Re: [squid-users] what's better than msproxy 2: Does someone wants to laugh ?

Interresting arguments. Have to translate them and put in a letter to the
IT
decision makers.

Thank You.

Henrik Nordstrom a écrit :

> Dan Cave wrote:
>
> > From a support perspective, companies would rather pay for something
> > commercial that they can get support for, even if it uses opensource.
>
> Yes, For this purpose there exists several companies making commercial
> products based on Squid, my own included. Sure, you do not get these
> things for gratis, but they are still free in most parts.
>
> The argument that Free Software costs nothing is usually not a very good
> argument. What is for free can't be good can it..?? In such situation
> you need to find other approaches and arguments.
>
> One argument which can work is to explain what really Free Software and
> Open Source in general is about and why it is such an success as it is.
> Free Software is not at all about that the software should be at no
> cost, it is about making sure you have the freedom to improve what you
> have and not be locked down to a single provider/vendor.
>
> If you find something you are not entirely satisfied with in an Open
> Source product the fact that it is Open Source allows you to take the
> initiative to have it corrected/extended.
>
> Now, this ofcourse does not appeal to everyone and as not all companies
> can afford or wishes to have their own staff who is capable. For this
> reason there exists several companies selling support on Open Source
> components.
>
> There also exists several commercial players (myself included) who make
> commercial products based on Open Source. The commercial products
> shrinkwrap the Open Source components combined with the expertese of the
> commercial vendor to make a product which combines the best of both
> worlds.
>
> So some arguments?
>
> Q: Need to have commercial support
>
> A: There is several companies providing commercial support to those who
> need. In addition there is often very good support to be found on the
> Internet if you can affort to spend some time on trying to get a problem
> solved.
>
> In many cases the need for commercial support is less for Open Source
> products due to their open nature, but it is always recommended to get
> support options for any mission critical components in your business.
>
> As with the traditional closed vendors support can most often be found
> direct from the Open Source vendors. The main difference is that there
> usually is not a single big player but many smaller to select between.
>
> Q: Need to have a stable and trustworthy provider
>
> A: By using a well known Open Source software you are guaranteed a
> stable provider. A good and well known Open Source product such as Squid
> is almost guaranteed to surive for extended period of time. Unlike many
> of the smaller commercial vendors Open Source software does not rely on
> a investors of commercial vendors who may go bankrupt or change their
> business. The people working on Squid may change by time, but as long as
> it is beeing in use by others it is likely to get better by time and to
> have a trustworthy "provider".
>
> Q: Need to have a provider I can trust
>
> What can be said about trust is that Open Source software is in many
> aspects less likely to have security issues or backdoors. The source is
> available freely, and such issues is quite likely to be found very
> quickly. What is certainly true is that in general Open Source software
> reacts much quicker to security issues than most commercial vendors and
> it is not uncommon that you will get a fix shortly after sending a good
> security report to the group of people developing the Open Source
> software you use. Another is that most put way too much trust in their
> commercial vendors. If you read the fineprint of mostly any commercial
> agreement you will find that most "respected and well known" commercial
> vendors actually takes very little responsibility for what they deliver.
>
> At some times it may seem like Open Source software has more security
> issues than a closed vendor. However, in most cases this not really true
> but an positive effect of the software being open allowing others to
> audit and test and also to provide fixes to the problems found. Closed
> vendors is very likely to as many or more security issues, most likely
> you will hear a lot less about the issues they do have and it will take
> longer for them to provide fixes. Closed vendors keep generally their
> mount shut until there is a fully tested correction available, if there
> at all will be one.
>
> Regards
> Henrik Nordström
> MARA Systems AB, Sweden
> http://www.marasystems.com/

(See attached file: smime.p7s)