Your post touches major concerns related to using open source testing and to some extent I agree with you. But there are some areas when I tend to disagree.
As for the first point of your post. Of course, I did not think about OS developers doing advertisement. What I had in mind are people who USE open source (not develop) in their job. Perl, Linux are being used by big companies for doing serious, business critical processing. So what I ment was, that people who use OS testing tools in real business tell us about it.
As for the second point of your post I thing that your point is valid but you exagerated too much. And I dont agree with your vision of what is needed in a long term. These two issues seem to be tightly related so address them together.
One important point. As I have written in my first post, I am beginning exploring OS testing tools, so my experience is small. My response below is based on my experiece as a developer, which I think may be somehow mapped on OS testing.
So… Yes, lack of unification is seen by managers as a major problem. But is it actually a problem? Do unified tools offer easyness and cost effectiveness they promise? My experience say they dont. They offer many features, which in many cases you are never going to use. And their prices are OUTRAGES. You have written that using OS requires additional hires. But this is also the case for Commercial Testing tools. Sure, everyone can run a recorder for recording simple GUI script. But creation of a suite of GUI scripts, constituting a framework of reliable tests is totaly different story and requires much more effort then it is written in documentation or said on commercial presentations.
Indeed, when you want to use open source tools you need two hire 2 people (not 120 ). One has to know say Java and perl, the second Python and Tcl (for example). Learning these languages requires time, but there are excelent learning resources and communites for each of them, and they are for free. This is not the case for a leading commercial software. Trainings are expensive and documentation is not free. And learning this software also takes time. So when buying commercial testing software you will also have to hire new people.
And finaly, is unification such a good thing? Are those monolythic “Lets do everything in the only right way” tools better then the mixture of small tools doing small things, maybe in different manner, but doing them right. I think it is quite the oposite. Small, well defined tools gives you oportunity to pick what you really need and to configure them in many ways. Sure, you need a knowledge to do it. But there is no path in IT, which does not require knowledge. If someone is telling you something different HE/SHE IS LYING. It may seem on the beginning, that you can do complex things easily, but sooner or later this lack of knowledge is going to bite you in the leg in the least expected moment.
There is an interesting thread in QAForums about commercial vs OS testing tools for GUI automation http://www.qaforums.com/cgi-bin/forums/ … 001973;p=1. Opinions are divided.
Anyway I repeat, please share your experience with us.