[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: commercial support for openldap

On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 08:14:19AM -0700, Rob Tanner wrote:
> Let me, in fact, offer a concrete example of Ben's point.  When we 
> originally experimented with IMAP at Linfield we used the open source 
> imap4 server from Carnegie-Mellon.  When we decided to go production, 
> in order to insure support we went with a commercial version of the CMU 
> server offered by Simeon, aka Esys and now, Messaging Direct.  However, 
> the quality of the support in non-existent (a more expressive adjective 
> comes to mind but I should probably use my better manners in public) 

	Not to stretch this thread too far, but this is a factor of
your specific case, and is a symptom of the computer industry in
general.  While Ford can be sued for billions because one of their
contractors installed faulty tires, Microsoft is untouchable despite
selling and "supporting" (arguably) broke software.

	Until YOU start holding YOUR support providers accountable,
things are not going to change.  You can do your own support, but
make sure that you (and the people paying you) are aware that you
are spending your time doing something they may have expected to pay
someone else for.

> and response time is equally bad -- and to think, we'e paying for that 
> excuse for support.  We have already dropped their LDAP server (we 
> didn't get enough support to even fully implement it) and the IMAP 
> server is next on the chopping block.  And the reason:  the combination 
> of peer and developer support over email lists like this one is far 
> superior to that of Messaging Direct's commercial support.
	
	I've so far found the OpenLDAP community somewhere in the
middle of the road on support.  I see no consistent schedules, and
documentation is pretty crappy.  The Auto-FAQ is nearly useless, but
the mailing list seems to be good for a timely response (although it
is frequently someone saying "take it to the other list").  On the
other hand, the code and manpages are decent, and the software itself
seems very reliable once you get past the initial installation.

	I compare this to PHP, PostgreSQL, and a few other of the
projects I've been involved with.

> I might also add that having source code means I can also look at the 
> problems myself and do enhancement's and so really tailor the software 
> to the needs of Linfield -- the expression I heard somewhere "If you 
> haven't got the source, it's not software" is very applicable.

	I don't agree.  While having the source code is sometimes
handy for documentation and debugging, I have never been forced
to add my own implementations to an existing code base (other then
the one that my company maintains).  And we are currently in the
business of doing things nobody else does.  We don't have time to
mess with someone else's code--we have our own to take care of.

(get a smaller .sig, too)

-- 
Adam Haberlach            | A billion hours ago, human life appeared on
adam@newsnipple.com       | earth.  A billion minutes ago, Christianity
http://www.newsnipple.com | emerged.  A billion Coca-Colas ago was
'88 EX500                 | yesterday morning. -1996 Coca-Cola Ann. Rpt.