I'm beginning development on a solution that will plug into an existing application. It will be made available for public use.
I have the option of using a newer technology that promotes better architecture, flexibility, speed, etc... or sticking with existing technology that is tried and tested which the application already uses.
The downside of going with the newer technology is that a major change to an essential config file needs to be made to support it. If the change goes wrong the app would be out of service. Uninstall is also an issue as future custom code by other developers may require the newer tech and there's no way this can be determined.
How important is this issue in considering an approach?
Will significant config changes put users off deploying code, or cause problems for them later?
Edit:
Intentionally not going into specifics about technologies here to avoid the question from being siderailed.
Install/uninstall software can be provided but there is some complexity involved which may cause them to foul up on edge cases resulting in a dead app. (A backup of the original config would be a way to mitigate that.) Also see the issue about uninstall above where I essentially can't provide one.
Yes, in my experience, any large amount of work will make users think twice about deploying or upgrading.
It's your standard cost/benefit analysis done by businesses with just about every decision. Will the expected benefits more than outweigh the potential costs?
When we release updates to our software, there's almost always a major component that's there just to assist the users to migrate.
An example (modified enough to protect the guilty): we have a product which generates reports on system performance and other things. But the reports aren't that pretty and the software for viewing them is tied to a specific platform.
We've leveraged BIRT to give us intranet-based reporting that looks much nicer and only needs the client to have a web browser (not some fat client).
Very few customers made the switch until we provided a toolset that would take their standard reports and turn them into BIRT reports. Once we supplied that, customers started taking it seriously - the benefit hadn't changed, but the cost had gone right down.
You've given us no detail, so we can't answer with any specificity. But if your question is, will a significant portion of your potential userbase be deterred from using your product if they have to do significant setup work, then the answer is yes. I've seen this time and time again, with my own products and those that I've installed myself. When the only config change is an uninstall and reinstall. People don't like to do work.
You may want to devote more effort than you've considered so far to making the upgrade painless. Even if you're upgrading someone else's framework, you may find the effort worthwhile and reflected in an increased number of installs.
I have noticed that "power users" - developers, sysadmins, etc. - are willing to put up with more setup work.
I'm not sure what you mean by "major config change", but if you're talking about settings / configuration files, then I've been doing something like this:
An application always contains a default configuration which is useful for most users, and which can't be replaced. Instead, users can override one or more of the default settings in their own, separate configuration file. When a new (major) version is released, most users don't need to reconfigure anything: their own custom configurations are still taken from their own configuration file, and possibly required new parameters are taken from the new release's default settings.
It's obvious that most users don't want waste their time adjusting some settings that already were right - and quite rightfully so.
We are a small Microsoft shop with 4 developers. We like the idea to have everything integrated and under the same SQL database but not to deal with too many features or a complexity we don't need.
The other option would be to use two distinct third party tools. We also wonder if VS2010 version control and bug/issue tracking capabilities are comparable with the best third party tools on the market.
With TFS 2010, there is a TFS Basic version/configuration options. You can use SQL Server Express as the database, the install is simple and quick and you can install it on a client OS. It includes version system, work items and build system (no sharepoint, reporting...). Price should not be high, the target users for TFS Basic are those used to use SourceSafe. Also if you have MSDN, there is a change that it goes with it, so you would not have to pay extra.
Some thoughts on TFVC in general -- note that I've never used TFVC specifically, but I've been in a similar situation a couple times. My main concern is that it's too little.
TFVC (Team Foundation Version Control) appears to be a client-server version control system. I don't know anybody who hasn't upgraded to DVCS yet. I've never used TFVC but I can't imagine what benefits it'd offer to outweigh the architectural disadvantage. (And before you ask: I only use it from my workstation in the office, where the network has never gone down, but I still use its distributed features every day.)
I also work at a small Microsoft shop with 4 developers and we have never once regretted using Mercurial. It's one of the few decisions we made that everybody seems to have loved. It's one of those moves, like switching to a language with GC, that you never want to even think about reversing.
In terms of support, I hope you found some way to get great support from Microsoft. Things will come up with any VCS and it looks like community support is a couple orders of magnitude worse than Hg or Git.
I can't say much about bug trackers -- I think they're all pretty much the same these days. I've installed a couple open-source ones in an afternoon, even with no experience. The major difference seems to be, if you go with a big-name one, you'll be able to find lots of tools and extensions that work with it. For example, there are a million and one extensions for reporting/testing/etc. for Bugzilla. TFS probably has similar things, for enough money.
Two other things I'd keep in mind:
First, even if you only want these 2 features today, you will want other features in the future, and it will be (sooner or later) something Microsoft doesn't offer. So it's best to make peace with 3rd-party tools ASAP.
Second, unless you miraculously happen to pick the perfect set of tools for your company's future growth for all time, you will at some point want to migrate away from whatever solution you pick today. So make sure it either provides a way to do a full export, or is popular enough that other projects are falling over themselves to write importers for it.
I guess this all sounds kind of negative for TFS. I didn't really mean it that way -- I'm sure it does some things really well. But unless you're rolling in dough already, save your money.
Good luck with whatever you choose!
TFS work ittm tracking is awesome. Whatever your workflow is and the information you want to gather, you can do it easily with TFS.
Most expect TFS to do what they do out of the box as if it were omniscient. Unfortunately, you do things slightly differently than me and I from everyone else. The key is making it easy for the many different roles in your organization to get and input information into whatever your work tracking system is.
There is a plateau you will reach with custom, cobbled together tools that you won't get from cross referencing information along the product development process. TFS removes that barrier. The second barrier is knowing how to consume the information and that takes training and experience in effectively managing projects.
TFS Version control is certainly the low point when compared to the industry right now. DVCS popularity exploded about the time TFS came out. That said, Brian Harry has stated that TFS "fully expect that we will be adding distributed version control to TFS." http://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2010/01/27/codeplex-now-supports-mercurial.aspx
Take that as you will.
TFS is a great system but after having deployed and used it for some time I realize that the TCO is just too high to justify for a small team.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently a developer at my first job right out of college. I work for a large company, and the trend I notice with them is that they tend to go with more expensive, closed source software about 99% of the time, while there are perfectly good open source alternatives that are available, most of which are vastly superior to their closed-source counterparts. For example, we use this absolutely awful source control software that cost a ton of money, while there are quite a few open source and/or free options that in my experience, albiet limited, are much better and offer basically the exact same functionality.
I guess my question is: How would an experienced developer approach management about using more free software?
It appears there is another question very similar to this that did not show up when I made this one: How can I convince IT that F/OSS software isn't evil?
EDIT: Just come clarification. I'm not necessarily trying to change the company's procedure, I'm looking for advice on how to approach management about the subject.
Start using it in small utilities and things which are throwaway and don't need management buyin. This can prove the worth of an open source solution and put a crack in
the door for using it in other
projects.
Present articles from trade magazines showing that other people are using the open source solution.
Go with products which have commercial support options, such as MySQL, which enterprises seem to have an easier time swallowing.
Pick your battles carefully. Wait until they are suffering. If they are happy with what they have, they will not switch, no matter how much cheaper or superior the alternative is. You need to catch them while they're trying to think of ways to save money, or while they're disgusted with the problems of the current system.
Be very careful with what you refer to as free. There is a very large corpus of products that would be perfectly valid for a student to use without paying that an enterprise would have to pay for. Also never forget Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). A lot of relatively expensive software is expensive because you get things like configuration and help support for them whereas that may not be the case for free software.
I think you are not asking the right question. To me, the challenge is to have my Big Corp to buy the BEST softwares for me, be it free softwares or not.
Paying for Windows or paying for Linux is not important (what is 100 $ for a Big Corp ?).
But having things done better is really important.
I think that your request to your boss should not be : "Hey, it's free and it's as good as XYZ, why are we using XYZ ?"
Why you boss would risk something trying the product you told when XYZ seems to be ok ?
It would be much more better to ask : "Hey, here is what I cannot do with XYZ : (your list). With my product, I would be able to do that and much more so fast than I would have a lot of spare time to test our own software !".
Small money is usually not a show stopper. Being able to work faster in order to do much more testing (or any other things that could help your boss have a better image) is definitely an excellent argument !
Best wishes,
Sylvain.
I work in a big company that has recently moved into being more enthusiastic about open source solutions. There have been a few big hurdles:
Customer won't support it - we're defense contractors. We do almost nothing without customer say-so. As the customer's opinions have changed we've been able to change our architectures and tool usage. That said, there are still scenarios were open source is unacceptable and we don't use it.
No tech support = scary - in several cases, it's been possible to make the point that open source may not have a single point of company tech support, but it does have huge communities that will support questios for free, and that there are consultants available as needed for the really hard stuff. Plus many, many releases of new versions for bug fixes. And, several competing expensive products have not been able to service tech support needs. Being able to point to specific internal examples with long. well documented, histories of support problems, has been key.
Fear of security issues - we had to develop a process for scrutinizing and controlling every peice of open source introduced. We've managed to find criteria for what we deem risky, versus what we deem relatively benign based on info-sec policy.
Fear of lawsuit - Being large, and profitable, we fear lawsuits, we're great targets. We now have a process for the legal team to scrutinize every open source license. This has proved to be a win - since the legal team now has briefings on every major version of the typical open source licenses, and they can quickly review most stuff.
Version control - fear that if those wacky developers can just download anything they like the world will self destruct. OK, well, practically speaking, the concept of "how do we know what's in a given product" - being able to show a FOSS version control process that is managed internally has been important.
It was definitely a slow process - small projects proved profitable and customers started encouraging it in proposals. That made it useful for executive management. It's helped that those that support it have been williing to put in some extra time to making the business case in terms of efficiency/cost savings, and have been willing to negotiate repeatedly with various parts of the corporate infrastructure.
Making open source work has taken the effort of IT, the info security folks, the legal team, the procurement team, and technical management. Knowing that before you talk to your manager is probably a key to success.
There's also some political savy - for a first project, don't encroach on any sacred cows - ie, those projects that may not be successful, but are high profile and owned by someone with lots of political power. Instead, choose some wacky new thing that isn't available right now and prove the cost savings in a way that is unlikely to provoke a defensive reaction.
When you try to introduce open source software to a big company (or even a small one, in many cases), the biggest counter-argument you're going to hear is "There's no tech support." Companies tend to be wary of using software that's supported by the community, because there's no guarantee (or in some cases, service agreement) that questions about the software will be answered within a reasonable time frame, or at all. In many cases, you can find a company that will provide support for the open-source package you want to use (for example, Red Hat does this for its Linux distribution, even though the contents of the distribution is mainly open source). Showing management a business entity that can support the software will often go a long way.
The other counter-argument to using open source software that I've heard the most often is "Open source software is buggy." This is a tough one; this opinion is pretty ingrained in some corporate cultures. Two possible responses are "The open-source community fixes bugs quickly" and "Since we have the source code, our engineers can fix bugs"--but that's often not what managers want to hear.
So, in essence, it depends on the company, their attitudes, and how much they trust you to make business-critical recommendations. I've used all of the arguments above with different levels of success in different companies.
Of course, in these economic times, the "free" part may go a long way. :-)
"Free software" doesn't necessarily mean your company is going to get software for free. Many successful open-source projects are also offered with licenses and services that cost real money and are geared to organizations that want or need to be assured of good support. MySQL is an example
The reason for a lot of big companies using closed software is that they can call support and the vendor will issue a hotfix, patch or cumulative update
Changing a large company's habits are often like turning an Oil tanker around... it takes a long time and uses a lot of energy.
If the company were in the process of evaluating the purchase of new software for a specific task, Then I would make sure to write a concise opinion memo about why my choice is better.
If the software is something I would use personally and not a server product that multiple developers are forced to use, then I would just ask my manager to use it.
If the software is in place, does the job (even if I don't like the way it does it), i'd learn as much as I can about it to give it as much chance of work for me, or at least make my life easier. If it still sucks really bad, I probably wouldn't try to change it until it was time for the company to pay for an upgrade.
If the software works but is just annoying... I'd do as above, learning all there is to know about it just to make my life easier and then deal with it.
You're probably right that the system you'd recommend is better than the one currently in place. But like some other posters said, choose your battles, especially when this is your first job out in the real world. You may become expendable quickly.
It's not really so much a matter of what's better, even if your way IS better, it's a matter of the culture and the way things are done and the cost of switching. Even if, hypothetically, their system can be magically transported to your OSS system, with no loss of data, dates, records, or anything, you're still going to have people who say "I liked the old way better."
Remember: Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. I know it may sound glamorous to be "the new guy who recommended a great new versioning system that everybody loved", but you also could just as easily become "that hotshot who insisted on a new versioning system that everybody hated." It's a much smarter career move to just play by the rules at least for a little while until you have some clout and can make some recommendations. In the meantime you may even learn why the old system is preferred, or learn to like it more the more you use it.
I know what you mean. It took us years to convince our managers that everything would be okay if we moved away from using Interbase (a commercial Relational DB) to it's opensource counterpart Firebird. Mostly it was fear of no support that blocked the move. I think the factors which changed their mind were:
tests showing better performance
that there are companies that provide and charge for supporting the OS alternative
constant pushing of the argument by passionate developers
I think cost savings would have played a part if our company were paying for the site licenses but in fact our customers were.
I look at this question like this. I work with the .NET framework. I could ask my employer to migrate to PHP. This is a disadvantage to me, as well as my company, for many reasons. Let's start with the obvious.
1.) I know PHP, but can do much more, and a lot faster, with .NET.
2.) Paying for a service, usually ensures a better experience. The Visual Studio IDE is second to NONE when developing an application.
3.) I can develop an application much faster in VS than hard-coding PHP.
4.) This is the most important one. If I work with a big company, I want my programmers to develop my app faster, and I expect it to run faster. PHP (an example Open Source language) is fast, and reliable, but if I can spend the money, I'll deploy ASP.NET.
Basically, big business, or even small business, wants to spend their money, as long as it's for a good reason. Your best bet is to say, 'Hey, if you want to deploy ASP.NET (or whatever), send me for some training. Then I'll be able to develop OUR application to my best ability'.
not to sound totally cynical, but:
an experienced developer probably would not approach management about something like this, unless he/she was already an expert with the open source package. Companies like to have a phone number to call and someone to blame when things don't work. Free open source packages do not provide this kind of 'accountability' (yes we know it's a joke, but management doesn't)
it is unlikely that management is going to listen to someone fresh out of college about any major purchasing or technology decision. You have to learn the business and earn everyone's respect first. [sorry!]
Same problem everywhere. Once an organization gets beyond a certain size (e.g., the Dunbar number) it starts to show a certain woodenheaded quality that will confound you. Lots of history, people, agendas that you aren't aware of. And getting everyone to agree on your solution is difficult.
Best to start locally. See if you can persuade your manager or PM to use SVN or CVS or GIT locally for a project and then get it to diffuse.
But that situation is true where I work as well. I use SVN locally for myself, but a commercial product for integrating with others.
Companies will use whatever will ultimately make them the most money. That means whatever software will make their employees more productive. If there is a particular piece of open source software you think they should use then when the time comes to purchase the software to do job X then as long as you can prove it will make the employees more productive and they are able to get reliable support just a phone call away as with commercial software then they will use it.
Big companies need to hire support staff for stuff like that. When they purchase software from a company, they are guaranteed support with the contract. Open source projects can die off a lot easier, whereas a large software vendor can be held responsible for much greater periods of time.
Every company has a culture, and fighting the culture can be something of an uphill battle. But if you're willing to try:
you'll likely have more luck getting BSD and BSD-like projects approved (MIT license, Apache, Boost, etc.); and it doesn't matter if most of the arguments against GPL and LGPL are mainly FUD
you should refer to the projects as "royalty-free"
you should make sure things are approved by somebody that can approve them (your direct manager) because putting the company in a bind -- especially when you're new -- (even if the "bind" is only in their head) is not conducive to long-term employment
you can probably go a long way by simply asking what the procedure is to choose a library or tool
From a configuration management perspective, having developers add free software stuff willy nilly whenever they feel like is a serious PITA to manage.
I've worked at companies where you were allowed to do it whenever you wanted and others where you could never do it.
There's definitely a balance to be found but if you're in a larger company with multiple projects, you do have to keep in mind that each time you add a new 'tool' it complicates the build process.
We are in the process of selecting a workflow solution for a company that uses Microsoft products end to end. Given the news on WF4, in that it seems to be essentially a rewrite of previous versions, is it a wise move to back the current version or should we be looking elsewhere?
Ie - is the current version so bad that we would not be wise to try and use it?
Haiving just launched a project which .NET 3.5 and workflow I'd say that the current release of WF is good enough to use and run with. It has helped us to get a product out quickly (we have the usual feature creep and requirements changing weekly). However, I have a list of complaints with it:
The workflow designer will drive you insane because it is so slow (in certain circumstances) and re-arranges your state machines as it sees fit.
There is no built in upgrade strategy for keeping your old workflows running once you do a bug fix release. If you are going to use WF think carefully how to do upgrades early.
Itegrating with WCF (the send and recieve activity) hide the WorkflowRuntime from you this makes it very difficult to understand what is going on on the hood.
Its not easy to unit test them. There are ideas out there but none seemed particulary easy when we started this WorkFlow Unit Testing
I like the ideas and potential of Workflow based development, however I am not in a hurry to repeat this experience and would probably stick without it for long running processes. One place I would use it again would be in a short, complicated process (like a rules engine for working out prices).
Maybe it is a little late for you, but now that WF 4.0 is released in beta, other people thinking the same question can consider backing the 4.0 horse instead of 3.5 horse.
This goes some way to fixing the following problems:
•The workflow designer will drive you insane because it is so slow (in certain circumstances) and re-arranges your state machines as it sees fit.
[Designer Perf Improved]
•Its not easy to unit test them. There are ideas out there but none seemed particulary easy when we started this WorkFlow Unit Testing
[I think it's a little easier now, some of the introduction to workflow samples include plenty of unit testing]
My understanding is that Microsoft will provide backwards compatibility and/or a migration strategy to the new WF, so I would guess that you are safe to use it. However, I have heard from other developers in my organization that the current version of WF is extremely painful to use. If you have the budget (and depending on the complexity of your workflows), you may want to consider K2: http://www.k2.com/en/index.aspx
I, as a workflow developer, think that current version is painful to use. This is not surprising as this is a v1.0 software out from microsoft :)
I think you should first consider your expectations from a workflow software. Do you have a well defined list of expectations from WF? Acutally I am wondering content of such a list. Maybe we can help more detailed on each topic.
I don't know why people have such negative impressions about WF. Sure it has it drawbacks, but I thought it was pretty useful. The one major issue I have about it is the lack of support for upgrading existing workflow (bullent #2 in gbanfill's list).
Another point to use the current version is that "Dublin" (Microsoft new App Server) will be built on WCF & WF .NET 4.0 but will gladly host 3.5 WF's. So you will be able to migrate to that without a rewrite.
Just a quick note to mention that Visual Studio 2010 CTP contains a new updated WF designer as part of the Oslo objective.
Most of the work I do is with what could be considered enterprise Web applications. These projects have large budgets, longer timelines (from 3-12 months), and heavy customizations. Because as developers we have been touting the idea of the Web as the next desktop OS, customers are coming to expect the software running on this "new OS" to react the same as on the desktop. That includes easy to manage automatic upgrades. In other words, "An update is available. Do you want to upgrade?" Is this even a realistic expectation? Can anyone speak from experience on trying to implement this feature?
At my company we have enterprise installations ranging into the thousands of seats. If we implemented an auto-upgrade, our customers would mutiny!
Large installations have peculiar issues that don't apply to small ones. For example, with 2000 users (not all of whom are, let us say, the most sophisticated of tool users), tool-training is a big deal: training time, internal demos, internal process documents, etc.. They cannot unleash a new feature or UI change without a chance to understand how it fits in their process and therefore what their internal best practices are and how to communicate that to their users.
Also when applications fail, it's the internal IT team who are responsible. Therefore, they want time to install a new version in a test area, beat it up, and deploy on a Saturday only when they're good and ready.
I can see the value in making minor patches more easy to install, particularly when the patch is just for a bug-fix and not for anything that would require retraining, and if the admins still get final say over when it's installed. But even then, I don't believe anyone has ever asked for this! Whether because they don't want it or they are trained to not expect it, it doesn't seem worth it.
Well, it really depends on your business model but for a lot of applications the SaaS model can end up biting you. It's great for a lot of things but for some larger applications the users are not investing as significant amount up front and could possibly move to something else before you've made any money.
See
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-218408.html
and here
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/07/21/SoftwareAsAServiceWhenYourBusinessModelBecomesAParadox.aspx
for more information
One of the primary reasons to implement an application as a web application is that you get automatic upgrades for free. Why would users be getting prompted for upgrades on a web app?
For Windows applications, the "update is available, do you want to upgrade?" functionality is provided by Microsoft using ClickOnce, which I have used in an enterprise environment successfully -- there are a few gotchas but for the most part it is a good way to manage automatic deployment and upgrade of Windows apps.
For mobile apps, you can also implement auto-upgrades, although it is a little trickier.
In any case, to answer your question in a broad sense, I don't know if it is expected that all enterprise apps should make upgrading easy, but it certainly is worth the money from an IT support standpoint to architect them to allow for easy upgrading.
If you're providing a hosted solution, I wouldn't bother. Let the upgrade happen silently (perhaps with a notice that you did it). If you're selling an application that's hosted on their servers, let the upgrade decision be made by a single owner, not every user of the app.