I feel like I've proven my point on which is the more superior software... but when I tell them that the software is essentially free to copy and distribute, they shudder. Then when they say, "when it breaks, who do we call?" My answer: the guys that wrote the software. Their response: "That's crazy, they'll never talk back to us. We need an official support line to call."
Obviously they've never sat on hold with any company for a support question. I brought that up and the counter was, "Well, we need a brand name to sell everyone on the solution."
Sigh.
I can see their point too - they want a brand name that is marketable and identifiable. They don't care if it WORKS. They just want to make their commission and leave the problems to me when the software doesn't function.
It's an age-old battle, no?
--JM
Mike McMullen wrote:
You might see if they would go for a bake-off between the commercial system and SA. The winner getting implemented.
I can say I understand the boss's position. They want some comfort level that if something breaks someone is fixing it in a timely manner. Of course with SA that's not an issue.
When I review open source options, I always check the activity level of the group supporting it and how often enhancements come out or bugs are addressed. Thats just as valuable as getting package for no cost.
