Forums » OSS

• Richard Coles

  
   

  February 11, 2010 3:28 PM GMT

  The last decade of OSS software projects has seen a focus on implementing COTS products. There is of course lots of benefit in COTS but is there a space for custom solutions? I’m sure there is, but when is a custom OSS an option?

   

  I’m not talking spreadsheets to manage transport rings or port allocation,  or access databases knocked up in a week by an enthusiastic user. I am interested in the feasibility of designing a custom robust OSS that supports broader business operations, integrates to other solutions in the OSS, provides better customer value and lower delivery risk. Maybe kick start a new solution with an open source OSS, make use of standard data models like SID and go from there?

   

  Maybe it’s another case of tactical deployments versus strategic ones (see a previous article on this) 'Strategy or Tatic'

   

  So, what can be gained (or lost) from going down the custom route (in house or with a services partner) versus the risk mitigation and other benefits of a COTS product? Can the right team with the right customer focus get a reliable low cost maintainable custom solution together that offers real value to a telco.

   

  Enough of my yabber - I look forward to exploring this topic with you in this thread. Please post your thoughts.

• Timothy O'Hara

  
   

  February 22, 2010 11:43 AM GMT

  Open Source for OSS requires a CTO with guts and the ability to trust time honoured products and embrace open systems (Linux aside). Our company Gatif produces a Full Open source OSS that is being used by many global carriers and the foundation for at least 2 (two) other industry available products (full SID compliance)
  
  We have decided to release our product as a full open source (Microsoft Visual C++ / Oracle -any platform- database back-end) based offering. Our code is approx 7+ years old and of that 2 years preparing that code base for open source release. We did so hoping to create a community of OSS professionals that would share information and modelling without outside vendor (hardware or software) dependency. Using open systems can do that, almost every industry in the world (telecom aside) has benefited from open systems. As usual the carriers (OSS-CTO’s case in point) world is the last, despite the fact hey are perceived as being the first to offer new technology solutions to industry and end subscribers.
  
  Gatif (our initial offering code named Waypoint) has now been downloaded 100's of users but only them only 6 of them seem to be serious in-house OSS designers/architects that work for carriers of those 6 global carriers two of them have actually done full source code downloads. We hope to assist them to do full blown deployments in the coming months.
  
  The barrier from my perspective is finding a CTO with the ability to understand what really makes up a product offering and find the key staff to do it. The savings are enormous but so is the risk (to the CTO apparently).
  
  If carriers adopt an open source model, the potential is that carriers can work together (Carrier to carrier direct) or employees of those carriers, to share modelling and truly exchange ideas to support their complex systems. Those systems (Complex OSS systems) need not be a barrier for them to be competitive. What they gain is control of their OSS and costs associated to it.
  
  All OSS are ultimately custom systems, so the sooner that Open Source for OSS is embraced by carriers, the better.
  
• Blair Pallopson

  
   

  March 10, 2010 5:29 PM GMT

  I personally think that IT organizations in the communications industry should embrace the concept of open source OSS platforms and standards. The industry is in desperate need of widespread co-operation and sharing to reduce the costs of implementing and running an OSS. I wrote blog on this site talking about this very concept.
  
  Unfortunately, I think Tim has said it quite well that it would take a confident CTO to take the leap into open source. However, I think this is a bit misplaced and I don't necessarily think that this would be a giant leap of faith for a CTO.
  
  In many respects, the case could be made that going down the open source road is actually LESS (yes that's right) risky. I think there are some incredible risks inherent in going with complex COTS OSS platforms that have high licensing costs, expensive support and maintenance requirements, and inflexible or closed platforms. I've seen it firsthand where IT organizations lose control of their own destiny when it comes to delivering an OSS because they are so rigidly locked into their vendor's technology choices. In many ways I would argue that this represents a larger risk to IT departments. They often get hamstrung by their COTS platform and can't be flexible or nimble enough to support their user communities continually evolving business. CTO's risk that their OSS and organization become irrelevant to their business units because they simply can't keep up to changing business priorities.
  
  At least, with the open source approach a CTO is in FULL control of what they can deliver and when and can focus their investments on delivering the complex customizations that are key to their business instead of spending it on licensing, maintaining and upgrading their COTS application.