A few of you have probably seen by now the Enterprise Irregulars' rebuttal to Guy Smith's SandHill article. Guy's article essentially heralded in the end of enterprise software's reign and ordained it's next ruler: open source. Well, some of us in the Irregulars simply didn't agree and we chose to do so publicly.
By no means was our rebuttal an attempt to gang up on Guy or challenge SandHill's editorial capacity. Quite the contrary, it was an opportunity to take a provocative statement from SandHill and debate the core topic in open forum. I am very grateful that SandHill took the time and effort to compile and edit the over 4000 words of rebuttal to something they themselves had published. To me, this bodes well for the future of SandHill as an organization dedicated to quality content and one that can rebut it's own positions publicly.
Unfortunately, due to format at time, SandHill did not have the ability to publish all of our comments in their entirety. As those of you know, i tend to write longer pieces so it will be no surprise to find out that I wrote a much longer original submission for SandHill. There are actually a few arguments in the longer piece that I think are very relevant both to the rebuttal as well as the general Open Source debate as well. So i have published the full unedited text below. If other Irregulars put their full comments online as well I will do my best to link to them.
Uneditted Posts From the Group:
Some interesting commentary on our rebuttal - it seems everyone thinks everyone else doesn't have a clue.
Dan Farber does an overview on ZDNet
Jason and I get re-rebutted on an InfoWorld blog
Don Dodge tackles the semantics of Open Source vis a vis our rebuttals
Dan Farber follows up on Matt Assay's rebuttal to our post