FAQ
Just found this marketing landing page published on social networks. It's
made by TIBCO and attempts to highlight the downsides of Open Source ESBs.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to gather what exact ESB they are
targeting (not us): just look at the images.

http://www.tibco.com/integration/open-source-ESB-alternative

Even though it's a clear exercise of FUD vs. OSS – as it provides no
quantitive measurements to their claims (whatever happened to the
scientific method...) – I was planning to write a rebuttal post in my blog,
but I haven't updated it in a long time and it needs a bit of love first.

So I thought I'd just publish my thoughts – as I wanted to get it out ASAP
– and start a qualified discussion here...

In particular I would like to dissect / take down their 4 "myths" about OSS
ESBs:

*> *Myth # 1 - Open Source ESB Software Is Free**

(Their statement: OSS ESBs are not Free.)

Well, no software has zero Total Cost of Ownership. As long as the world is
*not* entirely controlled by androids, you will need humans to operate the
software, including TIBCO's. What we need to look at are the costs of
hiring those people and their learning curves.

For Camel, any developer with Java, XML and a few other "commodity skills"
will do. And they can get started in days. Many people in this forum got
started in hours.

For TIBCO, you need a specialised consultant because their stack is
proprietary. Or you need to train them, and TIBCO training is not cheap. I
have been a TIBCO consultant and I know this for a fact. Moreover,
specialised (already trained) TIBCO consultants are not cheap either (like
with most proprietary software – think SAP, Salesforce, etc.).

Furthermore, brand new customers need consultancy to get started – and that
is not cheap either.

*> *Myth #2 - Open Source ESB Communities Innovate Faster**

(Their statement: Proprietary ESB vendors innovate faster)

This is plainly wrong. Just take a look at the release notes of TIBCO
ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks. This [1] is the latest version, and there's a
dropdown at the top to browse through past versions.

To analyse this statement, we need to track two things at least: (1)
frequency of releases, (2) new features introduced per release.

About frequency of releases:

TIBCO ActiveMatrix release line 6.x: 9 months between minor releases, 4
months between micro releases.

                         [9 months]
6.1.0 (May 2014) ---> 6.2.0 (Nov 2014)
6.1.1 (Sep 2014) 6.2.1 (Mar 2015)
[4 months] [4 months]

Camel (analysing past 2 minor releases): less than 6 months between minors,
less than 3 between micros. I noticed that 2.15.1 was released quite early,
so I included another datapoint for one more 2.14.x micro release.

                               [< 6 months]
2.14.0 (18 Sep 2014) ===> 2.15.0 (10 Mar 2015)
2.14.1 (16 Dec 2014) 2.15.1 (01 Apr 2015)
[< 3 months] [< 20 days (special circumstance
likely)]
2.14.2 (10 Mar 2014)
[< 3 months]

I know that analysing so few releases is not an indicative – ideally we
would analyse the entire release history – but I don't have time right now.
Nevertheless, the release policy of Camel is 6 months between majors and 3
months between micros (if I recall correctly).

Next, let's take a look at the innovation aspect:
* TIBCO AM BW 6.2.0 carries 22 new features [2], many of which have to do
with their IDE, not with core functionality.
* Camel 2.14.0 carried 38 new and noteworthy features, PLUS 15 new
components, 1 data format, 1 new EIP (Circuit Breaker), etc.

Judge for yourselves ;-)

*> *Myth #3 - Access to Source Allows Reviewing Code and Deploying Safely**

(Their statement: Access to source does not uncover vulnerabilities).

Well, all software has vulnerabilities and with Open Source you can
identify them yourself and fix them. With proprietary software, you rely
entirely on the vendor's turnaround time.

Moreover, we are very transparent about this and we publish our Security
Advisories here [3].

*> *Myth #4 - Open Source and SaaS Work Well Together**

They say: "Cloud-based open-source ESBs work just like other SaaS
applications: you typically don't have access to the code. How well will it
connect your on-premise applications with other SaaS services? You can't
know."

Well, that's just plain absurd. It amuses me that a closed-source vendor is
using the "you don't have access to the code" against an Open Source
product :D Makes zero sense, both marketing- and technical-wise.

With TIBCO, you don't have access to the source on-premises nor cloud-based
software. With the other vendor, you may not have access to the source of
their iPaaS but you know it's largely based on the on-premises software, to
which you have access (even though it's a "gated community" in the strict
sense...).

---

Discussion open! 1, 2, 3... GO!

[1] https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-activematrix-businessworks-6-2-1
[2]
https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activematrix_businessworks/6.2.0/TIB_BW_6.2.0_relnotes.pdf
[3] https://camel.apache.org/security-advisories.data

Regards,

*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk

Search Discussions

  • Claus Ibsen at Apr 17, 2015 at 11:13 am
    Hi Raul

    Well spotted.

    Well I guess its only a sign that Camel / Open Source / SMX / Karaf /
    Others Camel like ESBs make a dent into the old world.
    Now its Tibco to take notice.

    Their 4 myths seems very generic to me, as its not really about ESB
    but Open Source in general.


    IBM have done their FUDs recently against ActiveMQ.

    And then MuleSoft did theirs as well. Though MuleSoft is a "gated
    community" and have their "open core" vs enterprise product. The
    latter is paid / closed excessively and have their enterprise features
    only.


    And then there is the usual "battlle" between the JEE servers with
    closed vs open source ones. Although for the OS ones there are less,
    as focus is shifting to micro / cloud stuff.

    TIBCO ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks
    And its nice to see they have the same naming as IBM has with some of
    their WebSphere product names that is a buzz-word bingo.

    That is actually a difference with open source, as os projects tend to
    come up with much better names.

    On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
    Just found this marketing landing page published on social networks. It's
    made by TIBCO and attempts to highlight the downsides of Open Source ESBs.
    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to gather what exact ESB they are
    targeting (not us): just look at the images.

    http://www.tibco.com/integration/open-source-ESB-alternative

    Even though it's a clear exercise of FUD vs. OSS – as it provides no
    quantitive measurements to their claims (whatever happened to the
    scientific method...) – I was planning to write a rebuttal post in my blog,
    but I haven't updated it in a long time and it needs a bit of love first.

    So I thought I'd just publish my thoughts – as I wanted to get it out ASAP
    – and start a qualified discussion here...

    In particular I would like to dissect / take down their 4 "myths" about OSS
    ESBs:

    *> *Myth # 1 - Open Source ESB Software Is Free**

    (Their statement: OSS ESBs are not Free.)

    Well, no software has zero Total Cost of Ownership. As long as the world is
    *not* entirely controlled by androids, you will need humans to operate the
    software, including TIBCO's. What we need to look at are the costs of
    hiring those people and their learning curves.

    For Camel, any developer with Java, XML and a few other "commodity skills"
    will do. And they can get started in days. Many people in this forum got
    started in hours.

    For TIBCO, you need a specialised consultant because their stack is
    proprietary. Or you need to train them, and TIBCO training is not cheap. I
    have been a TIBCO consultant and I know this for a fact. Moreover,
    specialised (already trained) TIBCO consultants are not cheap either (like
    with most proprietary software – think SAP, Salesforce, etc.).

    Furthermore, brand new customers need consultancy to get started – and that
    is not cheap either.

    *> *Myth #2 - Open Source ESB Communities Innovate Faster**

    (Their statement: Proprietary ESB vendors innovate faster)

    This is plainly wrong. Just take a look at the release notes of TIBCO
    ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks. This [1] is the latest version, and there's a
    dropdown at the top to browse through past versions.

    To analyse this statement, we need to track two things at least: (1)
    frequency of releases, (2) new features introduced per release.

    About frequency of releases:

    TIBCO ActiveMatrix release line 6.x: 9 months between minor releases, 4
    months between micro releases.

    [9 months]
    6.1.0 (May 2014) ---> 6.2.0 (Nov 2014)
    6.1.1 (Sep 2014) 6.2.1 (Mar 2015)
    [4 months] [4 months]

    Camel (analysing past 2 minor releases): less than 6 months between minors,
    less than 3 between micros. I noticed that 2.15.1 was released quite early,
    so I included another datapoint for one more 2.14.x micro release.

    [< 6 months]
    2.14.0 (18 Sep 2014) ===> 2.15.0 (10 Mar 2015)
    2.14.1 (16 Dec 2014) 2.15.1 (01 Apr 2015)
    [< 3 months] [< 20 days (special circumstance
    likely)]
    2.14.2 (10 Mar 2014)
    [< 3 months]

    I know that analysing so few releases is not an indicative – ideally we
    would analyse the entire release history – but I don't have time right now.
    Nevertheless, the release policy of Camel is 6 months between majors and 3
    months between micros (if I recall correctly).

    Next, let's take a look at the innovation aspect:
    * TIBCO AM BW 6.2.0 carries 22 new features [2], many of which have to do
    with their IDE, not with core functionality.
    * Camel 2.14.0 carried 38 new and noteworthy features, PLUS 15 new
    components, 1 data format, 1 new EIP (Circuit Breaker), etc.

    Judge for yourselves ;-)

    *> *Myth #3 - Access to Source Allows Reviewing Code and Deploying Safely**

    (Their statement: Access to source does not uncover vulnerabilities).

    Well, all software has vulnerabilities and with Open Source you can
    identify them yourself and fix them. With proprietary software, you rely
    entirely on the vendor's turnaround time.

    Moreover, we are very transparent about this and we publish our Security
    Advisories here [3].

    *> *Myth #4 - Open Source and SaaS Work Well Together**

    They say: "Cloud-based open-source ESBs work just like other SaaS
    applications: you typically don't have access to the code. How well will it
    connect your on-premise applications with other SaaS services? You can't
    know."

    Well, that's just plain absurd. It amuses me that a closed-source vendor is
    using the "you don't have access to the code" against an Open Source
    product :D Makes zero sense, both marketing- and technical-wise.

    With TIBCO, you don't have access to the source on-premises nor cloud-based
    software. With the other vendor, you may not have access to the source of
    their iPaaS but you know it's largely based on the on-premises software, to
    which you have access (even though it's a "gated community" in the strict
    sense...).

    ---

    Discussion open! 1, 2, 3... GO!

    [1] https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-activematrix-businessworks-6-2-1
    [2]
    https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activematrix_businessworks/6.2.0/TIB_BW_6.2.0_relnotes.pdf
    [3] https://camel.apache.org/security-advisories.data

    Regards,

    *Raúl Kripalani*
    Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
    Integration specialist
    http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
    http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk


    --
    Claus Ibsen
    -----------------
    Red Hat, Inc.
    Email: cibsen@redhat.com
    Twitter: davsclaus
    Blog: http://davsclaus.com
    Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
    hawtio: http://hawt.io/
    fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
  • Claus Ibsen at Apr 23, 2015 at 5:26 am
    Hi Raul

    Did you get a chance to continue working on this?

    I think for #3 its due to the openes of the source code that people
    dive in and help fix those vulnerabilities as well. And as you say we
    are very open and they get proper registerede with a CVE and listed in
    the public. And we do put out releases with the fixes fairly soon
    after its fixed.

    And there is not so many after all that is caused by Apache Camel itself.

    Yes if you use CXF, Spring, Jetty etc those libraries may have issues
    as well, but they are also reported in the open and fixed fast. And
    have communities as well, some very big like the spring community.

    And those are found and fixed. For the Open Source ESB you would have
    to take a look at
    - CXF
    - ActiveMQ
    - Spring
    - Jetty
    etc to get the "combined picture"

    http://cxf.apache.org/security-advisories.html

    You can find the Apache products
    http://www.cvedetails.com/product-list/vendor_id-45/Apache.html
    On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
    Just found this marketing landing page published on social networks. It's
    made by TIBCO and attempts to highlight the downsides of Open Source ESBs.
    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to gather what exact ESB they are
    targeting (not us): just look at the images.

    http://www.tibco.com/integration/open-source-ESB-alternative

    Even though it's a clear exercise of FUD vs. OSS – as it provides no
    quantitive measurements to their claims (whatever happened to the
    scientific method...) – I was planning to write a rebuttal post in my blog,
    but I haven't updated it in a long time and it needs a bit of love first.

    So I thought I'd just publish my thoughts – as I wanted to get it out ASAP
    – and start a qualified discussion here...

    In particular I would like to dissect / take down their 4 "myths" about OSS
    ESBs:

    *> *Myth # 1 - Open Source ESB Software Is Free**

    (Their statement: OSS ESBs are not Free.)

    Well, no software has zero Total Cost of Ownership. As long as the world is
    *not* entirely controlled by androids, you will need humans to operate the
    software, including TIBCO's. What we need to look at are the costs of
    hiring those people and their learning curves.

    For Camel, any developer with Java, XML and a few other "commodity skills"
    will do. And they can get started in days. Many people in this forum got
    started in hours.

    For TIBCO, you need a specialised consultant because their stack is
    proprietary. Or you need to train them, and TIBCO training is not cheap. I
    have been a TIBCO consultant and I know this for a fact. Moreover,
    specialised (already trained) TIBCO consultants are not cheap either (like
    with most proprietary software – think SAP, Salesforce, etc.).

    Furthermore, brand new customers need consultancy to get started – and that
    is not cheap either.

    *> *Myth #2 - Open Source ESB Communities Innovate Faster**

    (Their statement: Proprietary ESB vendors innovate faster)

    This is plainly wrong. Just take a look at the release notes of TIBCO
    ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks. This [1] is the latest version, and there's a
    dropdown at the top to browse through past versions.

    To analyse this statement, we need to track two things at least: (1)
    frequency of releases, (2) new features introduced per release.

    About frequency of releases:

    TIBCO ActiveMatrix release line 6.x: 9 months between minor releases, 4
    months between micro releases.

    [9 months]
    6.1.0 (May 2014) ---> 6.2.0 (Nov 2014)
    6.1.1 (Sep 2014) 6.2.1 (Mar 2015)
    [4 months] [4 months]

    Camel (analysing past 2 minor releases): less than 6 months between minors,
    less than 3 between micros. I noticed that 2.15.1 was released quite early,
    so I included another datapoint for one more 2.14.x micro release.

    [< 6 months]
    2.14.0 (18 Sep 2014) ===> 2.15.0 (10 Mar 2015)
    2.14.1 (16 Dec 2014) 2.15.1 (01 Apr 2015)
    [< 3 months] [< 20 days (special circumstance
    likely)]
    2.14.2 (10 Mar 2014)
    [< 3 months]

    I know that analysing so few releases is not an indicative – ideally we
    would analyse the entire release history – but I don't have time right now.
    Nevertheless, the release policy of Camel is 6 months between majors and 3
    months between micros (if I recall correctly).

    Next, let's take a look at the innovation aspect:
    * TIBCO AM BW 6.2.0 carries 22 new features [2], many of which have to do
    with their IDE, not with core functionality.
    * Camel 2.14.0 carried 38 new and noteworthy features, PLUS 15 new
    components, 1 data format, 1 new EIP (Circuit Breaker), etc.

    Judge for yourselves ;-)

    *> *Myth #3 - Access to Source Allows Reviewing Code and Deploying Safely**

    (Their statement: Access to source does not uncover vulnerabilities).

    Well, all software has vulnerabilities and with Open Source you can
    identify them yourself and fix them. With proprietary software, you rely
    entirely on the vendor's turnaround time.

    Moreover, we are very transparent about this and we publish our Security
    Advisories here [3].

    *> *Myth #4 - Open Source and SaaS Work Well Together**

    They say: "Cloud-based open-source ESBs work just like other SaaS
    applications: you typically don't have access to the code. How well will it
    connect your on-premise applications with other SaaS services? You can't
    know."

    Well, that's just plain absurd. It amuses me that a closed-source vendor is
    using the "you don't have access to the code" against an Open Source
    product :D Makes zero sense, both marketing- and technical-wise.

    With TIBCO, you don't have access to the source on-premises nor cloud-based
    software. With the other vendor, you may not have access to the source of
    their iPaaS but you know it's largely based on the on-premises software, to
    which you have access (even though it's a "gated community" in the strict
    sense...).

    ---

    Discussion open! 1, 2, 3... GO!

    [1] https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-activematrix-businessworks-6-2-1
    [2]
    https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activematrix_businessworks/6.2.0/TIB_BW_6.2.0_relnotes.pdf
    [3] https://camel.apache.org/security-advisories.data

    Regards,

    *Raúl Kripalani*
    Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
    Integration specialist
    http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
    http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk


    --
    Claus Ibsen
    -----------------
    Red Hat, Inc.
    Email: cibsen@redhat.com
    Twitter: davsclaus
    Blog: http://davsclaus.com
    Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
    hawtio: http://hawt.io/
    fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
  • Raul Kripalani at Apr 23, 2015 at 9:23 am
    Exactly. And what many fail to see is that closed source is – in many cases
    – leveraging OSS under the hood. Sometimes the vendor will be nice and make
    it evident (e.g. IBM WebSphere being quite transparent in their docs about
    using Apache Aries, they also contribute, etc.).

    But in other cases, the end user won't come to know because the licensing
    model of the 3rd party libraries is non-viral and doesn't require the
    vendor to either keep the original naming, nor acknowledge the usage.

    I don't have any numbers to support this, but what I've gathered throughout
    many years in the industry is that most proprietary software will be
    powered (to varying degrees) by OSS without upfront disclosure. At the end
    of the day, as a proprietary vendor, I guess you do need a good reason to
    reinvent the wheel, and quite possibly that reason doesn't exist.

    In fact, one extreme case that comes to mind was the old BEA WebLogic Event
    Server which, if you looked at the lib/ directory of the WAR, just turned
    out to be mostly Esper [1] with a fancy GUI and some usability-related
    changes. And they sold this for hundreds of thousands of EUR / CPU. (Not
    intending to start a flame war nor implying generalisation. Just mentioning
    an extreme case I know.)

    Actually, you know what? When I get some time I'm going to download TIBCO's
    product and inspect their usage of 3rd party libs... From what I remember
    back, they did use stuff like Xerces, Xalan, etc. which is pretty
    commonplace anyway, but I'd be curious to find out if they use further OSS.

    [1] http://www.espertech.com/esper/index.php

    Regards,

    *Raúl Kripalani*
    Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
    Integration specialist
    http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
    http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
    On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:

    Hi Raul

    Did you get a chance to continue working on this?

    I think for #3 its due to the openes of the source code that people
    dive in and help fix those vulnerabilities as well. And as you say we
    are very open and they get proper registerede with a CVE and listed in
    the public. And we do put out releases with the fixes fairly soon
    after its fixed.

    And there is not so many after all that is caused by Apache Camel itself.

    Yes if you use CXF, Spring, Jetty etc those libraries may have issues
    as well, but they are also reported in the open and fixed fast. And
    have communities as well, some very big like the spring community.

    And those are found and fixed. For the Open Source ESB you would have
    to take a look at
    - CXF
    - ActiveMQ
    - Spring
    - Jetty
    etc to get the "combined picture"

    http://cxf.apache.org/security-advisories.html

    You can find the Apache products
    http://www.cvedetails.com/product-list/vendor_id-45/Apache.html
    On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
    Just found this marketing landing page published on social networks. It's
    made by TIBCO and attempts to highlight the downsides of Open Source ESBs.
    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to gather what exact ESB they are
    targeting (not us): just look at the images.

    http://www.tibco.com/integration/open-source-ESB-alternative

    Even though it's a clear exercise of FUD vs. OSS – as it provides no
    quantitive measurements to their claims (whatever happened to the
    scientific method...) – I was planning to write a rebuttal post in my blog,
    but I haven't updated it in a long time and it needs a bit of love first.

    So I thought I'd just publish my thoughts – as I wanted to get it out ASAP
    – and start a qualified discussion here...

    In particular I would like to dissect / take down their 4 "myths" about OSS
    ESBs:

    *> *Myth # 1 - Open Source ESB Software Is Free**

    (Their statement: OSS ESBs are not Free.)

    Well, no software has zero Total Cost of Ownership. As long as the world is
    *not* entirely controlled by androids, you will need humans to operate the
    software, including TIBCO's. What we need to look at are the costs of
    hiring those people and their learning curves.

    For Camel, any developer with Java, XML and a few other "commodity skills"
    will do. And they can get started in days. Many people in this forum got
    started in hours.

    For TIBCO, you need a specialised consultant because their stack is
    proprietary. Or you need to train them, and TIBCO training is not cheap. I
    have been a TIBCO consultant and I know this for a fact. Moreover,
    specialised (already trained) TIBCO consultants are not cheap either (like
    with most proprietary software – think SAP, Salesforce, etc.).

    Furthermore, brand new customers need consultancy to get started – and that
    is not cheap either.

    *> *Myth #2 - Open Source ESB Communities Innovate Faster**

    (Their statement: Proprietary ESB vendors innovate faster)

    This is plainly wrong. Just take a look at the release notes of TIBCO
    ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks. This [1] is the latest version, and there's a
    dropdown at the top to browse through past versions.

    To analyse this statement, we need to track two things at least: (1)
    frequency of releases, (2) new features introduced per release.

    About frequency of releases:

    TIBCO ActiveMatrix release line 6.x: 9 months between minor releases, 4
    months between micro releases.

    [9 months]
    6.1.0 (May 2014) ---> 6.2.0 (Nov 2014)
    6.1.1 (Sep 2014) 6.2.1 (Mar 2015)
    [4 months] [4 months]

    Camel (analysing past 2 minor releases): less than 6 months between minors,
    less than 3 between micros. I noticed that 2.15.1 was released quite early,
    so I included another datapoint for one more 2.14.x micro release.

    [< 6 months]
    2.14.0 (18 Sep 2014) ===> 2.15.0 (10 Mar 2015)
    2.14.1 (16 Dec 2014) 2.15.1 (01 Apr 2015)
    [< 3 months] [< 20 days (special circumstance
    likely)]
    2.14.2 (10 Mar 2014)
    [< 3 months]

    I know that analysing so few releases is not an indicative – ideally we
    would analyse the entire release history – but I don't have time right now.
    Nevertheless, the release policy of Camel is 6 months between majors and 3
    months between micros (if I recall correctly).

    Next, let's take a look at the innovation aspect:
    * TIBCO AM BW 6.2.0 carries 22 new features [2], many of which have to do
    with their IDE, not with core functionality.
    * Camel 2.14.0 carried 38 new and noteworthy features, PLUS 15 new
    components, 1 data format, 1 new EIP (Circuit Breaker), etc.

    Judge for yourselves ;-)

    *> *Myth #3 - Access to Source Allows Reviewing Code and Deploying Safely**
    (Their statement: Access to source does not uncover vulnerabilities).

    Well, all software has vulnerabilities and with Open Source you can
    identify them yourself and fix them. With proprietary software, you rely
    entirely on the vendor's turnaround time.

    Moreover, we are very transparent about this and we publish our Security
    Advisories here [3].

    *> *Myth #4 - Open Source and SaaS Work Well Together**

    They say: "Cloud-based open-source ESBs work just like other SaaS
    applications: you typically don't have access to the code. How well will it
    connect your on-premise applications with other SaaS services? You can't
    know."

    Well, that's just plain absurd. It amuses me that a closed-source vendor is
    using the "you don't have access to the code" against an Open Source
    product :D Makes zero sense, both marketing- and technical-wise.

    With TIBCO, you don't have access to the source on-premises nor
    cloud-based
    software. With the other vendor, you may not have access to the source of
    their iPaaS but you know it's largely based on the on-premises software, to
    which you have access (even though it's a "gated community" in the strict
    sense...).

    ---

    Discussion open! 1, 2, 3... GO!

    [1]
    https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-activematrix-businessworks-6-2-1
    [2]
    https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activematrix_businessworks/6.2.0/TIB_BW_6.2.0_relnotes.pdf
    [3] https://camel.apache.org/security-advisories.data

    Regards,

    *Raúl Kripalani*
    Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
    Integration specialist
    http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
    http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk


    --
    Claus Ibsen
    -----------------
    Red Hat, Inc.
    Email: cibsen@redhat.com
    Twitter: davsclaus
    Blog: http://davsclaus.com
    Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
    hawtio: http://hawt.io/
    fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
  • Camel Guy at Apr 27, 2015 at 4:56 am
    I can't imagine getting my boss to pay for something like TIBCO. That would
    require quite a sales job.

    With one exception, the developers I know wouldn't even use Camel. They
    tend to reinvent the wheel. But they do use Spring and a few even use
    Spring Integration.

    In order to commit to something like Camel, you have to experience the
    "ah-ha" moment when you realize that Camel makes things easier, like the
    REST DSL. That of course requires actually using Camel. Being free is a big
    win for learning. Expensive products won't die completely, but new
    developers won't bother with them.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupusers @
categoriescamel
postedApr 17, '15 at 10:14a
activeApr 27, '15 at 4:56a
posts5
users3
websitecamel.apache.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase