Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Kevin OKeefe's picture
Kevin OKeefe

From the Trenches

Beware the mad scientist...

Beware of the mad scientist... A techie (or company) who peddles the hopes of saving a business a lot of money by offering a solution with either inferior hardware and/or recommending an open source software solution. By inferior hardware, I mean using hardware that does not suit a company's needs. In theory, a company with 50 users could use a PC with a 1GHz processor and 512MB of RAM, as a Peer-to-Peer central file server, but this really would not be an adequate solution. The mantra that you should always be repeating when faced with the decision of implementing a new IT solution is "you get what you pay for". How often does that simple phrase come back to haunt the unfortunate company that decides not to heed its simple warning? You will always, and I mean always, pay more in the long run for these home grown solutions. Whether it be during the installation, where a techie will be paid hourly to work out all of the bugs and tweak their solution for your specific environment, or for the long term woes that come from the lack of support with the eventual home-grown solution. This will also include the loss of money which often results from the lack of user productivity, not to mention the complaints and hit in employee confidence you will soon encounter by taking the low road.

I've seen certain situations arise when a company is faced with the decision of implementing a new IT solution (such as a firewall, router, or VPN solution) and hoping to reuse old PC hardware in the process. Before you know it, you have a home-grown system that only a handful of people (who are hard to come by and not cheap) can support. This doesn't mean that the less costly solutions are always the wrong choice. I often incorporate many free (or very inexpensive) solutions with my client sites, but never in an area which can adversely effect business operations. For example, you can use a solution like LogMeIn for remote control access, and forgo the installation of a dedicated VPN / Terminal Server solution when only a few people in a company need remote control access to their work system or environment. I also recommended a short while ago that one of my clients use the FTP server solution that's included with the Windows XP Professional operating system. After assessing their needs, I went over the limitations with using the free solution (which they were ok with), and they are still using that FTP server setup today. They did forego some functionality that would come with a more robust and expensive FTP server solution, but they were educated on the shortcomings, and most importantly, were content with the end result.

Just remember that you get what you pay for. Make the right decision and put your money in your IT infrastructure (PCs, servers, switches, routers, firewalls, etc.), and not in to the pockets of the mad scientist knocking on your door. Take the path less traveled, doesn't apply here. Work with known IT solutions when it comes to critical business operations.

What People Are Saying

Hey Carl, I agree 200% with

Hey Carl,
I agree 200% with you. Many many of the open source products have proven that they are far more innovative , versatile and better than what the general Tech population gives it credit. Especially in the enterprise area.

Look at how advanced OpenOffice is. they were implementing documents as pure XML files before office 2007 came along. Look at the popularity of Mozilla and its security against spyware. Look at some of the CMS (Content management servers). For example Alfresco is open source CMS and now large companies are using that as part of their enterprise app.

The challenge that you will find with Open source is quality of support and availability. I know that several of the banks for example use Postgres database for check processing...ok, and it is all OPEN SOURCE. many of the readers checks are being stored in an Open source database.

At the end of the day, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this article. But I enjoy readying everyone's view...

First: Good Article, thought

First: Good Article, thought provoking.

To a degree I disagree with some of your premise. For the simple reason that "You get what you pay for" isn't always true. Many of the open source (read FREE) solutions are better (SSH/OpenSSH anyone?). For example a majority of the Web Servers on the Internet are running a combination of Linux and Apache. Mozilla Firefox is another example. What you have to watch for is the Quality vs. Price comparison. Quality should be paramount within the given price range. If your customer wants to spend "No more than $200" on a server for 30 people to use, you either have to kill the quality or tell them you can't do the job (yes, I've had clients say that). The end result we usually have to spend more to fix what they didn't want to pay for to begin with.

Bottom line, don't dis open source because it's free. Making blanket statements like that mislead those who read the article.

I have run into this problem

I have run into this problem a lot! I have always been of the thinking that you should buy quality products from resellers you can trust. Don't buy the generic laptop to save a few hundred dollars, don't go with the Dell switching infrastructure in place of the Cisco. Don't put up Linksys Wi-Fi points in a Corporate office.

Sometimes the joke around the office is should we buy it off eBay or Froogle?

Older Post I had on my blog.
http://blog.super-networking.net/uncategorized/why-you-get-what-you-pay-for-3/

Thanks for catching the typo

Thanks for catching the typo Wei-Yee. Unfortunately, when posting these blogs, you have to use Notepad or some other low-end text editor, since the online editors mentioned that their blog entry tool chokes on all of the hidden code when using more feature-rich applications like Word. I, like most people nowadays, tend to rely more and more on spell checker, which isn't included in Notepad. After cutting & pasting the original article from Notepad, I tend to make last minute changes, and in this particular case, was running out the door to a client site. I will make sure to re-read all of my posts in the future to minimize such typos.
As for the "Microsoft propaganda" statement mentioned by Mr. Anonymous' post, I write from my real world experiences and the majority of my clients use Microsoft products, hence that is what I support and will write about. What I was trying to get across is the problem when companies don't look at the whole picture when looking a implementing a solution. You have the hardware & software portions, and then you have the tech person who implements the solution. You seemed to catch up on this with your comment on vendors selling snake oil. Thanks for taking the time to make a constructive comment, as well as for reading my post...

>This is just blatant

>This is just blatant Microsoft propaganda.

I wouldn't say he was absolutely wrong about the OSS part, cos whether a solution will be successful or not depends a lot on the party that's implementing it. Too often, U come across "OSS vendors" out there selling snake oil.

Hi Kevin, I refer to the

Hi Kevin,

I refer to the last paragraph of your article.  

I believe "Take the path less traveled, doesn't apply hear", should have been "...doesn't apply here."

By the way, great article! :-)

This is just blatant

This is just blatant Microsoft propaganda. Furthermore, it's filled with typos, including the use of "MG" instead of "MB" and "hear" instead of "here". Who writes this stuff, and why are they allowed to post it?

Unfortuntely it's people

Unfortuntely it's people like "Mr. Anonymous" (who posted a comment on Tue 5/01/2007 - 7:43pm) who makes writing articles such as these, in which I try to educate people in the field with my "real world" experiences, difficult. It's amazing (and extremely ignorant) that you can make such a comment that "MB" instead of "MG" (which was used in the article) is a typo, which is not the case since both are used in the field. You appear to be a blinded by being a member of the "anti-Microsoft" establishment, by spewing such inappropriate terms as "Microsoft propaganda". Why don't you first read through the entire article, and then simply state specific reasons for opposing my comments, rather then what you did which was unconstructive (and once again ignorant), which is all that I got out of your comment.