maintainers of open-source software can be paid to provide company-level support too, right?
Open/closed and supported/unsupported are orthogonal.
In any case, I don't think "hatred" is common.
Companies are careful to not "infect" their proprietary software with GPL&co., but that is understandable.
hymie0@reddit
There's nobody to sue when things go bad.
kuebel33@reddit
In addition to support it’s also versioning and the fact there is no guarantee if a vulnerability is found, that it will ever get fixed.
nowtryreboot@reddit
Personal use: open-source. At work: Greedy organizations.
BusFinancial195@reddit
It is time and risk. If you have something that has to stay working its helpful to have real help when problems occur.
HellDuke@reddit
The reasons are varied. For one, it's support. For example let's say an open source solution breaks down. Who's responsible for sorting it out? There is no vendor for you to turn to. So you either still pay someone to support a code base that is not theirs and they won't have as good an understanding of it, or you retain a developer of your own, which probably would be far more expensive.
The security angle is another one that is commonly used by FOSS advocates, the idea that it's all open so you can investigate for vulnerabilities, however that is a double-edged sword for a company. It means that you have to pay someone to audit that code on a regular basis, it means that attackers can also look for vulnerabilities more easily and once YOUR auditors find it now you have to somehow plug those holes. So again, the benefits kind of just do not exist when compared to typical licensing software, because all that is built into the licence, which the vendor is obliged to solve on a contractual basis or you can get out of paying for it when they fail.
Finally is the lack of documentation. As someone who inherited a projected started where a lot of work is needed from our side to implement a solution, I can tell you that very often it's not worth it compared to a fire and forget solution that you just follow instructions on setting up. Granted this applies to both FOSS and licence software, but it's far more common to have these issues in FOSS
All in all, it's not hated as much as it's an alternative that offers no benefit. If there are no alternatives within budgetary constraints, or it's not important, sure, even larger companies will use FOSS. For example, one group in our company uses Request Tracker, because the team is not willing to pay for licences of the IT ticketing system and they do not need that much. However, it is accepted that if it breaks you might end up without a ticketing solution for days and the sysadmins are not accountable for bringing it back up or even ensuring data is retained. Back in my previous position I had to migrate the thing twice and upgrade it once. If it became necessary again, someone filling that role would have to go through all the effort I did again, which is not quick even if it is a tool with one of the better documentations out there.
SafePossibility@reddit
because of support
MidninBR@reddit
If you can pay for support, it’s gold
pomp0m@reddit
Open source is not the problem but the organisation behind it. Aosp, rhel, suse, xen orchestra, and loads of other open-source is used in enterprise but company’s don’t want to be responsible for something that is not their business but is a necessity to make their business work. So a small open source project where the existential question is debatable is not used only when you can point to a other entity and make them responsible for failure.
dagamore12@reddit
A few of the big hits to FOS(free and open source) software in the corporate world, is most of their rules and cyber insurances require support for the software from the vendor, and possibly require a verifiable supply chain on that software, i.e. it must be from friendly countries or better. I know of more than a few places where the cyber requirement is no Russian/Chines/'Terror states" in the supply chain, and that can really hurt some FOS software, some of it has none of the the developers listed so it cant be verified, and when they do have the listed, and they are listed as being based in a banned country you just cant use it.
economic-salami@reddit
Support is obvious one but compliances would be a headache too. How do you know open source stuff is not compromised by malicious actors, and what can you do to recover damage in case such malicious code finds way into open source projects. Does contributing to open source count as work, and how exactly does it align with company's mission. I am no expert but things like that does not seem so easy to answer confidently.
ChiefBroady@reddit
Mainly because of they pay for it, there is someone to blame when it stops working.
cyvaquero@reddit
I've never encountered hate toward Open Source except for one Security guy who's arguments against it fell flat the second you'd point out that networking in general runs on open source.
That said, as someone in Enterprise - Support, plain and simple. When shit hits the fan and your internal folk are out over their ski tips because they have to know several technologies, management wants to be able to call someone who has people dedicated to this one tech (yes, in practice that promise is rarely delivered upon but that is what is being sold), if not for a solution, someone to point the finger at.
joshghz@reddit
If there's an open source tool that will do what I need it to with a low risk, I will gladly embrace it. I've used many open source things in production at different times.
But there's many situations where an open source solution is just not as practical, efficient, or reliable (when it comes to support and SLAs) as its closed source counterparts. Wazuh can do really cool things and is a great product (from my own playing around with it), but for Microsoft $$$ I can have Defender XDR quickly configured and integrated into an entire environment with much less effort for much greater payoff.
Megatronpt@reddit
It's not.. I've used plenty open source in Enterprise and never had major problems... besides with Rocket Chat and Mconf. :)
jazzdrums1979@reddit
Support and familiarity. With enterprise software they have vast knowledge bases and plenty of SME’s with certifications you can hire to get shit done. Business at scale is about operating with assurances. You are just less likely to get that with open source.
Pearmoat@reddit
Corporate dude with probably little knowledge on the topic: "That open source software is nice. But if it is not being maintained anymore, there is a bug or any other problem, my boss is going to blame me for selecting it. On the other hand, there is this expensive closed source software that does the same thing, but it has colourful marketing material, if there is a problem I'm going to blame them, and actually I don't care if corpco squanders $300.000 per year for nothing."
sgt_Berbatov@reddit
I work with a guy who bleeds Microsoft. Everything must be Microsoft, to the point where he told end users they couldn't use open source programs because they're not safe.
I spoke to him about it one day because I'm like you and it's open source all the way for me. His reasoning was anyone can contribute to the code meaning it's unsafe.
We're 12 months on from that, and he's more open to open source software. OSS has it's place in the enterprise. But support can be an issue, but I think there is a trust barrier. We have been brainwashed in to thinking anything that you have to pay for must be good. But quite often it isn't.
aprimeproblem@reddit
My guess is that it’s a support and continuity issue. There are very cool opensource project out there, but (Enterprise) support is most of the times missing and it gets abandoned on occasion creating a continuity issue.
Besides that, but this is a personal opinion, not a given fact, a lot of desktop apps have a very antiquated look and feel.
If those are solved, we have a winner!
rankinrez@reddit
Enterprises often want support and guarantees about performance etc that you don’t get with open source.
Not that it’s my own preference but I can see certain reasons why they do it.
jk1244@reddit
I don't know about others, but in the company I work for, paid software is a must, I guess it's very profitable for someone above me. But again, I'm not sure...
NotMyUsualLogin@reddit
https://www.developer-tech.com/news/enterprise-open-source-adoption-soars-despite-challenges/
https://ijcttjournal.org/2024/Volume-72%20Issue-9/IJCTT-V72I9P102.pdf
Your premise is faulty.
TuxAndrew@reddit
It’s not? It just depends on the purpose and how critical the service is.