Yeah yeah, we all know there's cost associated with running a site, open-source or not.
The good part (although not very relevant in the grand scheme of things) is that there's no licensing fees. Either way, you'll be depending on someone—in house, consultant, or automated something or other—to manage the system for you. You said it yourself—the "only guy who knows how it works" can disappear whether the project is proprietary/purchased or open-source. Personally, I think open-source apps with a large community have much less chance of disappearing overnight, and the ecosystem of available consultants is much larger.
Plus, sure, added benefit: no up-front license fees. Maintenance is likely to be similar to proprietary solutions, and everyone knows that already. No one is saying "open-source software is freeeeee" anymore, that common misconception was pretty much put to rest around 2001.
Plus, even discussing the cost of the solution up front reinforces the points the author was trying to make: that discussing the technology, its up-front cost, its maintenance cost, whether it's closed- or open-source—none of that matters. What matters is the solution. And one would hope that you'd use the right technology for the right solution, taking cost and technology into account.
The idea that you don't talk about trivial technology details until you've gathered all the requirements and found the true need is still extremely valid, and the fact that he was discussing trivial costs so soon—whether or not they were misconceptions—was a sign that he was doing it wrong.
Comments
Yeah yeah, we all know there's cost associated with running a site, open-source or not.
The good part (although not very relevant in the grand scheme of things) is that there's no licensing fees. Either way, you'll be depending on someone—in house, consultant, or automated something or other—to manage the system for you. You said it yourself—the "only guy who knows how it works" can disappear whether the project is proprietary/purchased or open-source. Personally, I think open-source apps with a large community have much less chance of disappearing overnight, and the ecosystem of available consultants is much larger.
Plus, sure, added benefit: no up-front license fees. Maintenance is likely to be similar to proprietary solutions, and everyone knows that already. No one is saying "open-source software is freeeeee" anymore, that common misconception was pretty much put to rest around 2001.
Plus, even discussing the cost of the solution up front reinforces the points the author was trying to make: that discussing the technology, its up-front cost, its maintenance cost, whether it's closed- or open-source—none of that matters. What matters is the solution. And one would hope that you'd use the right technology for the right solution, taking cost and technology into account.
The idea that you don't talk about trivial technology details until you've gathered all the requirements and found the true need is still extremely valid, and the fact that he was discussing trivial costs so soon—whether or not they were misconceptions—was a sign that he was doing it wrong.