community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Looks like someone feels threatened... (TIBCO vs Open Source ESBs)
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2015 05:07:24 GMT
There is no need for any PMC or ASF at large to respond to this marketing
nonsense. It is equivalent of a mud fight, and we can choose to not get
dirty.

PMCs can of course publish data, such as benchmarks and other hard facts,
but should refrain from debatable opinions, such as whether OSS innovates
more that Closed Shops do. Stay factual, and in due time the world will
acknowledge it.

Niclas

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Raúl Kripalani <raulk@apache.org> wrote:

> Originally posted this on users@camel and dev@camel, but several fellows
> suggested that it may be of interest of a wider audience.
>
> Even though the context is Enterprise Service Buses, their speech applies
> to OSS in general.
>
> The argument that proprietary vendors innovate more than OSS is absolutely
> hilarious. Really, it's exactly the opposite. Think of what projects like
> Hadoop, Storm, Docker, Kubernetes, MongoDB, etc. have done for OSS lately.
>
> The most scalable platforms out there (FB, TW, Yahoo, Netflix, etc.) have
> open sourced their tech... So, are proprietary vendors still driving IT
> innovation? *scoff*
>
> Open for discussion!
>
> P.S.: ​Not sure who is subscribed to this list, but I hear that this thread
> may be of interest to members@, in which case feel free to forward and
> please do CC me so I can participate.
>
> *Raúl Kripalani*
> Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> Integration specialist
> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Raul Kripalani <raul@evosent.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:13 AM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Looks like someone feels threatened... (TIBCO vs Open
> Source ESBs)
> To: "users@camel.apache.org" <users@camel.apache.org>, "
> dev@camel.apache.org"
> <dev@camel.apache.org>
>
>
> Just found this marketing landing page published on social networks. It's
> made by TIBCO and attempts to highlight the downsides of Open Source ESBs.
> You don't need to be a rocket scientist to gather what exact ESB they are
> targeting (not us): just look at the images.
>
> http://www.tibco.com/integration/open-source-ESB-alternative
>
> Even though it's a clear exercise of FUD vs. OSS – as it provides no
> quantitive measurements to their claims (whatever happened to the
> scientific method...) – I was planning to write a rebuttal post in my blog,
> but I haven't updated it in a long time and it needs a bit of love first.
>
> So I thought I'd just publish my thoughts – as I wanted to get it out ASAP
> – and start a qualified discussion here...
>
> In particular I would like to dissect / take down their 4 "myths" about OSS
> ESBs:
>
> *> *Myth # 1 - Open Source ESB Software Is Free**
>
> (Their statement: OSS ESBs are not Free.)
>
> Well, no software has zero Total Cost of Ownership. As long as the world is
> *not* entirely controlled by androids, you will need humans to operate the
> software, including TIBCO's. What we need to look at are the costs of
> hiring those people and their learning curves.
>
> For Camel, any developer with Java, XML and a few other "commodity skills"
> will do. And they can get started in days. Many people in this forum got
> started in hours.
>
> For TIBCO, you need a specialised consultant because their stack is
> proprietary. Or you need to train them, and TIBCO training is not cheap. I
> have been a TIBCO consultant and I know this for a fact. Moreover,
> specialised (already trained) TIBCO consultants are not cheap either (like
> with most proprietary software – think SAP, Salesforce, etc.).
>
> Furthermore, brand new customers need consultancy to get started – and that
> is not cheap either.
>
> *> *Myth #2 - Open Source ESB Communities Innovate Faster**
>
> (Their statement: Proprietary ESB vendors innovate faster)
>
> This is plainly wrong. Just take a look at the release notes of TIBCO
> ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks. This [1] is the latest version, and there's a
> dropdown at the top to browse through past versions.
>
> To analyse this statement, we need to track two things at least: (1)
> frequency of releases, (2) new features introduced per release.
>
> About frequency of releases:
>
> TIBCO ActiveMatrix release line 6.x: 9 months between minor releases, 4
> months between micro releases.
>
>                         [9 months]
> 6.1.0 (May 2014)    --->    6.2.0 (Nov 2014)
> 6.1.1 (Sep 2014)              6.2.1 (Mar 2015)
> [4 months]                        [4 months]
>
> Camel (analysing past 2 minor releases): less than 6 months between minors,
> less than 3 between micros. I noticed that 2.15.1 was released quite early,
> so I included another datapoint for one more 2.14.x micro release.
>
>                               [< 6 months]
> 2.14.0 (18 Sep 2014)  ===>  2.15.0 (10 Mar 2015)
> 2.14.1 (16 Dec 2014)            2.15.1 (01 Apr 2015)
> [< 3 months]                          [< 20 days (special circumstance
> likely)]
> 2.14.2 (10 Mar 2014)
> [< 3 months]
>
> I know that analysing so few releases is not an indicative – ideally we
> would analyse the entire release history – but I don't have time right now.
> Nevertheless, the release policy of Camel is 6 months between majors and 3
> months between micros (if I recall correctly).
>
> Next, let's take a look at the innovation aspect:
> * TIBCO AM BW 6.2.0 carries 22 new features [2], many of which have to do
> with their IDE, not with core functionality.
> * Camel 2.14.0 carried 38 new and noteworthy features, PLUS 15 new
> components, 1 data format, 1 new EIP (Circuit Breaker), etc.
>
> Judge for yourselves ;-)
>
> *> *Myth #3 - Access to Source Allows Reviewing Code and Deploying Safely**
>
> (Their statement: Access to source does not uncover vulnerabilities).
>
> Well, all software has vulnerabilities and with Open Source you can
> identify them yourself and fix them. With proprietary software, you rely
> entirely on the vendor's turnaround time.
>
> Moreover, we are very transparent about this and we publish our Security
> Advisories here [3].
>
> *> *Myth #4 - Open Source and SaaS Work Well Together**
>
> They say: "Cloud-based open-source ESBs work just like other SaaS
> applications: you typically don't have access to the code. How well will it
> connect your on-premise applications with other SaaS services? You can't
> know."
>
> Well, that's just plain absurd. It amuses me that a closed-source vendor is
> using the "you don't have access to the code" against an Open Source
> product :D Makes zero sense, both marketing- and technical-wise.
>
> With TIBCO, you don't have access to the source on-premises nor cloud-based
> software. With the other vendor, you may not have access to the source of
> their iPaaS but you know it's largely based on the on-premises software, to
> which you have access (even though it's a "gated community" in the strict
> sense...).
>
> ---
>
> Discussion open! 1, 2, 3... GO!
>
> [1] https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-activematrix-businessworks-6-2-1
> [2]
>
> https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activematrix_businessworks/6.2.0/TIB_BW_6.2.0_relnotes.pdf
> [3] https://camel.apache.org/security-advisories.data
>
> Regards,
>
> *Raúl Kripalani*
> Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> Integration specialist
> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org/qi4j <http://www.qi4j.org> - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message