Gartner's FUD

Good news:

New research has highlighted quite how pervasive open source software (OSS) has become, with 85 per cent of companies currently using OSS and the remaining 15 per cent expecting to in the next 12 months.

The findings come from a Gartner survey in May and June 2008, which covered 274 end-user organisations in Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America, and raise a series of management issues for businesses.

But wait, trust Gartner to find a cloud in every silver lining for open source....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Why the Future Will be Eee-Shaped

As I was saying:

The Eee PC has attracted so much attention worldwide that other vendors, including China's Hasee Computer, want to grab a share of the market, Gartner says in its Semiconductor DQ Monday Report this week. The difference is that these companies plan to make low-cost laptops at standard sizes and with better functionality, so they're easier to use.

Hasee plans to launch a low-cost laptop soon, but with a bigger display than the Eee PC, a more powerful processor and much more storage, Gartner says. The Q540X laptop will carry an Intel Celeron 540 processor, an 80G byte hard drive, a 13.3-inch display, weigh 2.19 kilograms and cost just 2,999 Chinese renminbi (US$405), Gartner says.

Gartner's Trough of Disillusionment

There is a scandal brewing over open standards in Europe:

On June 29 2007, the European Commission agency IDABC published document written on contract by Gartner initiating the revision of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) and the Architecture Guidelines (AG) .

The first version of this very important document has been published in 2004 and introduced a strong support and request for open standards and xml for the exchange of data between administrations within Europe, as well as with the citizens. This has been relayed and used in many countries to support open standards as well.

This is now threatened in this new report EIF v2.0 by Gartner

This second version, not yet endorsed by the European Commission, nor by the member states, but that could well enter soon such an endorsement process, wants to update the previous version of the European Interoperability Framework but, contrary to the first version, it threatens explictely the good process of more open standards that had been a long time push of IDABC.

The core of the problem is the following passage from Gartner's report:

Gartner acknowledges the importance of open standards. IT vendors and system integrators should also recognize that open standards are the way to go. The era where proprietary standards lead to a sure base of loyal customers is fading away. IT is becoming just like any other industry where true added value and competitive pricing determine the winners.

Yet, Gartner recommends not to focus on the use of open standards per se. Whether open or not, standards are to further the deployment of public services. EIF v2.0 should facilitate the most profitable business model(s) of cost versus public value, under proper recognition of intellectual property rights, if any. The support for multiple standards allows a migration towards open standards when appropriate in the long run.

The use of 'open source' software may further the deployment of public services. However again, whether open source or not, it is the most viable software that should be allowed to survive in the infrastructure. So again, EIF v2.0 should facilitate multiple options to co-exist, and to compete.

This is completely daft. Saying

Gartner recommends not to focus on the use of open standards per se. Whether open or not, standards are to further the deployment of public services. EIF v2.0 should facilitate the most profitable business model(s) of cost versus public value

is like saying

Gartner recommends not to focus on the use of moral standards per se. Whether moral or not, standards are to further the deployment of public services. EIF v2.0 should facilitate the most profitable business model(s) of cost versus public value

In other words, it fails to take into account that focussing narrowly on "the most profitable business model(s) of cost versus public value" is short-sighted, because by definition, "not to focus on the use of open standards per se" means allowing closed standards. And so the long-term costs are going to be greater because of vendor lock-in. In fact, Gartner itself says this:

To facilitate evolution over time and to support the migration from one standard to another and to avoid vendor lock-in it is therefore paramount to design for support of multiple standards.

But it confuses multiple standards of any kind with multiple open standards. There are no easy migrations between different closed standards, or closed standards and open ones. "To facilitate evolution over time", *all* the standards must be open.

Around this deeply flawed core thesis, the rest of the report reads like a puff for Gartner's methodology - including its tiresomely pretentious Hype Cycle (talk about hype). Pretentious and useless: at the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" it places - wait for it - IPv6. I hate to break it to Gartner, but IPv6 passed through that stage about eight years ago.

Give that the IDABC, which commissioned this study (who knows why) has hitherto been pretty sensible on open standards, we can only hope they consign this whole report to the bin where it belongs. To help it on its way, do sign the petition and send your (polite) comments to the IDABC before September as they have specifically requested:

Everyone who sees interoperability as an effective means to come to better pan-European eGovernment services is invited to read the document and reflect on its content.

IDABC is interested in your reactions.

A summary of reactions (that reach us before September 15, 2007) will be published on the IDABC web-site (http://ec.europa.eu/idabc) and will constitute another input into the revision process.

Really, an offer we can't - daren't - refuse.

Update: As I signed the petition I noticed that it insists on a full physical address - country isn't enough. This seems foolish to me, and is likely to lead to people not signing. Unless they were to enter random information in the unnecessary fields....

Microsoft's TCO Tricks: Ancient but Important

This may be ancient history now, but it's important that people remember that Microsoft does not fight fair, as these old documents about the company's TCO campaign against GNU/Linux indicate:

The court evidence also gives a peek into the relationships large vendors like Microsoft have with research firms. In a different Nov. 3, 2002, message, Houston said that the company had been unable to convince any other major research company to do the TCO study, and specifically mentioned Gartner as one that turned down Microsoft's request.

"We approached Gartner about doing this study and they declined," said Houston. "They said it was because they didn't know that their model for TCO would work well with Linux. I privately wonder if they want to take on this debate."

And the month before, Houston wrote Johnson a message that intimated pressure had been put on IDC to tweak the report so it would put Microsoft in a better light. "I hate to put it like this, but at this point, IDC is done negotiating with us. We have moved them quite a bit already, but they are now holding the line, saying that if we want the names of their 'big' analysts on the report, this is it."

Is the Tide Turning for OpenDocument Format?

Hm, what's this: an analyst starting to say downright nice things about ODF? From the article by Ingrid Marson:

There is a 70 percent probability that ISO will not approve multiple XML document formats [i.e., Microsoft's rival to ODF], according to a research note published by Gartner last week. It also predicted, with the same probability, that "by 2010, ODF (OpenDocument Format) document exchange will be required by 50 percent of government and 20 percent of commercial organizations."

Cynical old dog that I am, these probabilities look a little rosy to me. Nonetheless, what is astonishing is not the numbers themselves, but that Gartner - never one to stick its neck out on open source - made the prediction. Maybe the tide is turning?

Update 1: Hardly a surprise to learn that IBM will be supporting ODF in Lotus Notes, but nonetheless welcome news, since it can only add to the momentum building behind the new standard.

Update 2: The Gartner document can be found here.

Update 3: And now KDE has joined the ODF Alliance.