Open source vs. commercial MODx CMS

please evaluate the advantages / disadvantages of Open source Vs the MODx CMS, technically and commercially?

MODx is open source; it is distributed with the GPL license.

Quote from: dharmendra at Apr 08, 2008, 07:15 AM

please evaluate the advantages / disadvantages of Open source Vs the MODx CMS, technically and commercially?

I assume you mean evaluate the advantages / disadvantages of open source MODx vs commercial MODx ?

For a good comparison between open source and commercial, I suggest you read this or watch this presentation

This matrix sums up the pros and cons of each model, the poss model being the Proprietary Open Source Model :



You’ll see the modeling of proprietary software



Open source



And finally the authors even propose to do a crossing of the open source and proprietary business models :



The beekeeper model is really an interresting idea to combine the best of both worlds... certainly food for thought for the MODx team

thanks for the answer. am asking about advantages / disadvantages of Open Source Vs. Commercial content management

I’d need to ask what your particular application and budget is for the project in order to provide a semi-logical answer. Commercial CMS software can span the gamut from under $100 USD to more than $100,000, with hardware/server requirements ranging from running on a shared server for under $10/month to requiring dedicated web, application and database servers at $2500/month+. That’s before you get into implementation costs.

A start-up that I worked for paid over $500,000 for Vignette and support, which didn’t work for their purposes after three years of trying. So Big Bucks doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better.

I have worked with both models and I can say that it will be a long time before I go the commercial route again. It seems that the cost never ends with commercial products, there is the initial cost, long term licensing costs, long term support costs, costs for consulting...and after all this you still can’t make any modifications to the code to make it fit your environment without more costs (if at all). I have come to love the community aspect of open source, it is one of the few places in the world where you, as an individual, can grow together with a project and contribute to a bigger picture.

The downside of OS is that only a very small percentage of users actually contribute, quite a few will demand changes (like if they were paying for something) but most will be silent users. I understand, I have done this many a time as well, there is nothing wrong in not contributing...but.

The presentation that Davidm provided discusses a third option of professional open source, but I did not like the idea very much. I would need to see it in practice to understand the benefits to the community (I only saw benefits to the "owner" of the project, which kinda goes against the whole open source principal).

I like the way that MODx is, it seems like it is midway between classic open source and professional open source. There is the official commercial support model that provides the enterprise level support needed for bigger firms to feel comfortable, as well as the active community to help grow the project. There is a hub of "directors" who are committed to keeping it in a defined direction and are doing the heavy work, but there is plenty of community influence and contribution that help define this direction as well as quality control.

My opinion, open source is the only way to go. Imagine if other industries would adopt this structure in the real world, how many issues would benefit from this. The biggest issue i think is liability and industrial secrets.

Quote from: dev_cw at Apr 08, 2008, 09:47 AM

The presentation that Davidm provided discusses a third option of professional open source, but I did not like the idea very much. I would need to see it in practice to understand the benefits to the community (I only saw benefits to the "owner" of the project, which kinda goes against the whole open source principal).

Of course the schema is just a teaser, you’d have to read about the beekeeper analogy, which is really powerful... Now, the whole idea of the model is to make open source sustainable in the long run and also fill the shortcomings of the pure open source model.

As Ryan often rightfully says, at the end of the months no matter what you have to put food on the table, and it sometimes slows the development process but there is always the risk of the core contributors burning out having to put in most of the effort AND earn a living.

Commercial support is already a step towards professionnal open source model. We’ve all seen how OS project provide commercial support, hosting, commercial addons, training... etc.

There is no way I’d drop the OS spirit. I love it just as much as you do but I have no problems with the fact that building a more professionnal model would benefit the owner (in my opinion it would also indirectly benefit the key contributors). If anything it can add a bit more balance between what the "owner" (I’d rather say founders, the whole point of OS is that there is no property) bring to the table and what the community gets out of the contributor’s and founders efforts.

Think of this as an ecosystem.

For any OS community to emerge there has to be a long period of time where the founders put way more in the project than they get in return. This does not mean feedback, debugging, contributions and recognition are of no significance ! It’s what fuel the effort of those who put in a significant amount of time and/or resources to begin with. It’s also what spurs innovation !

But it can only fuel the effort so long without providing revenue streams...

Let’s face it, no matter how much I can contribute to the project, if I am gone the project won’t collapse but if founders / key developpers go then it’s another story. Therefore it’s my own interrest (and the community’s at large) that commercial services come to life. That is provided revenue streams are not an end, just a mean to make the open source community strive and ultimately, ensure its continuity.

I am not sure I am as clear as the beekeeper guys are explaining the concept. I really do think it could be a good model to build on, but in the end models are just models and as such are abstract constructs. This model is more or less what some successful OS projects which have been around for a while have built already.

I think MODx will have to outgrow a pure OS model, especially since the new branch has the potential to really shine in the corporate world... forgive my somewhat ill structured rambling, I have not slept much last night. But the main ideas are here...

I am not sure I have a full grasp of the theory involved behind the open source as a business model. But this is what I think I understand. In the case of an open source product. The community benefits from being able to use a great product as well as contributing, in their own way, to making it a better and more rounded product thus sharing a few of the burdens. In return the project owner (as well as all the community) can provide a better product to their clients. Obviously in a perfect world everyone would contribute generously and help share the effort of building said product (if every user contributed a small portion of the money they are able to earn as a direct result of this product it would pay for itself and maybe even be profitable).

I could develop my own product specific to my needs and custom develop all of the additional features on a per project basis. This would be time consuming and I would be closed into my own environment and possibly be unaware of potential problems or better ways of doing things. But once I release my product as open source and a community grows around it, I, as the original developer, am still the one who gains the most from this by having my original product grow beyond my capabilities as well as gaining recognition from the legion of happy users that are using as well as the industry that surrounds the product. My worth in the industry grows.

Ultimately, even after the initial effort, the project will grow beyond the original scope of the original product allowing me, as the developer, to provide a better product to my clients. If it is a good thing, only time will tell. But there is so much more than direct income from the product that the developer will gain. Secondary forms of income and other opportunities could come to be directly related to the product but not directly from the product itself.

Anyway, I really am just a theorist with little personal experience in this other than from the point of view of a community member. I think that anyone that is planning to make money directly from an open source project will be frustrated in the long run, it is the bigger picture that could be the motivation and the ticket to a full stomach.

On a side note, sometimes providing commercial services within an open source project can have adverse effects. People who would normally donate freely may hold back in case they need to use a commercial service. they intend on contributing but will do it when it benefits them directly. Others who may provide assistance may hold back since they are not on the payroll.

All I know is that it takes a lot of effort and dedication to keep an open source project alive, I don’t have what it takes to do it. I humbly salute everyone who can manage it.

Sorry for the long post but I am waiting for my lunch to be delivered and this is a great way to pass the time and not think of my rumbling empty tummy.

Afterthought: The beekeeper analogy is a bit flawed in that it only looks at the point of view of the beekeeper and not of the bees. I would think that a bee would feel fooled into believing that they were benefiting from the beekeeper with room and board but once all the fruits of their labor were taken from them without consent that they would feel cheated. Just look at the "B movie" cartoon to have an idea of how the bees may feel seeing the fruits of their labor being sold in the market.