Affirmative Action for Open Source Applications
I love the tenants of open source software. What's not to like about software that's open to customization or modification, and (typically) costs nothing to download? And I fully support anyone's right to advocate for open source - there's certainly plenty of room to provide education and support to nonprofits, and to lobby organizations that publish information (yes, like Idealware) to balance out vendor's lobbying influence.
But these days I seem to be getting more and disappointed and angry emails from open source advocates who feel that Idealware has a systematic bias against open source software - that our reviews don't do justice to open source software. Given that our methodology is to interview representative folks in the field to understand the key factors that are important to them in choosing software, and then round up software based on those factors... wouldn't that mean that many open source tools don't do justice to THEMSELVES?
Customization, ability to exchange data, and price are all critical aspects where open source tools shine, and these areas play a big part in many of our reports and articles. But they aren't the only areas that are important. All too often, open source communities seem to disregard the functionalities that are often critical to small nonprofits - reporting, easy mail merging, and straightforward setup, for instance.
We cover open source software in all of the areas we review. We in fact go out of our way to include the open source software that's qualified, in a kind of "affirmative action" program for open source. I think that's as it should be, given the likely benefits for the sector as a whole if there's solid open source options.
But some open source advocates seem to be asking for a whole different set of qualifications for open source software, as if simply being open source should be enough. Or that every Idealware article should give "equal time" to open source, as if open source vs. proprietary should be the key framing concept for everyone software decision any nonprofit makes, rather than basing decisions around features and needs.
There's huge promise in both the tenants of open source and specific open source applications. But it doesn't serve the nonprofit sector to tell them a piece of software is likely to meet their needs if it won't, or to tell them their needs should be different than what they are. And it doesn't serve the cause of open source software to pretend that there's a different set of market realities for open source software than there is for every other kind.
But these days I seem to be getting more and disappointed and angry emails from open source advocates who feel that Idealware has a systematic bias against open source software - that our reviews don't do justice to open source software. Given that our methodology is to interview representative folks in the field to understand the key factors that are important to them in choosing software, and then round up software based on those factors... wouldn't that mean that many open source tools don't do justice to THEMSELVES?
Customization, ability to exchange data, and price are all critical aspects where open source tools shine, and these areas play a big part in many of our reports and articles. But they aren't the only areas that are important. All too often, open source communities seem to disregard the functionalities that are often critical to small nonprofits - reporting, easy mail merging, and straightforward setup, for instance.
We cover open source software in all of the areas we review. We in fact go out of our way to include the open source software that's qualified, in a kind of "affirmative action" program for open source. I think that's as it should be, given the likely benefits for the sector as a whole if there's solid open source options.
But some open source advocates seem to be asking for a whole different set of qualifications for open source software, as if simply being open source should be enough. Or that every Idealware article should give "equal time" to open source, as if open source vs. proprietary should be the key framing concept for everyone software decision any nonprofit makes, rather than basing decisions around features and needs.
There's huge promise in both the tenants of open source and specific open source applications. But it doesn't serve the nonprofit sector to tell them a piece of software is likely to meet their needs if it won't, or to tell them their needs should be different than what they are. And it doesn't serve the cause of open source software to pretend that there's a different set of market realities for open source software than there is for every other kind.
Subscribe through Feedburner
4 Comments:
Laura-
As a long time nonprofit technologist, board president of a large global open-source project foundation (Plone), and an enthusiastic user of open-source, commercial software and online services, I think Idealware does an excellent job at covering stuff in a fair and balanced manner.
Yes, y'all have opinions -- that's your job. But I find the Idealware team are open about those opinions, diligent and transparent in your methodology, and intellectually honest in your assessments.
I believe that open-source software must compete on a level playing field with against all other solutions. In many cases it more than holds its own; in some cases it doesn't. I hope Idealware never stops holding all kinds of software and services up to the same high standard of excellence!
What Jon said.
I think that it is our job as open source advocates to explain the value proposition of open source software, as well as to prod and poke some open source projects that haven't yet been able to measure up in terms of functionality and usability.
It is Idealware's job, one it does very well, to size up the entire landscape, both open source and proprietary from the user point of view, and give fair and honest assessments of what works, and what doesn't.
Thanks, guys! Yeah, there's nothing to get me fired up and anxious like people saying we have a systematic bias for or against something - great to hear that you don't agree!
What Jon and Michelle said with a twist.
I think that the Idealware methodology is biased toward providers that can give Idealware reviewers the perfect "sales engineer experience." Get the script, craft a demo flow that highlights the key parts of the script. A company like Convio or Blackbaud has an army of sales engineers that do that for a living. A smaller company has one or two people with that experience. An open source project seldom has those people available at a moment's notice.
The bias isn't against open source per se, but against providers that can't communicate in the way Idealware needs to be communicated with.
Sure, open source software doesn't do justice (e.g. sell and market with the power of paid sales and marketing staff) to themselves. But, rather than run an affirmative action program, look for places in your methodology that can be adjusted to minimize the bias.
That said, there really isn't a cost effective alternative to the vendor demo model (not suggesting that is all you do, but it is the base). A better analysis of the match between nonprofits and software would be to run that same script with actual users of a specific piece of software rather than the vendor, eliminating the impact of highly skilled sales engineers, but that would require significantly more time and resources than the current methodology.
Try not to get caught up in the either / or paradigm... Idealware needs to change its methodology, open source needs to change its marketing DNA. Both things can (and IMHO, are) be true.
So keep up the high standard of excellence, focus like a laser on consumer needs, apply the same criteria to all your reviews, but look behind the sometimes shrill critiques to identify places Idealware can achieve an even higher standard of excellence.
Post a Comment
<< Home