On the plus side, the openness of open source software means that its code is scrutinised by a huge community of coders, many of whom have a vested interest in finding flaws. That scrutiny – a process sometimes comically called ‘griefing’ – undoubtedly helps. On the flip side, the openness also means that open source software starts out at a disadvantage.
An open source project will likely rely on third-party libraries and dependencies, which should be kept up to date as they become vulnerable. Lastly, process will be added to govern how contributors propose and approve changes, how contributors resolve conflicts from those changes, and how these processes are used to enforce licensing rights.
Cost
While the initial price of OSS might be more appealing to businesses that worry about costs associated with proprietary solutions, the true costs that OSS incurs can be not only about fees that businesses pay for a licence or the initial capital investment costs.
Many users benefit from the support that thriving open source communities can provide, and developers often contribute for other reasons than monetary gain – which creates durable value for business.
Open source software offers savings to a firm by providing a higher level of security for its digital structure. Cyber security threats do not decrease, and any software component to an IT infrastructure can be left susceptible to a breach, by nature of having a network interface.
Security
Unmanaged vulnerabilities, poor visibility of the code base and a general risk of introduction to the production environment are some of the major security issues associated with open source software. Unless they steer away from unapproved rickety open source components, companies remain at extreme risk from either a cyber attack or an inactive breach. Thus, companies should take measures to address these risks immediately.
For example, they could add Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools into their Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment pipelines that detect and prevent vulnerable components from being sent into production apps thereby reducing risk and freeing up development staff for more valuable tasks.
They can use tools for both static and dynamic code to make sure their software is secure, for instance, tools that perform static code analysis for flaws, which means that the code can be tested for vulnerabilities without running the code, so that a developer can find the flaws immediately before a malicious actor can attack through the flaw. Moreover, companies can build a culture of security by training employees to better understand best security practices and then reward them for following the best practices.
Scalability
The old adage that ‘many hands spoil the broth’ can also be problematic here, especially with open source software where much of the contribution comes from outside publishers, but most manage this with standards for coding all contributors must adhere to, so by the end the final outcome looks more like a unified single project than a hodgepodge of modules.
You could try setting up an assessment regime for all inputs that all things going in, are ranked, as two automotive brands – Saab and Scania – have actually done, and provide licensing software packages in traffic-light format so practitioners can check in a few clicks if the component they’re using is frighteningly wrong – a tool especially useful in industries that handle data sensitively, like farming.
Customization
The most important is that, as open source software can be adapted, then an organisation can ensure that they have a solution that fits their needs, without being handcuffed by vendors, who either have the wrong solution or, even if they can adapt a solution to your needs, do so in a prohibitively expensive way, effectively locking the organisation in to the vendor solution. So if your organisation adopts the wrong solution to your problem, you’ll be extremely happy that you’re not locked into a solution that you need to migrate from, hence vendor lock-in is avoided.
An open-source project draws upon an international community of programmers who all cooperate on it, it keeps improving. A business can quickly patch up an open-source project. Productivity risk and security risk are minimised.
However, you should remember that open source software might be vulnerable to hacking efforts. In fact, GitHub detected 63 per cent more cyberattacks against repositories in its platform last year. It’s therefore crucial to make sure open source software stays safe.
Collaboration
Firms with open source software in their stack therefore also save costs and can sometimes develop point-of-difference tools to the specific requirements of their business demands, free from the requirements of serving every customer of that particular vendor equally. It also helps to avoid vendor lock-in and the pitfalls of proprietary solutions.
Open source software (OSS) has a major advantage over proprietary software. In a true OSS project, there is usually a huge community supporting that software. With many brains working on a single project, any problems like bugs or weaknesses are likely to be spotted fast and dealt with swiftly. In this way, companies can be confident that their software is secure and reliable.
In an environment where employees work on open source projects, companies can benefit from providing an organic incubator to let their employees experiment with features and even implement them on their own. All this builds confidence, an important ingredient to provide companies a competitive edge in the marketplace.
