Hacker News Reader

I touched on this in my parallel reply, but to expand on it:

The usual way that procurement is handled, for the sake of everybody's sanity, is to sign a flat-rate / tiered contract, often with some kind of true-up window. That way the team that's trying to buy software licenses doesn't have their invoices swinging up/down every time headcount or usage patterns shifts, and they don't have to go back to the well every time they need more seats.

This is a reasonably well-oiled machine, but it does take fuel: setting up a new enterprise agreement like that takes humans and time, both of which are not free. So companies are incentivized to be selective in when they do it. If there's an option that requires negotiating a license deal, and an option that does not, there's decent inertia towards the latter.

All of which is a long way to say: many large enterprises are "good" at knowing how many of their endpoints are running what software, either by making getting software a paperwork process or by tracking with some kind of endpoint management (though it's noteworthy that there are also large enterprises that suck at endpoint management and have no clue what's running in their fleet). The "hard" part (where "hard" means "requires the business to expend energy they'd rather not) is getting a deal that doesn't involve the license seat counter / invoice details having to flex for each individual.

You're right that it's no different than other software, but when you reach the point where the average employee has 20-30 different licenses for all the different things they might use, managing it all becomes a job for multiple people.

Costs and management grow in an O(n*m) manner where n is employees and m is numbers of licenses per employee. It seems like nothing when you're small and people only need a couple licenses, but a few years in the aggregate bills are eye-popping and you realize the majority of people don't use most of the licenses they've requested (it really happens).

Contrast this with what it takes for an engineer to use a common, free tool: They can just use it. No approval process. No extra management steps for anyone. Nothing to argue that you need to use it every year at license audit time. Just run with it.

> Contrast this with what it takes for an engineer to use a common, free tool: They can just use it. No approval process.

As far as IT operations goes, it's usually easier to get approval for paid products since they come with support and are viewed as more "trustworthy". At least in my experience.

I've never worked in a 300+ organisation where you could "just use" things. I have worked in places where they gave some of us local admins (I've been a domainadmin in a few places too), but there is usually a large bureaucracy around software regardless of licenses. Where I work right now, licensing is a minor part of it for companies with good payment systems (like Docker) where it'll automatically go on the books and be EU tax deducted. Compare that to GitKraken where you need to create an IT owner account inside their system, and then distribute the annual licenses manually after you pay for them with a credit card that you will then need to manually submit for tax deduction.

> How is that different from any piece of software that an employee will want in any sort of enterprise setting?

Open source is different in exactly that, no procurement.

Finance makes procurement annoying so people are not motivated to go through it.

That assumes that you can, in fact, install that software in the first place. "Developers" sometimes get a bit of a pass, but I've been inside more than a few companies where... no one could install anything at all, regardless of whether there was a cost. Requesting some software would usually get someone with too much time on their hands (who would also complain about being overworked) asking what you need, why you need it, why you didn't try something else, do you really need it, etc. In some scenarios the 'free' works against, because "there's no support". I was seeing this as late as 2019 at a company - it felt like being back in 1997.

Cool. Then keep using Docker Desktop if you want to. That's not the situation most of the people in this thread are talking about though.

Around here it's usually a lot harder to get open source software approved with IT because they tend to dislike products where they can't call a compant. Licensing is easier of course, but for a lot of software licensing is virtually automatic. With Docker it's billed by the amount of people in the Docker AD group, and it tells EU tax deductable automatically.

Not that this should be an argument for docker. The idea that having someone to call makes a piece of software "safer" is as ridiculous at it sounds. Especially if you've ever tried "calling" a company you buy 20 licenses from, and when I say call what I really mean is talking with a chatbot and then waiting a month for them to get back to you via email. But IT's gonna IT.