InformationWeek

Major Sites Using Open-Source Infrastructure
Site	Server
America Online	AOLServer
Bertelsmann	Apache
CBS	Apache
Citrożn	Apache
Compaq	Apache
Great Britain- Royal Family	Linux
Harvard University	Apache
Hotmail	FreeBSD,Apache
Lamborghini	Apache
Mindspring	Apache
Motorola	Apache
Philips Electronics	Apache
Subaru	Apache, Linux
Texas Instruments	Apache
Tivoli	Apache
Wendy's	Apache
Yahoo	FreeBSD
Data: InformationWeek

Commercial software also involves an investment in time and energy, plus cash. It comes with no more guarantees of longevity than any open-source project. Last year, Intel abruptly pulled the plug on its electronic-commerce suite, iCat, effectively leaving in the lurch all managers who invested in the product. Although open-source development is no guarantee of immortality, there is a crucial difference. Whereas iCat's source code may have been buried for good, the source code for a worthwhile open-source tool can live on, to be adopted and nourished by new caregivers.

Few software tools are perfect, and bugs are inevitable. Open-source developers are also the foremost users of their own products-a unique relationship that lends a particularly responsive quality to their efforts. Those behind the PHP scripting language introduced a stable revision 3 in mid-1998 and, while simultaneously nearing release of significant features for revision 4, released 15 minor updates to revision 3 so far. Based on this activity, one might assume that PHP is bug-ridden and needs constant repair, but this analysis would be a naive view of software development, especially in light of developers' voluntary adoption of PHP as the most popular add-on to the Apache Web server. Rather, PHP's release history reflects the agility with which open-source development can address fractured needs and interests.

A real, legitimate concern of many business IT developers is support. The open-source advocate will point out that there are plenty of arenas for support-from included documentation to third-party tutorials and interactive discussions in all corners of the Internet. That's both the good news and the bad news. While there's plenty to read about Apache, Linux, Perl, and PHP on Web sites and Usenet newsgroups, much of it is obtuse to the developer, who simply needs to get the job done. Precisely because the developers and early adopters of open-source projects are experts, they often take for granted important details and concepts that befuddle the outsider. To be sure, there's useful help available on the Internet for all these open-source projects, but the clear and navigable support is a small percentage of all discussion out there.

Both open-source and commercial tools often have sizable user bases, and therefore both are supported by much discussion on the Internet. Users helping users is a valuable asset for all kinds of products. While open-source experts can at times be inscrutable, this expert advice often comes from the developers of the tools in question-a perk less common, although not unheard of, with commercial development tools.

The most productive support path for working with open-source tools is threefold:

• Web application developers who are mildly experienced with technologies similar to the open-source project at hand, such as commercial servers or alternate programming languages, will become productive with open-source tools much more quickly.

• Documentation provided with open-source projects is often thoroughly detailed, which is great for reference once you understand the abstract concepts relevant to that product.

• Third-party publications, such as articles and tutorials published in Web development magazines and books are often the best sources of clear information for open-source technologies. Unfortunately, such publications often are produced for only the most-popular open-source software.

It has been said that lawyers are wary of relying on open-source projects because "there's nobody to sue." Whether this is a joke or a cautious tactic, it does raise the issue of how much accountability open-source developers have to their "clients." Most commercial developers waive themselves of most liability through their licenses, which probably puts both development camps at the same level of accountability.

Neither commercial nor open-source development is wholly superior to the other. But it could be a costly mistake to dismiss open-source tools out of hand. The best of them can and do provide best-in-class performance, reliability, and continued evolution at little or no cost. Open-source developers tend to be particularly interested in Web development, so their tools often reflect this leaning, to the benefit of all Web application developers.