The one thing closed source does better than open source

Ask why an organisation isn't choosing open source software, and you tend to hear the same arguments: security, support and reliability. But how well do those arguments hold up against everyday practice? I'll give away the ending: in many cases, not very well.

Open source still provokes strong reactions. And yes, there are plenty of examples of small projects that stall or are barely maintained. When you compare those projects with a mature commercial product, open source loses hands down. But that's like comparing the Champions League of closed source with the Sunday league of open source. If you want a fair picture, you must compare Champions League with Champions League. Do that, and a very different picture emerges.

“Open source is amateurish”

Perhaps the most persistent prejudice of them all. It's true that not every open source project is suitable for business-critical processes. But the same goes for closed source. There's shoddy work in that camp too, and you shouldn't be relying on it either.

What matters is what sits behind an open source project. Are new releases coming out regularly? How active is the community? How quickly are security issues resolved? And can you count on professional support?

On precisely those points, many large open source projects are rock solid. Linux underpins a large part of the internet and of cloud infrastructure. PostgreSQL has grown into one of the most popular databases in the world. 

Nobody would seriously call these bedroom projects. This is technology that millions of organisations and users depend on every day.

In the end, it's the maturity of the ecosystem that determines whether software is fit for purpose.

“Who do I call when things go wrong?”

It's true that open source doesn't automatically come with professional support. That's something you have to arrange deliberately. But then again: how long did it take your closed source supplier to resolve your last support request?

On paper, plenty of suppliers have excellent SLAs. In practice, getting a bug fixed or a feature onto the roadmap can turn out to be a good deal harder, especially when you're one customer among thousands.

So professional support has little to do with whether the source code is open or closed. What it comes down to is the people behind the software. How is support organised? How quickly are problems resolved? And how much influence do you have as a customer?

With many open source projects, this is set up better. With the software being open, customers can move to a different support partner more easily. And support is exactly what the open source world earns its money on. Which means the incentive to deliver good support is far stronger.

“AI makes it easier to find vulnerabilities in open source”

Since the rise of AI, there's a new objection doing the rounds. Open source code is said to be dangerous, because AI can find vulnerabilities more easily.

For me, it’s completely the opposite. By all means, let AI look at the code. A vulnerability doesn't become dangerous because someone sees it. It becomes dangerous when nobody finds it or fixes it. AI actually helps to analyse source code faster, track down mistakes and suggest improvements.

That doesn't make open source safer by default. A project without active developers remains a risk, as does software that's barely ever updated. The difference is that you can see for yourself how a project is doing. How active is development? How quickly are security issues resolved? How mature is the project? That transparency makes a far fairer assessment possible.

“Open source is only interesting because it’s cheaper”

Another stubborn misconception: that open source is mainly interesting because it's cheaper. It doesn't have to be. Anyone who takes open source seriously also invests in implementation, management, knowledge and support. Sometimes those costs turn out to be higher than with a closed solution.

The gain lies elsewhere. Costs become more predictable. You're less exposed to price rises, forced migrations or licence models that change halfway through. And when a supplier is acquired or changes course, you don't automatically have to follow. Freedom comes at a price in the short term, but so does dependency in the end.

Where closed source really is better than open source

Open source solutions are still often underestimated. Not because the technology falls short, but for an entirely different reason.

Ask ten people where most software innovation comes from and the chances are that no more than a handful of well-known American software companies get mentioned. Meanwhile, a large part of their own technology runs on open source as well.

Commercial suppliers innovate too, of course, but the idea that open source is structurally behind stopped being true a long time ago. In fact, as far as I can see there's only one point on which closed source suppliers truly are better: marketing.

They simply have much bigger budgets for it. That easily creates the impression that all innovation comes from their corner, while a great deal of the foundational technology is open source.

Time for a fairer comparison

Open source is no silver bullet. There are excellent closed source solutions and there are poor open source projects. The issue is that open source solutions are still too often judged on arguments that barely match today's reality.

If you're choosing software today, you'd do well to compare mature solutions with each other. Look at the quality of the software, the support, the architecture and the freedom you keep over the long term.