Open Source vs Proprietary

No, it's because open source competes with some of their upsell offerings and they want to preserve their auxiliary sales.As for whether it meets your requirements, that's entirely dependent on context. In most cases it's a perfectly valid choice as long as you understand that you're taking on the associated maintenance and certification burden. In our case, it included stuff we had written and open sourced ourselves.

It feels like these blog posts come out at least once a year. To me, the issue comes down to the fact that companies are fundamentally relying on software that comes with no promises of support or a warranty. I honestly can't think of another industry that relies so heavily on things they get for free and come with no warranty.So many people act like Open Source is great. But often the love for open source often only goes as far as to say thanks when they're creating a bug report or

If the provider of proprietary software ceases maintaining it, you are dead in the water. If the provider of open source software ceases maintaining it, you can pay someone else to maintain it. E.g. there are a lot of freelance jobs related to ffmpeg, a lot of video software experts knowing it, so you may sleep well, not worrying that the developer of ffmpeg will someday sabotage your business. On the other hand, when another company provides a binary blob library to you, when they go down, you

I think it's fueled by a naive idea that paying for closed source software is inherently bad. Actually, it's not necessarily a naive idea, as this specific OP may have weighed the pros and cons and have decided that it's not worth the risk, but I do think there are very wrongheaded cargo cult ideas around this.We tend to gloss over the fact that when dealing with OSS:- Project maintainers can leave/change/stop supporting the software and the idea that "since

Open source doesn't allow you to pass the buck. Commercial software with support contracts does. There is also the "look how much we're paying! it must be good" factor.

Sure, but that's not unique to open source software. it is a form of soft vendor lock in.

Greedy? Why would you bet your product and customers on another company? If someday Hashicorp suddenly died so that nobody adds new features or fixes bugs, you can't do anything about it because their code isn't "open source" even though available, when a "true" open source project is just next door. Any big enough company will think about what is the safest approach to their product.(Of course, companies do go out of business, and products stop to be maintained,

It's wrong in so many ways:1. Just because something is open source, doesn't mean you cannot get support for it. There are plenty of companies that offer support for open source software, and yes, this costs money. But the general rule of thumb is that $1 of open source support replaces $10 of proprietary revenue.2. All software has licenses, even from proprietary vendors. But proprietary licenses have no standards, each and every one should be reviewed before acceptance. And the

The real question is about contingency planning. Open source means you have the option to host yourself, but like you say that could be a lot of hassle, or more work than just switching to another closed source SaaS.There are a few factors. If the space is competitive and there is an established API/protocol, it probably doesn't matter. Think Wordpress hosting, Email, renting VMs etc.If it is open source and widely adopted - e.g. Linux, Redis, Kubernetes etc. then you know that t

I'd never use a closed source programming language because it makes me dependent on the vendor. With FOSS, if the original company goes away I can pay someone else to keep the software running on a modern computer. With closed source software I don't have that option.