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.
Related
I'm working for a company that has an established application written in VB6. The application is stable and continues to provide the company with good income. However, it is beginning to show its age and noises are been made to port to a more modern platform such as .Net.
Since this is hardly ever a cut and dry decision I would appreciate input on when it is a good time to port a long standing application to a modern platform.
Some of the pros and cons that I have already worked through:
In favor of porting
Finding skills for an old programming language becomes harder and more expensive
Support from the platform vendor ends at some point
Leveraging modern programming practises on the old platform becomes harder or impossible
Rewriting provides the opportunity to improve existing practises
Moving to a modern platform is motivating for the development team
Moving to a modern platform provides marketing opportunities
Against porting
"If its not broken don't fix it"
The cost of rewriting versus the return
Risks associated with the transition from the old to the new application
Upskilling existing software engineers
Some related StackOverflow questions:
What makes code legacy?
When do you say that the code is Legacy code?
One of the things to consider is that porting an application can get more and more expensive over time. I have seen applications writen in 'ancient' languages that were very well developed. But, as happens many times, all the domain knowledge was in the code and in the heads of the developers, not in up-to-date documents.
So in situations like this porting means not only rewriting in the new sparkly language but also reverse-enginering the specs and picking the, hopefully available, brains of the developers. This becomes harder and harder over time.
An other thing is that 'porting' is hardly ever as easy as the Migration Wizard want us to believe. Many wizards produce a half-baked solution that is still constructed according to the constructs and features common to the 'legacy' environment and will hardly be using the new features and possibilities. This might not seem that bad but if you leave it at that level you are in fact making it very hard for developers that know the 'new' language to understand the code and make porting to the next platform or language even harder. That is what I call LEGACY in capitals. Dragging useless stuff around for decades.
The optimal moment to start porting, from a developer's point of view, was yesterday.
The optimal moment to start porting, from a manager's point of view, is tomorrow.
The optimal moment to start porting, from a competitor's point of view, is never.
There are a lot of other considerations to evaluate: opportunity cost (what else could we be doing), capacities for extensibility and growth (what else does the application need to do/be), sustainability with other moving parts (DB upgrades, OS upgrades), etc. The list goes on and on.
Specific to VB6, I would evaluate what limitations are in the way of product progress vs. moving up to the current .Net framework. Ask yourself -- is this really an IF scenario, or a WHEN scenario?
From a general standpoint, the worst time to port an application is when you HAVE to port it. Your situation sounds like an ideal time to begin code migration -- before it becomes a necessity. Given your legacy product's profitability for your company, any situation where you're forced to move to migrate brings pressures around deadlines, scope, etc.
All things considered, your situation sounds like an ideal time to port up to the .Net Framework, well before it becomes necessary.
Echoing jro and especially Erno,
Upgrade before there is a crisis.
Upgrade before the developers move on to other places where they have a chance at working on a modern framework.
Upgrade while the developers that built the original program are still around.
No competent developer will accept a pure porting job, it is not a career enhancing move. But the existing developers will be happy to learn the latest framework as part of a porting effort.
VB6 was released in 1998. March 31, 2008 Microsoft EOL'ed all VB6 support. Your company is so far into the danger zone with this code, it isn't funny.
To add some perspective,
Netscape was still an independent company and they just release Netscape 4.
Clinton was still president
The internet was still a new concept
Intel had just released their hot new Pentium II running at 450 Mhz
The Matrix was still filming
Google hadn't been founded (it was later in the year)
At some point, the company will be forced to upgrade the app because the operating system will no longer support the apis.
You should leave this company. It is career death to stay.
Update because Cody thinks "I am an individual developer":
#Cody -- Rethink your assumptions. I run my own company. Without fail, every time we have slipped behind the last stable release of a platform, catching up has been incredibly painful and expensive. The latest pain point is we are on dojo 0.4.3 and Tapestry 4. T4 and dojo 0.4.3 have this mutual interdependency that we are separating (slowly). Moving to Tapestry5 and/or jquery or even just to the more recent version of dojo is very slow and very painful. The porting has taken over a year because it has to be this long stretched process to keep other development moving along.
The choices are :
stay stuck on the old library
forever (with the problems around
finding/attracting talent),
try to run dual-mode (old/new) code (code doesn't always cooperate,
or freeze development on large chunks of the product during the
port
So far we have been doing a combination of #2 and #3.
Being on old version of either dojo or tapestry means that we have lost the ability of the community to support us and help us with the problems. The advantage of a framework is that other people are doing work that solves your problems. Nobody is solving any VB6 problems any more. Microsoft will not even take money to solve VB6 problems.
The OP's company is completely on their own. Note: that Google was just founded the year VB6 was released. I would suspect that VB6 knowledge has been disappearing from the web and that each year a Google search about any programming problem the OP's company makes will return fewer and fewer results.
This is a business viability risk.
The happy talk about MS supporting VB6 forever and ever is not a good idea. All it takes is some SVP at Microsoft saying: "We can ship the next Windows version in time to make Christmas if the teams do not have to fix these issues that affect only VB6. We will issue a Service Pack later." At some point this can and will happen.
A competitor can come along and introduce a competing product using the latest tools faster ( because the large pool of libraries available when using the latest frameworks.) The OP's company has lost the ability to be nimble because the latest tools and libraries no longer support VB6. (A 13! year old framework!!)
This is another business viability risk.
The fact that this needs to be explained to anyone is a huge, huge warning flag to any developer with any experience who is interviewing at the OP's company.
This reduces the quality and quantity of the talent pool enormously.
Not being able to attract quality talent is another business risk.
The original OP should bail.
Its not just Microsoft and will the Windows support the app. What about things like printers? or displays? Epson is under no obligation to release printer drivers that support a VB6 application.
What happens when the print function stops working for customers on their latest cool 4G-enabled printer?
What happens when customers try to use the app on the now-standard 2000x4000 display and the fonts look all goofy?
What happens when Adobe starts having Adobe Reader advise that the PDF file version should be upgraded?
Seeing a warning dialog popup, not being able to print, use the latest display well, etc will result in customers quietly moving to competitors. They will not even bother to tell the OP's company that they are doing this.
The OP should move on before the layoffs hit.
Related question: What is the most efficient way to break up a centralised database?
I'm going to try and make this question fairly general so it will benefit others.
About 3 years ago, I implemented an integrated CRM and website. Because I wanted to impress the customer, I implemented the cheapest architecture I could think of, which was to host the central database and website on the web server. I created a desktop application which communicates with the web server via a web service (this application runs from their main office).
In hindsight this was rather foolish, as now that the company has grown, their internet connection becomes slower and slower each month. Now, because of the speed issues, the desktop software times out on a regular basis, the customer is left with 3 options:
Purchase a faster internet connection.
Move the database (and website) to an in-house server.
Re-design the architecture so that the CRM and web databases are separate.
The first option is the "easiest", but certainly not the cheapest long term. Second option; if we move the website to in-house hosting, the client has to combat issues like overloaded/poor/offline internet connection, loss of power, etc. And the final option; the client is loathed to pay a whole whack of cash for me to re-design and re-code the architecture, and I can't afford to do this for free (I need to eat).
Is there any way to recover from when you've screwed up the design of a distributed system so bad, that none of the options work? Or is it a case of cutting your losses and just learning from the mistake? I feel terrible that there's no quick fix for this problem.
You didn't screw up. The customer wanted the cheapest option, you gave it to them, this is the cost that they put off. I hope you haven't assumed blame with your customer. If they're blaming you, it's a classic case of them paying for a Chevy while wanting a Mercedes.
Pursuant to that:
Your customer needs to make a business decision about what to do. Your job is to explain to them the consequences of each of the choices in as honest and professional a way as possible and leave the choice up to them.
Just remember, you didn't screw up! You provided for them a solution that served their needs for years, and they were happy with it until they exceeded the system's design basis. If they don't want to have to maintain the system's scalability again three years from now, they're going to have to be willing to pay for it now. Software isn't magic.
I wouldn't call it a screw up unless:
It was known how much traffic or performance requirements would grow. And
You deliberately designed the system to under-perform. And
You deliberately designed the system to be rigid and non adaptable to change.
A screw up would have been to over-engineer a highly complex system costing more than what the scale at the time demanded.
In fact it is good practice to only invest as much as can currently be leveraged by the business, using growth to fund further investment in scalability, should it be required. It is simple risk management.
Surely as the business has grown over time, presumably with the help of your software, they have also set aside something for the next level up. They should be thanking you for helping grow their business beyond expectations, and throwing money at you so you can help them carry through to the next level of growth.
All of those three options could be good. Which one is the best depends on cost benefits analysis, ROI etc. It is partially a technical decision but mostly a business one.
Congratulations on helping build a growing business up til now, and on to the future.
Are you sure that the cause of the timeouts is the internet connection, and not some performance issues in the web service / CRM system? By timeout I'm going to assume you mean something like ~30 seconds, in which case:
Either the internet connection is to blame and so you would see these sorts of timeouts to other websites (e.g. google), which is clearly unacceptable and so sorting the internet is your only real option.
Or the timeout is caused either by the desktop application, the web serice, or due to exessively large amounts of information being passed backwards and forwards, in which case you should either address the performance issue how you might any other bug, or look into ways of optimising the Desktop application so that less information is passed backwards and forwards.
In sort: the architecture that you currently have seems (fundamentally) fine to me, on the basis that (performance problems aside) access for the company to the CRM system should be comparable to accesss for the public to the system - as long as your customers have reasonable response times, so should the company.
Install a copy of the database on the local network. Then let the client software communicate with the local copy and let the database software do the synchronization between the local database server and the database on the webserver. It depends on which database you use, but some of them have tools to make that work. In MSSQL it is called replication.
First things first how much of the code do you really have to throw away? What language did you use for the Desktop client? Something .NET and you may be able to salvage a good chuck of the logic of the system and only need to redo the UI and some of the connections.
My thoughts are that 1 and 2 are out of the question, while 1 might be a good idea it doesn't solve the real problem. And we as engineers should try and build solutions not dependent on the client when ever possible. And 2 makes them get into something they aren't experts at and it is better to keep the hosting else where.
Also since you mention a web service is all you are really losing the UI? You can alway reuse the webservices for the web server interface.
Lastly you could look at using a framework to help provide a simple web based CRUD to start and then expand from there.
Are you sure the connection is saturated? You could be hitting all sorts of network, I/O and database problems... Unless you've already done so, use wireshark to analyze the traffic; measure the throughput and share the results with us.
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.
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.
I'm looking for a way to give out preview or demo versions of our software to our customers as easy as possible.
The software we are currently developing is a pretty big project. It consists of a client environment, an application server, various databases, web services host etc.
The project is developed incrementally and we want to ship the bits in intervals of one to two months. The first deliveries will not be used in production. They have the puropse of a demo to encourage the customers to give feedback.
We don't want to put burden on the customers to install and configure the system. All in all we are looking for a way to ease the deployment, installation and configuration pain.
What I thought of was to use a virtualizing technique to preinstall and preconfigure a virtual machine with all components that are neccessary. Our customers just have to mount the virtual image and run the application.
I would like to hear from folks who use this technique. I suppose there are some difficulties as well. Especially, what about licensing issues with the installed OS?
Perhaps it is possible to have the virtual machine expire after a certain period of time.
Any experiences out there?
Since you're looking at an entire application stack, you'll need to virtualize the entire server to provide your customers with a realistic demo experience. Thinstall is great for single apps, but not an entire stack....
Microsoft have licensing schemes for this type of situation, since it's only been used for demonstration purposes and not production use a TechNet subscription might just cover you. Give your local Microsoft licensing centre a call to discuss, unlike the offshore support teams they're really helpful and friendly.
For running the 'stack' with the least overhead for your clients, I suggest using VMware. The customers can download the free VMware player, load up the machines (or multiple machines) and get a feel for the system... Microsoft Virtual PC or Virtual Server is going to be a bit more intrusive and not quite the "plug n play" solution that you're looking for.
If you're only looking to ship the application, consider either thinstall or providing Citrix / Terminal services access - customers can remotely login to your own (test) machines and run what they need.
Personally if it's doable, a standalone system would be best - tell your customers install vmware player, then run this app... which launches the various parts of your application stack (maybe off of a DVD) and you've got a fully self contained demo for the marketing guys to pimp out :)
You should take a look at thinstall(It has been bought by vmware and is called thinapp now), its an application virtualizer.
It seems that you're trying to accomplish several competing goals:
"Give" the customer something.
Simplify and ease the customer experience.
Ensure the various components coexist and interact happily.
Accommodate licensing restrictions, both yours and the OS vendor's.
Allow incremental and piecewise upgrades.
Can you achieve all of these by hosting the back end (database, web server, etc.) and providing your customers with a CD (or download) that contains the client? This will give them the "download/upgrade experience" that goes along with client software, without dealing with the complexity of administering the back end.
For a near plug-and-play experience, you might consider placing your demo on a live linux or Windows CD. Note: you need a licensed copy of Windows for the latter.
Perhaps your "serious" customers might be able to request their own demo copies of the back end as well; they'd be more amenable to the additional work on their part.
As far as OS licenses, if your vendor(s) of choice aren't helpful, you might consider free or open-source alternatives such as FreeDOS or linux.
Depending on if you can fit all the needed services into a single OS instance or not...
Vmware Ace or whatever they're calling it nowadays will let you deliver single virtual machines under strict control, with forced updates, expiration and whatnot. But it sounds easier to just set up a demo environment and allow remote access to it.
The issue here I guess is getting several virtual machines to communicate under unknown circumstances - if one is not enough?
An idea then is to ship a physical server preconfigured with virtualisation and whatever amount of virtual servers needed to demonstrate the system.
Using trial versions of the operating system might be good enough for the licensing dilemma - atleast Windows Server is testable for 60 days, extendable to 240 when registering.
Thinstall is great for single apps, but not an entire stack....
I didn't try it yet, but with the new version of thinstall you are able to let different thinstalled application communicate.
But I guess you're right a vm-ware image would be easier