Re: Commercial file-server software
From: David Schwartz (davids_at_webmaster.com)
Date: 09/14/05
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Previous message: sutil83: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- In reply to: sutil83: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:43 -0700
"sutil83" <sutil83@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126707619.928196.54100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Wow, I go to sleep for a night and I get a bunch of responses. Thanks
> people. Unfortunately it seems as if my fears are realized that there
> is no commercial products and that any that used to exist are now
> defunct.
So get an open source product and buy commercial support for it. That
way, if you have any problems with the support company or they go out of
business, you can still find support for the same product from another
vendor.
> But in response to other posts, this will be re-distributed out of our
> company and if used, Samba will be included, incorporated and used.
Well then gosh, you *can't* pick a proprietary product because you
aren't allowed to re-distribute them. You aren't allowed to modify them
either.
> Whether or not it is modified now is irrelevant, the lifespan of this
> product is intended to be decades. The real fear that the legal
> department here has (and other out of company entities that I can't
> name), is that sometime in the life of the product, updates, upgrades
> or whatever might occur. Basically there is a possibility that
> something might happen that would require a change in source code, in
> this case the GPL code.
Okay, now imagine if you had picked a commercial solution. If a change
was needed, you'd pretty much be in trouble. If the company refused to do it
or charged more than you could afford, you'd again just be screwed.
> So either a restriction is placed or we just don't use open-source at
> all.
And commercial software comes with no restrictions, right? Come on.
> The decision was made to generally avoid open-source since who
> knows the implications of a restriction of that sort, a decade from now
> when the product needs a slight tune-up. Also, a change might need to
> be made right off the bat, even before distribution. All these
> "maybe's" don't sit well and the more of those there are, the more
> likely the client boots us.
If it's commercial and a tune up is needed a decade from now, it may
well be *impossible*. The product may not be maintained that far and may not
be compilable anymore. The source code could be lost. The company might not
have the resources to make it. It's almost totally clear that open source is
a better choice here.
> The situation is a hard one since what will be done to Samba, or
> anything of the sort, is unknown at this point.
What does that mean? If you don't like any changes to Samba, just freeze
it where it is now. You're no worse off than if you picked a proprietary
solution that didn't go the direction you wanted it to, and as a plus you'd
have the option to modify it in the direction you want or at least be able
to continue to compile the code you liked on new platforms.
> Which is why I was
> looking for alternatives to avoid this whole fiasco.
You seem to be insistent on heading right for a fiasco where only the
original vendor can support you and the original vendor may or may not
exist, be able to do what you want, or be willing to do it at a price you
can afford.
> All the points
> you guys bring up are true and I realized there are work arounds. All
> I attempted to do by this thread is possibly find an alternative.
> Dealing with legal over here is one matter that's hard enough as it is.
> Convincing the client is impossible. The possibility that any of
> their information becomes freely distributed is unnacceptable. Not
> even that it is, even just the POSSIBILITY.
Then for the love of god don't pick a proprietary vendor! What happens
if they make changes for you, then decide to open source the product. Then
the changes made for you would become freely distributed! The mere
possibility is unaccapbled.
> Now before you try and tell me to talk to the client about it, don't
> bother. Just trust me when I say it can't be done.
It doesn't work that way. If you want people to accept your word even
when it's absolutely nonsensical, you'll have to pay them to do it.
> Anyway you guys did help out by confirming what I already knew: no
> commercial alternatives to Samba. So it looks like this mini-task will
> have to be continued in some other form.
>
> Thanks a lot for all the responses.
Best of luck. But if you're a consultant of some kind, you have a duty
IMO to convince the client to be reasonable. It is professional negligence
to give the client what they say they want when it doesn't make sense, or
worse, to be unable to spot the obvious flaws in their arguments for what
they thing they want.
DS
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Previous message: sutil83: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- In reply to: sutil83: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Commercial file-server software"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
