I got my first computer at age 9. An Olivetti Logabax with an 8086 processor, generously equipped with 256KB of RAM (yes indeed, that is a k), a 20MB hard drive (it was crazy at the time, the equivalent of 60 5 1/4-inch floppy disks) and a 16-color screen. I wrote my middle-school essays with WordPerfect, and I printed them all on a 9-pin printer, using tractor-feed paper. I programmed my first Mastermind at age 13 in Basic, back when each line of code had a number that served as a reference. I knew Windows 1.0, on which I tried in vain to install a square mouse with a rubber ball.
The great era of proprietary systems
At that time, computing was at the stage of development philosophy was in before the Enlightenment. It was still possible for one man alone to know more or less everything that could be done in the field. That is where giants such as Microsoft, Apple, HP and IBM built their empires, by making the whole world captive to their proprietary systems.
You know the rest: we are immersed in it every day. The early days of the Internet, the explosion of digital technology in every field, the interconnection between systems and people, the web, Altavista, Yahoo, Google. Information is everywhere, and yet no one sees it anymore.
The emergence of Open Source
In the midst of this apparent chaos, amid commercial companies and mercantile interests, a new community emerged, made up of the famous geeks (the real ones, not the clowns who play around with a tablet on BFM TV). You know, those guys people gently make fun of because they like computers, have pimples on their faces, and only have girls as wallpaper. This community, or rather these communities, are the thousands of little soldiers in the shadows who accomplished a unique feat in history: pooling their intelligence all over the world. They created Linux (the core of Android, the most widely used system in the world of servers and the cloud), LibreOffice, WordPress, Plone… the list is endless. This is called Open Source. Little by little, these free software systems spread across the planet. There is, of course, an Open Source business, but at the start, 90% of the developers behind this movement did it for pleasure and love of technical challenge.
Receiving before giving
I myself have developed a few Zope / Python modules in the past, within the limits of my abilities and means. It has also often happened that I gave a few pieces of advice drawn from experience on forums. I never did it expecting anything in return. The return, I got long before I started, by having free, one-click access to extraordinary systems, which allow those who know how to master them to achieve anything the imagination can conceive. Open Source is “take-take,” not “give-and-take.” A major nuance: in 100% of cases, you receive before you give. Collective intelligence accumulates, and everything that gets built is built on the basis of the gifts of previous generations.
The remnants of the past
Despite this, 95% of the world’s population continues to use Windows. Not by choice, but by obligation. By flooding the planet with its software, the American giant has pulled off a hostage-taking of the world’s population that commands respect. The system is so deeply rooted in our habits that the cost of change makes the operation almost impossible on a global scale. And here, collective intelligence is out of the question. 100% proprietary, 100% closed, 100% money.
The web, Open Source’s playground
In the world of the web, fortunately, the Open Source community was the strongest. While offering a diverse range of solutions, it made all attempts to develop proprietary solutions on a large scale unsuccessful. The community does not like smart alecks who appropriate Open Source code, customize it their own way and in their own corner, and then serve it back up reheated with a “Home-made” label and a sales pitch that devalues the community’s work (too bloated, too specialized, you know the ad).
But the difficulty with Open Source is that you have to make the transition from “selling software” to “selling intelligence.” And when you do not have any of the latter to show, you have to find something else. Offering a client an Open Source CMS means taking the risk that they can leave for any other provider without obstacles. It means accepting competition of ideas and constant self-questioning. Not everyone is ready for that.
The return of the proprietary CMS
Some agencies have therefore decided to try the old trick of proprietary software supposedly much better than the “free stuff” (by the way, Open Source does not mean free of charge, but “free”). They thus offer “home-made” CMSs, supposedly Open Source. Their arguments:
- Better security
- Better usability
- More flexibility
Even the dullest among us will have spotted the scam. Some little guys in their corner, with their 4 in-house developers who are world champions of code, therefore think they can do far better than the thousands of losers slogging away in their spare time to improve a system used by millions of people. None of this is serious.
Security with WordPress: you just have to take care of it
They are, however, playing on real paradoxes. Since WordPress is the most widely used CMS in the world, it is logical that it is hackers’ preferred target. If you find a vulnerability, you can potentially exploit it on thousands of sites. That is why the subject must be approached seriously: keep the system up to date, implement secure authentication mechanisms, choose appropriate passwords, etc. etc. The largest companies and organizations use WordPress. But no one is safe.
With the local CMS, we’re relaxed: nobody knows it. It therefore benefits from relative peace thanks to the legitimate anonymity in which it exists. Except that… the day a hacker really wants to look into the matter and take an interest in it, pray that your world champions have solid knowledge of IT security. Who knows, they may end up asking for help on a community forum, where good souls may perhaps help them.
I will not dwell on the other aspects: you can do absolutely anything with WordPress, with or without add-on modules. Usability, flexibility… The fact remains that it is not the solution to everything. If you want to create an intranet, there are other alternatives better suited to the task (such as Plone).
A very good deal… for the agency!
On the other hand, for the provider offering a proprietary CMS, it smells like a very good deal. Once the client has been won over, they will be captive. Even if the company claims the code is “open”, it will be very difficult, not to say impossible, for another provider to take over the site. Hosting will also be locked in. Once the site has been built, it will then be easy to reveal the real prices for maintenance, support and hosting. The vicious circle has now begun, and the client can quietly turn into a willing cash cow.
But then, how are some people still foolish enough to let local agencies foist home-made CMSs on them? Simple: they get duped by a well-rehearsed sales pitch and a clever business model. At first, it all looks lovely: building the site does not cost much, the first year of hosting is free. It’s a wonderful fantasy world. Finance is happy, and the buyer of the moment can show off the effectiveness of their negotiation. That’s when things get complicated. I know a client who has one of these systems. The provider is asking them for EUR 12,000 for an update to an old-fashioned, outdated service. I suggest changing: but surely you’re not serious, how do I get my data back? Well precisely, they are no longer yours. And the icing on the cake: the domain name is managed by the provider. And that is how you end up with another 5 years of misery.
History: a good bulwark against obscurantism
So when I hear teachers at private schools, supposedly “professionals with their own agency” (sic), explaining to their students that proprietary CMSs are much better, my keyboard aches. And I tell myself we would benefit from showing some people the door in favor of slightly more neutral teachers. We could start with a little course in the history of computing, just to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Any resemblance to real life would be entirely coincidental.
