151–160 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say that is the reason, then that seems a very valid reason, right? Accountability is important, especially in large organizations. I guess what ticks me off a bit is the trope of dissing on management for saying 'no' but leaving out all the relevant context that might show management to be right. Don't get me wrong, I've seen my own fair share of bad management. But it's not so black and white when it comes to…
> Accountability is important, especially in large organizations. Why? So we'll have someone to blame when things inevitably go wrong? In my experience, the people who like to say the buck stops with them are nowhere to be found when that happens. I much prefer organizations focussed on actually getting things right, instead of worrying about who takes the blame.
Say, if the org runs Postgres in-house, there's a mighty chance that an intern somewhere might decide to ...test things out in a creative way.
Perhaps the idea of outsourcing that to Oracle is that Oracle has the processes/controls to rein in such interns. As opposed to e.g. a hospital having to create such processes/controls.
(Oracle is still a bad idea IMHO, just slightly less so comparatively)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They sell me by convincing me that everything just works, and when it doesn't they'll be there to fix it. and they'd tell you to pay up 10x, or lose this stability in the future; If it was an open source software, you will have the option to go to a competing vendor.
Is there a single example of multiple vendors selling support for the same open-source piece of software, where I can just hire a different vendor if I no longer like my current one, without changing anything major in my operations? You could say that Canonical and IBM RedHat compete on offering Linux support, but the reality is that it's not that much harder to switch from RHEL to Ubuntu than switching to any other…
[1]:https://www.suse.com/c/embrace-linux-diversity-simplified-mu...
I hate to break it to you but it takes time to implement closed source solutions as well. They also always have terrible documentation, because they make money on support.
Purely open source stuff lives and dies on how easy it is to start up.
Closed source paid stuff doesn't need to be easy. Often a decision has been made before implementation, and there are people to help you through it.
It's also easier to get approval for open source most of the time because there isnt a new bill, just my time.
I usually reach for open source first.
I think the key point is this; >> (By the way, all new software without accompanying support & guidance is doomed to fail. And if that software comes from a dominant player, you’ll just have to deal with that by the way.) There's a temptation to conflate the software license with the software business. This is natural, but places software as the primary value in the chain. From a business perspective the software tho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ARM is not open source.
ARM broke WIntel.
If anything, the x86 world was more open and more compatible. We have enterprise distros running on both Intel and AMD, supported by their hardware makers. Who in their right mind runs 3rd party Linux distributions on smartphones in production environments (i.e. the CEO's smartphone)?
[flagged]
https://www.collectiveaccess.org/ https://www.dublincore.org/groups/tools/dc2008/dc2008_seth_k...
Another one apparently in use in the UK is CollectionSpace:
https://collectionstrust.org.uk/software/collectionspace/ http://www.collectionspace.org/
Also:
https://omeka.org/s/ https://www.museumplanner.org/free-museum-collection-softwar...
More news at 11.