I’m thrilled to sit down with Vijay Raina, a renowned expert in enterprise SaaS technology and software architecture. With his deep knowledge of software design and a passion for navigating the complexities of open source ecosystems, Vijay offers invaluable insights into the challenges and hidden costs organizations face when managing open source components. In this interview, we dive into the widespread reliance on open source in modern applications, the intricacies of support life cycles, the risks of outdated dependencies, compliance pressures, and the often underestimated difficulties of upgrades. Join us as we explore how organizations can better manage these critical elements of software development.
Can you explain what open source components are and why they’ve become so integral to modern software development?
Open source components are essentially pieces of software—libraries, frameworks, or tools—that are freely available for anyone to use, modify, and distribute under specific licenses. They’ve become a cornerstone of modern software development because they save time and resources. Developers can leverage pre-built, community-tested solutions instead of coding everything from scratch. They’re incredibly common—studies show that nearly every application today, about 97% of codebases, includes open source elements, often averaging hundreds per app. Their appeal lies in the speed of innovation they enable, the cost savings for organizations, and the collaborative nature of community-driven improvements.
What exactly are transitive dependencies in the context of open source, and why might teams overlook them?
Transitive dependencies are libraries or components that get pulled into a project indirectly. For example, if you use a primary library, it might depend on other smaller libraries to function, and those are transitive dependencies. Teams often overlook them because they’re not directly chosen or installed by the developers—they’re just bundled in automatically. Since they’re buried deeper in the dependency chain, many organizations don’t even realize they’re using them until a vulnerability or compliance issue pops up, which can expose significant risks.
How does the support life cycle for open source software differ from that of commercial software?
Unlike commercial software, which often comes with predictable, multi-year support plans backed by vendors, open source support is far more varied. It typically starts with a community support phase where maintainers and contributors actively release updates and fixes, but the duration and consistency can differ wildly between projects. Some popular projects might offer a paid enterprise support extension for additional years of patches and stability, though most don’t. Eventually, every component hits end-of-life, or EOL, where no further updates are provided, forcing organizations to upgrade or find alternatives. This patchwork of timelines creates a unique challenge compared to the more structured commercial model.
What are some of the biggest challenges organizations face when an open source component reaches its end of life?
When a component hits EOL, the biggest challenge is the sudden lack of support—no more security patches or bug fixes, even if new vulnerabilities are discovered. This leaves systems exposed, especially if the component is deeply embedded in an application. Organizations often face pressure to upgrade quickly, which can be disruptive if they’re not prepared. Additionally, finding a compatible replacement or dealing with breaking changes during an upgrade can consume significant time and resources, not to mention the compliance risks if auditors flag unsupported software.
The scale of outdated and vulnerable open source components seems staggering. Why is this such a pervasive issue?
It’s a massive problem—recent data shows over 90% of codebases use outdated packages, and most lag far behind the latest versions. The issue stems from a mix of factors. First, many teams prioritize new features over maintenance, so updates get deferred. Second, the sheer volume of components in a typical app—often hundreds—makes tracking and updating them a daunting task. There’s also the fear of breaking something during an upgrade, so some organizations avoid it until they’re forced to act. Unfortunately, this delay often results in security gaps that can be exploited and operational burdens that pile up over time.
Why are end-of-life components often flagged as compliance risks, and how do regulations play into this?
EOL components are flagged during audits because they can’t be patched if a vulnerability is found, which is a direct violation of many compliance standards like FedRAMP or HIPAA that demand quick remediation of flaws. These regulations don’t care if a component is direct or transitive—if it’s in your software bill of materials, it’s your responsibility. Newer rules, like the US Cyber Trust Mark or the EU Cyber Resilience Act, add another layer by holding device manufacturers accountable for the entire life cycle of their products, including open source dependencies. This shift broadens the compliance burden and makes unsupported components a regulatory liability, not just a technical one.
Why are upgrades to open source components often so complex and time-consuming?
Upgrades are rarely a simple “click and update” process. Developers often need to rewrite parts of their application to handle breaking changes or new behaviors in the updated component. Then there’s the ripple effect—dependency chains might conflict, requiring further adjustments. Beyond code, build systems, deployment scripts, and testing processes like regression or performance checks need to be updated to ensure nothing breaks. Finally, the rollout itself demands careful planning, rollback strategies, and training. What seems like a minor update can touch every part of the development pipeline, eating up time and resources.
What are some of the hidden costs or risks when organizations rush these upgrades due to urgent needs like compliance deadlines?
Rushing upgrades often amplifies both cost and risk. When under pressure, teams might skip thorough testing or cut corners, leading to post-upgrade bugs or instability that disrupts operations. This can pull engineers away from other priorities, slowing down delivery. Financially, you’re looking at unplanned expenses like overtime, extra testing environments, or emergency consulting. Worse, hasty implementations can introduce new vulnerabilities or misconfigurations, undermining the very security the upgrade was meant to improve. It’s a vicious cycle where urgency creates more problems than it solves.
What alternatives exist for organizations that can’t upgrade on a tight schedule dictated by compliance or vulnerabilities?
Historically, options were limited—some components might have had extended enterprise support, but not the whole stack, leaving gaps. Now, newer services are stepping in to offer broader extended support for a wide range of open source components, from operating systems to libraries. These services provide ongoing security patches, compatibility assurance, and full dependency coverage, even past official EOL. This helps organizations stay secure and compliant without being forced into disruptive upgrades, giving them breathing room to plan maintenance on their terms.
What’s your forecast for the future of managing open source dependencies in software development?
I think we’re heading toward a more structured and proactive approach to managing open source dependencies. As awareness of security and compliance risks grows, organizations will invest more in automated tools for tracking and updating components in real-time, reducing the backlog of outdated libraries. We’ll also see broader adoption of extended support services to bridge gaps when community maintenance ends. On the regulatory front, I expect stricter mandates and more accountability across the supply chain, pushing both software operators and manufacturers to prioritize dependency management. Ultimately, open source will remain a backbone of innovation, but the focus will shift to balancing speed with sustainability and security.
