Multi-vendor environments are those where the infrastructure is a combination of devices and products from two or more vendors.

A single-vendor environment is where only one vendor is used. This type of environment is affectionately known as a “<vendor name here> shop”, e.g. a Cisco shop or a Microsoft shop.

So a multi-vendor network environment may use Cisco switches, Juniper routers and Aruba networks for wireless, whereas the single-vendor environment may use only Cisco for its switches, routers and wireless.

There are arguments for and against multi-vendor environments, with the majority of arguments against them coming from vendors who can supply all the devices. Cisco once had a report prepared by Deloitte that discussed the risks of multi-vendor environments such as higher operating risk in service, support, and operational integration.

The Pros and Cons of Multi-Vendor Environments

I have put together my own list of the challenges and the advantages of multi-vendor environments.

Challenges

• Support. You have several people whom you need to contact when you have a problem. You have multiple relationships to maintain, multiple support contracts to renew and multiple SLAs (Service Level Agreements) to keep track of. This can sometimes be overwhelming depending on the number of vendors and devices installed.
• Administration. While devices of the same type may perform the same task, the vendor implementation may be very different. Ask anyone who has managed both a Cisco and a Checkpoint firewall (like me!); while both are firewalls, the configuration is quite different. Someone with a Cisco background may find the Cisco ASA less daunting than someone with a Checkpoint background. You will find that the IT administrators in a multi-vendor environment will have to know and experience much more than those in a single-vendor environment. Some people thrive in multi-vendor environments, while others flounder.
• Troubleshooting. Whenever problems arise, vendors may blame each other for them. Troubleshooting the problem becomes a battle, with IT coming in the middle of it. In a single-vendor environment, that vendor has to take ownership of the problem regardless of the device. I’ve seen instances in single-vendor environments where the tech-support personnel pass tickets between each other while trying to resolve problems, and the IT administrator doesn’t have the headache of mediating between vendors.

Advantages

• Best-in-class features. By using multiple vendors, you can choose the best product with the features that you need and want. You don’t have to settle for a lesser product, or an over-the-top one, simply because you want to stay with the same vendor.
• Leverage. When you’ve made a choice to go with a certain product or vendor, there is a cost to change from that product to another vendor’s product; this is known as the cost of switching. This cost reflects the costs associated with retraining employees, reconfiguring infrastructure, and changing processes. In a single-vendor environment, the cost of switching is high as the IT staff has little knowledge of or experience with other products. Vendors know this and are sometimes complacent about their relationship with the customer. In a multi-vendor environment, the IT staff has more experience and exposure to other products, and there is a lower cost of switching. As a customer, you also have greater leverage as the vendors know that you have options and are willing to exercise them.
• Excitement. While working in a multi-vendor environment can be frustrating sometimes, it is hardly ever boring. IT staff are exposed to a wide variety of devices and technologies, and there is always something new to learn. And since IT is not tied to a vendor, they are free to explore technologies and solutions that other vendors offer that one vendor may not.
• All of your eggs are not in one basket. There is some risk involved in a single-vendor environment. What happens if the vendor makes some drastic management changes? Or what if a company is acquired by a larger rival and then changes the way products are supported? In some cases, the same software codebase is used in different devices within the same vendor, for example Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS; what happens if there is a security bug in the core code? Then all the products are potentially at risk. Multi-vendor environments reduce that risk.

Choice of environment

By now, you may realise that some businesses may be better-suited for either multi-vendor or single-vendor environments. So how do you choose? Use the following as a guide.

You may like a multi-vendor environment if…

• Your IT infrastructure is relatively small and easy to manage. You can afford to have many vendors without compromising your supportability.
• You want the greatest value for your money and want the flexibility to be able to choose the products and features you want.
• You have an IT team that prefers variety and thrives in an environment that is always changing. They also have a wide range of expertise and experience and are also willing to learn new technologies.

You may like a single-vendor environment if…

• You have a large IT infrastructure, and managing too many vendors may be difficult, especially when uptime and availability is important.
• You prefer simplicity and supportability and are willing to pay extra for that and to have a single person to call.
• Your IT team has invested heavily in learning a certain product range and prefers working in a stable and minimally changing environment. Their range of expertise is limited, but their knowledge of the current infrastructure is outstanding.
• You have a great relationship with the vendor and you are well taken care of.

There are no right or wrong choices when choosing between a multi-vendor or single-vendor environment. Be aware of the advantages and challenges of both, and make the choice that best suits you.

Original article: How to choose between investing with one vendor or many.'">Multi-Vendor or Single-Vendor Environments How to choose between investing with one vendor or many.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

While open source software offers many advantages, it does have some disadvantages. In this article I will look at the arguments put against OSS. The intent is to not dissuade you from using OSS, but rather to inform you of the risks.

1. It’s sometimes not easy to implement

Usually, OSS is characteristically uneasy to implement. You find that mostly techies are the ones who would take the time to figure out how to install and implement an open source application. While the user interface may be easy to use, the back-end management is a pain.

Some have attributed this to the conflict of interest with OSS creators. These creators offer paid services that cater to the installation and support for the application, so it’s not in their best interest to make the installation easy.

Fortunately, there is often a large community to offer support, if you are willing to comb through forums and wait for answers to your questions. Or you can give in and pay for the installation and support services.

2. It’s not always the highest quality software

There are indeed some high quality OSS around, for example, Firefox, Open Office and PostgreSQL; however, these are the exception, not the rule. A vast majority of the OSS is poorly built, incomplete, dormant or poorly supported. This is caused my multiple issues such as a disorganised developer community, lack of incentives, or poor skills.

This may not be a problem if you plan to develop the software for your own use, and you have much of the capability in-house or contracted. But if you don’t then many OSS may not be worth the hassle.

3. A high skill set is required for modification

While a certain set of skills is required to install some OSS in the first place, there is another whole set required to make modifications, if that is what you plan to do. Programmers and applications developers, database designers and User Interface/User Experience (UI/UX) developers are the types of people required to produce really world-class applications, even if it’s just internally. You may need to have such a team in-house or contract it out, but you’re looking at a large human resources pool.

Now this is to produce world-class applications; if you want to have mediocre software, then you will be able to get away with much less.

4. OSS licensing is sometimes complicated

Is the OSS licensed as GPL, MPL, EPL, Apache, BSD…? You get the idea. There are lots of open source licenses out there, and this list is just the tip of the iceberg.

Each OSS license has its own nuances and requirements. One may require that all modified software be released as source code, another many may not, while another may not allow any derivative code at all.

Let’s not forget attacks on OSS by other commercial software makers about licensing and patent issues, such as Microsoft and WordPress. This adds another layer of risk with any OSS and open source project.

As a precaution, you may want to have a legal person review any licenses if you intend to modify the code, especially if you want to monetise those modifications later on.

5. The Open-Source business model is not always conducive to a sustainable business operation

OSS is loved by many; however, much fewer love it enough to pay for it. It takes a lot of commitment for developers to stay with a project on a pseudo-voluntary basis. Much OSS with a lot of promise, and a fairly large community, has fallen by the wayside. Others, have strong corporate backing, but even that doesn’t mean that it’ll survive (does anyone remember Corel Linux? It was one of the better distros at the time). Even the future of well known software is unknown, for example, MySQL might not have a future since Oracle acquired Sun, the owners of MySQL.

If you want to implement OSS in business critical applications, then you better ensure that you have a way to keep the software maintained if the creators ever go silent.

Then, is it a good idea to use OSS?

I’m no proponent of the open source movement, who tends to treat open source as a religion. I see both the pros and cons of closed source and open source alike. However, even considering the many drawbacks of OSS, open source still has a big future ahead of it.

Different business models have evolved that have allowed some organisations to create a sustainable business creating and using open source, such as Red Hat Linux, Rapid 7 Metasploit and Nexpose and SugarCRM. These businesses have been very successful and profitable.

I’ve always said that businesses need to move from being consumers of IT to being innovators of IT. Open source allows business to develop some of those skills necessary without reinventing the wheel.

It’s time to step forward and start creating new technology.

Original article: Why businesses may choose to shy away from OSS'">5 Arguments against Open Source Software Why businesses may choose to shy away from OSS

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Firstly, for those who don’t know, there are three types of software:

• Closed-source software – where the source code is kept by the creator and is not released to the public, including to those who purchase the application, for example, Microsoft Windows.
• Open-source software – where the source code is released to the public, for example, the Linux Operating System.
• Dual-license – a hybrid of the two of sorts, it is open-source software with some closed-source components, for example, SugarCRM.

Enterprises have usually used closed source software on their production systems because of the belief that they are more stable, and that you get what you pay for (considering that most OSS are free). However, I argue that given the history of OSS, many such applications have shown to operate at the same or even better levels than some of the closed source counterparts.

While most enterprises considering OSS do so mainly on the basis of the cost savings, OSS can greatly benefit enterprises, beyond the cost factor.

Here are five ways how OSS can be valuable to your business.

1. You can modify the software to suit your needs.

With the required know-how, you can modify the source code to tailor the software to do the things you would like it to do. This way you can have software revolve around you and not the other way around.

2. OSS can be a source of competitive advantage.

If everyone is using the same software, then how does implementing it make you any different? However, as you are able to modify your software as you choose, the same OSS can be different for every installation. Those differences can add value to your customers, differentiating your from your competitors.

3. Support of a product can be extended beyond the vendor’s offerings.

I am not a proponent of upgrading to the latest and greatest every time something new comes out. However, many enterprises are forced to upgrade because support for a particular version has ended and no more development is expected (Microsoft Windows XP anyone?). With OSS, you can continue development of your own platform for as long as you see fit. Always keep an eye on the new releases though, as new software development techniques sometimes offer huge advances in performance or operation.

4. Shorter timeframes from idea to implementation.

With closed source software you often have to go through procurement procedures because of the cost involved. This is often followed by negotiations further extending the duration.

OSS costs less, and is often free, eliminating the need to go though procurement and thus you are able to quickly implement and test an idea. This helps you be more nimble with changes by avoiding the bureaucracy.

5. It opens up a possible revenue stream.

One quality of OSS is the ability to sell derivative work, either as a product or a service. This can be pretty tricky as it depends on the license that the OSS uses, but it has been done. OSS based on the GNU General Public License (GPL) requires that all derivative works remain as open source; however, OSS based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL) allows you to retain the code of any value-added intellectual property.

Some businesses have been created either using OSS to provide Software-as-a-Service (SAAS) or they’ve learned so much from modifying their own applications that they spun off the technology department into a full-fledged support business providing services for other businesses.

Original article: It's more than just saving money'">5 ways how Open Source Software can be valuable to your business It's more than just saving money

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.