web-archive-it.com » IT » C » CONECTA.IT

Total: 359

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The new form of Open Core, or how everyone was right « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    to see that the difference lies apart from the scheduling and recording in support and the availability of professional services like custom integration with external authentication sources Alfresco The difference in source code lies in the clustering and high availability support and the JMX management extensions all of which may be replicated with some effort by using pure OSS tools Those differences are clearly relevant for the largest and most complex installations from the point of view of services the editions are differentiated through availability of support certification both of binary releases and of external stacks like database and app server bug fixing documentation availability of upgrades and training options Cynapse an extremely interesting group collaboration system The code difference lies in LDAP integration and clustering the service difference lies in support availability of certified binaries knowledgebase access and official documentation OpenClinica a platform for the creation of Electronic Data Capture systems used in pharmaceutical trials and in data acquisition in health care from the web site OpenClinica Enterprise is fully supported version of the OpenClinica platform with a tailored set of Research Critical Services such as installation training validation upgrades help desk support customization systems integration and more During the compilation of the second FLOSSMETRICS database I found that the majority of open core models were actually moving from the original definition to an hybrid monetization model that brings together several separate models particularly the platform provider product specialist and the proper open core one to better address the needs of customers The fact that the actual percentage of code that is not available under an OSS license is shrinking is in my view a positive fact because it allows for the real OSS project to stand on its own and eventually be reused by others and because it shows that the proprietary code part is less and less important in an ecosystem where services are the real key to add value to a customer FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models This entry was posted on Thursday July 9th 2009 9 22 am and is filed under OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 3 Trackbacks 1 1 by Apurva Roy Choudhury December 26th 2009 at 08 44 A very interesting analysis I agree with you that the open business model is rapidly changing IMO the earlier models were influenced by fears of the entire IP of the business being open and publically available for others to replicate Lately a few companies Including us Cynapse have the belief that as long as there is constant innovation at high speeds coupled with a strong focus on fulfilling business needs with services around the technology the fears of loosing out to competition using your open technology to compete with you is quite pointless A little correction to your post we do not have any code

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/the-new-form-of-open-core-or-how-everyone-was-right/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Just finished: the final edition of the SME guide to open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    companies are using it as marketing material to help prospective customers So after a few more months of work I am really happy to present the fourth and final edition of the guide PDF link that will I hope improve in our previous efforts For those that already viewed the previous editions chapter 6 was entirely rewritten along with a new chapter 7 and a newly introduced evaluation method The catalogue has been expanded and corrected in several places also thanks to the individual companies and groups responsible for the packages themselves and the overall appearance of the PDF version should be much improved compared to the automatically generated version I will continue to work on it even after the end of the project and as before I welcome any contribution and suggestion FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models OSS migration This entry was posted on Thursday July 2nd 2009 2 03 pm and is filed under OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 0 Trackbacks 8 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name required E Mail required will not be published Website Submit Comment Glyn Moody glynmoody s status on Thursday 02 Jul 09 15 42 09 UTC Identi ca Carlo Piana carlopiana s status on Thursday 02 Jul 09 16 06 37 UTC Identi ca Jan Stedehouder janstedehouder s status on Thursday 02 Jul 09 19 52 09 UTC Identi ca Avautuma Avoimen lähdekoodin opas PK yrityksille Just finished the final edition of the SME guide to open source Open Hacking Links 11 07 2009 Linux Adoption Up Bits on Gran Canaria Desktop Summit Boycott Novell Popa Adrian Marius mariuz s status on

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/just-finished-the-final-edition-of-the-sme-guide-to-open-source/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OSS data « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    Software based with rougly 12 of it internal to companies and administrations that adopt Free Software The remaining market still substantial is based on several different business models that monetize the software using different strategies A recent update february 2009 of the FLOSSMETRICS study on Free Software based business model is presented here after an analysis of more than 200 companies the main models identified in the market are Dual licensing the same software code distributed under the GPL and a proprietary license This model is mainly used by producers of developer oriented tools and software and works thanks to the strong coupling clause of the GPL that requires derivative works or software directly linked to be covered under the same license Companies not willing to release their own software under the GPL can obtain a proprietary license that provides an exemption from the distribution conditions of the GPL which seems desirable to some parties The downside of dual licensing is that external contributors must accept the same licensing regime and this has been shown to reduce the volume of external contributions which are limited mainly to bug fixes and small additions Open Core previously called split Free Software proprietary or proprietary value add this model distinguishes between a basic Free Software and a proprietary version based on the Free Software one but with the addition of proprietary plug ins Most companies following such a model adopt the Mozilla Public License as it allows explicitly this form of intermixing and allows for much greater participation from external contributions without the same requirements for copyright consolidation as in dual licensing The model has the intrinsic downside that the Free Software product must be valuable to be attractive for the users i e it should not be reduced to crippleware yet at the same time should not cannibalise the proprietary product This balance is difficult to achieve and maintain over time also if the software is of large interest developers may try to complete the missing functionality in Free Software thus reducing the attractiveness of the proprietary version and potentially giving rise to a full Free Software competitor that will not be limited in the same way Product specialists companies that created or maintain a specific software project and use a Free Software license to distribute it The main revenues are provided from services like training and consulting the ITSC class and follow the original best code here and best knowledge here of the original EUWG classification DB 00 It leverages the assumption commonly held that the most knowledgeable experts on a software are those that have developed it and this way can provide services with a limited marketing effort by leveraging the free redistribution of the code The downside of the model is that there is a limited barrier of entry for potential competitors as the only investment that is needed is in the acquisition of specific skills and expertise on the software itself Platform providers companies that provide selection support integration and services on a set of projects collectively forming a tested and verified platform In this sense even GNU Linux distributions were classified as platforms the interesting observation is that those distributions are licensed for a significant part under Free Software licenses to maximize external contributions and leverage copyright protection to prevent outright copying but not cloning the removal of copyrighted material like logos and trademark to create a new product 1 The main value proposition comes in the form of guaranteed quality stability and reliability and the certainty of support for business critical applications Selection consulting companies companies in this class are not strictly developers but provide consulting and selection evaluation services on a wide range of project in a way that is close to the analyst role These companies tend to have very limited impact on the Free Software communities as the evaluation results and the evaluation process are usually a proprietary asset Aggregate support providers companies that provide a one stop support on several separate Free Software products usually by directly employing developers or forwarding support requests to second stage product specialists Legal certification and consulting these companies do not provide any specific code activity but provide support in checking license compliance sometimes also providing coverage and insurance for legal attacks some companies employ tools for verify that code is not improperly reused across company boundaries or in an improper way Training and documentation companies that offer courses on line and physical training additional documentation or manuals This is usually offered as part of a support contract but recently several large scale training center networks started offering Free Software specific courses R D cost sharing A company or organization may need a new or improved version of a software package and fund some consultant or software manufacturer to do the work Later on the resulting software is redistributed as open source to take advantage of the large pool of skilled developers who can debug and improve it A good example is the Maemo platform used by Nokia in its Mobile Internet Devices like the N810 within Maemo only 7 5 of the code is proprietary with a reduction in costs estimated in 228M and a reduction in time to market of one year Another example is the Eclipse ecosystem an integrated development environment IDE originally released as Free Software by IBM and later managed by the Eclipse Foundation Many companies adopted Eclipse as a basis for their own product and this way reduced the overall cost of creating a software product that provides in some way developer oriented functionalities There is a large number of companies universities and individual that participate in the Eclipse ecosystem as an example As recently measured IBM contributes for around 46 of the project with individuals accounting for 25 and a large number of companies like Oracle Borland Actuate and many others with percentages that go from 1 to 7 This is similar to the results obtained from analysis of the Linux kernel and show that when there is an healthy and large ecosystem the shared work reduces engineering cost significantly it is estimated that it is possible to obtain savings in terms of software research and development of 36 through the use of Free Software this is in itself the largest actual market for Free Software as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of developers are using at least some Free Software within their own code 56 2 Indirect revenues A company may decide to fund Free Software projects if those projects can create a significant revenue source for related products not directly connected with source code or software One of the most common cases is the writing of software needed to run hardware for instance operating system drivers for specific hardware In fact many hardware manufacturers are already distributing gratis software drivers Some of them are already distributing some of their drivers specially those for the Linux kernel as Free Software The loss leader is a traditional commercial model common also outside of the world of software in this model effort is invested in a Free Software project to create or extend another market under different conditions For example hardware vendors invest in the development of software drivers for Free Software operating systems like GNU Linux to extend the market of the hardware itself Other ancillary models are for example those of the Mozilla foundation which obtains a non trivial amount of money from a search engine partnership with Google an estimated 72M in 2006 while SourceForge OSTG receives the majority of revenues from ecommerce sales of the affiliate ThinkGeek site We found confirming previous research from the 451 group that at the moment there is no significant model with companies more or less adopting and changing model depending on the specific market or the shifting costs For example during 2008 a large number of companies shifted from an open core model to a pure product specialist one to leverage the external community of contributors According to the collected data among Free Software companies the Fully Free Software approach is still prevalent followed by the Open Core and the Dual Licensing mode Model name companies product specialist 131 open core 52 Indirect 44 dual licensing 19 R D sharing 6 training 5 aggregate supp 5 legal cert 5 platform providers 4 selection consulting 4 Some companies have more than one principal model and thus are counted twice in particular most dual licensing companies are also selling support services and thus are marked as both Also product specialists are counted only when there is a demonstrable participation of the company into the project as main committer otherwise the number of specialists would be much greater as some projects are the center of commercial support from many companies a good example is OpenBravo or Zope Another relevant consideration is the fact that platform providers while limited in number tend to have a much larger revenue rate than both specialists or open core companies Many researchers are trying to identify whether there is a more efficient model among all those surveyed what we found is that the most probable future outcome will be a continuous shift across model with a long term consolidation of development consortia like Symbian and Eclipse that provide strong legal infrastructure and development advantages and product specialists that provide vertical offerings for specific markets This contrasts with the view that for example mixed models provide an inherent advantage for example Matthew Aslett of the 451 group one of the leading researchers in Free Software business models wrote The Open Core approach is mostly though not exclusively used by vendors that dominate their own development communities While this provides benefits in terms of controlling the direction of development and benefiting from the open source distribution model there are also risks involved with promoting and managing community development or not In fact many of these companies employ the majority of the developers on the project so they are actually missing out on many of the benefits of the open source development model more eyeballs lower costs etc Additionally by providing revenue generating features on top of open source code Open Core vendors are attempting to both disrupt their segment and profit from that disruption I previously argued that it is probably easier in the long term to generate profit from adjacent proprietary products than it is to generate profit from proprietary features deployed on top of the commoditized product While Open Core is definitely the commercial open source strategy of the day and is effective in building the revenue growth required to fuel an exit strategy I have my doubts as to whether it is sustainable in the long term due to a combination of the issues noted above The fact that Free Software is in a sense a non rival good also facilitates cooperation between companies both to increase the geographic base and to be able to engage large scale contracts that may require multiple competencies Three main collaboration strategies were identified among smaller companies geographical same product or service different geographical areas vertical among products or horizontal among activities Geographic cooperation is simpler and tends to be mainly service based an example is the Zope Europe Association that unites many service providers centered on specific Zope and Plone expertise Vertical cooperation is done by companies that performs an integrated set of activities on one or more packages Multiple vendors with overlapping products can collaborate on a single offer eg operating system and Groupware that may form a more interesting or complete offer for the selected customer segment The summary table is available here along with a rationale for the categories used linked below to a public Google docs document Bibliography 451 08 The 451 group Open source is not a business model Car 07 Carbone P Value Derived from Open Source is a Function of Maturity Levels OCRI conference Alchemy of open source businesses 2007 DB 00 Daffara C Barahona J B Free Software Open Source Information Society Opportunities for Europe working paper Daf 06 Daffara C Sustainability of FLOSS based business models II Open Source World Conference Malaga 2006 Daf 06 2 Daffara C Introducing open source in industrial environments 3rd CALIBRE workshop Daf 07 Daffara C Business models in OSS based companies OSSEMP workshop Third international conference on open source Limerick 2007 ED 05 Evans Data Open Source Vision report 2005 Gar 06 Gartner Group Open source going mainstream Gartner report 2006 Gosh 06 Gosh et al Economic impact of FLOSS on innovation and competitiveness of the EU ICT sector IDC 06 IDC Open Source in Global Software Market Impact Disruption and Business Models IDC report 2006 Jul 06 Jullien N ed New economic models new software industry economy RNTL report VH 03 Von Hippel E and G von Krogh Open Source Software and the Private Collective Innovation Model Issues for Organizational Science Organization Science 2003 14 2 p 209 223 VH 05 Von Hippel E Democratizing innovation MIT press 2005 FLOSS open source OSS adoption 8 Comments Helping OSS adoption in public administrations some resources Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data on April 30th 2009 It was a busy and happy week and among the many things I received several requests for information on how to facilitate adoption of OSS by public administrations After the significant interest of a few years ago it seems that the strong focus on digital citizenship and the need to increase interoperability with other administrations is pushing OSS again and the simplification thanks to the reduction in procurement hurdles also helps I have worked in this area for some years first in the SPIRIT project open source for health care then in the COSPA and OpenTTT projects that were oriented towards facilitating OSS adoption I will try to provide some links that may be useful for administrations looking to OSS Let s start with requirement analysis What is important what is not and how to prioritize things was one of the arguments discussed in COSPA and two excellent deliverables were produced maybe a bit theoretical but you can skip the boring parts analysis of requirements for OS and ODS and prioritization of requirements both pdf files As part of our guide in the FLOSSMETRICS project we have a list of best practices that may be useful in general the guide does have some more material from various European projects I would like to thank PJ from Groklaw that hosted my work for discussion there and to the many groklawers that helped in improving it One of the best migration guide ever created by the Germany Ministry of the Interior KBST is available in english pdf file It covers many practical problems server and desktop migrations project planning legal aspects like changing contractual relations with vendors evaluation of economics and efficiency aspects and much more Unfortunately the 2 1 edition is still not available in english For something simpler some guidance and economic comparison from the Treasury board of Canada and a very detailed desktop migration redbook from IBM The European Open Source Observatory does have a long and interesting list of case studies both positive and negative so the reader can get a balanced view And now for some additional comment based on my personal experience A successful OSS migration or adoption is not only a technical problem but a management and social problem as well A significant improvement in success rates can be obtained simply by providing a simple 1 hour welcoming session to help users in understanding the changes and the reasons behind it as well as providing some information on OSS and its differences with proprietary software In most public administrations there are experts that provide most of the informal IT help some of those users may felt threatened by the change of IT infrastructure as it will remove their skill advantage So a simple and effective practice is to search for them and for passionate users and enlist them as champions Those champions are offered the opportunity for further training and additional support so they can continue in their role without disruptions Perform a real cost analysis of the actual proprietary IT infrastructure sometimes huge surprises are found both in contractual aspects and in actual costs incurred that are hidden under alternative balance voices If a migration requires a long adaptation time make sure that the management remains the same for the entire duration or that the new management understands and approves what was done One of the most sad experiences is to see a migration stop halfways because the municipality coalition changes and the new coalition has no understanding of what was planned and why no one remembers the reasons for the migration was one of the phrases that I heard once Create an open table between local administrations sometimes you will find someone that already is using OSS and simply told no one We had a local health agency that silently swapped MS Office with OpenOffices in the new PCs for hospital workers and nobody noticed Have an appropriate legislative policy informative campaigns and mandatory adoption are the two most efficient approaches to create OSS adoption while subsidization has a negative welfare effect We show that a part from subsidization policies which have been proved to harm social surplus supporting OSS through mandatory adoption and information campaign may have positive welfare effects When software adoption is affected by strong network effects mandatory adoption and information campaign induce an increase in social surplus Comino Manenti Free Open Source vs Closed Source Software Public Policies in the Software Market Also in the TOSSAD conference proceedings Gencer Ozel Schmidbauer Tunalioglu Free Open Source Software Human Development and Public Policy Making International Comparison Check for adverse policy effects In one of my case studies I found a large PA that was forced back to commercial software because the state administration was subsidizing only the cost of proprietary software while OSS was considered to be out of procurement rules and thus not paid for This does also have policy implications and require a careful choice of budget voices by the adopters administration We found that by presenting some exemplar OSS projects that can be used immediately the exploration phase usually turns into a real adoption experiment The tool that I use as an introduction are Document management Alfresco It is simple to install easy to use and with good documentation and can be introduced as a small departmental alternative to the poor man repository that is a shared drive on the network Start with the file system interface and show the document previews and the search functionalities more complex activities like workflow can be demonstrated in a second time Nuxeo is also a worthy contender Groupware my personal favorite Zimbra that can provide everything that Exchange does and has a recently released standalone desktop client that really is a technical marvel If you are still forced into Outlook you can use Funambol another OSS gem that with a desktop client can provide two way synchronization with Outlook exactly like Exchange Project management a little known project from Austria is called OnePoint and does have a very well designed web and native interface for the traditional project management tasks Workstation management among the many choices if as it usually happens the majority of the desktops are Windows based there is a long standing german project called Opsi that provides automatic OS install patch management HW SW inventory and much more Of course there are many other tools but by presenting an initial small subset it is usually possible to raise the PA interest in trying and testing out more For some other software packages you can check the software catalog that we provided as part of our FLOSSMETRICS guide I will be happy to answer to individual requests for software that will be posted as comments to this articles or sent to me by twitter cdaffara if there are enough interest I will prepare a follow up post with more tools FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS migration public administrations 2 Comments Sorry not right An answer to Raymond s post on the GPL Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on April 27th 2009 I read with great interest the post by Eric Raymond on the GPL and efficiency The Economic Case Against the GPL because economic aspects of OSS are my current main research work well up to the end of FLOSSMETRICS then I ll find something new The main argument is nicely summarized in the first lines Is open source development a more efficient system of software production than the closed source system I think the answer is probably yes and that it follows the GNU GPL is probably doing us more harm than good Easy clear and totally wrong The post clearly distinguish between the ethical aspects of the GPL with the interaction model that is enforced by the GPL redistribution clause ESR briefly describes a ideal world where If we live in Type A a universe where closed source is more efficient markets will eventually punish people who take closed source code open Markets will correspondingly reward people who take open source closed In this kind of universe open source is doomed the GPL will be subverted or routed around by efficiency seeking investors as surely as water flows downhill If we live in a Type B universe where open source is more efficient markets will eventually punish people who take open source code closed Markets will correspondingly reward people who take closed source open In such a universe closed source is its own punishment open source will capture ever larger swathes of industry as investors chase efficiency gains So Raymond concludes the GPL is either unnecessary or worse anti economical The problem lies in the assumption that the market is static that the end equilibrium will always be optimal that imbalances in the market are not relevant only the end result is and so on I will start with the easy ones the market is NOT static The fact that one production model is or is not more efficient is something that can be modelled easily but is not really relevant when all agents are able to change their own interaction model at will Many researchers demonstrated for example that in a simple two actor market one OSS and one proprietary even in the assumption that OSS is superior in every aspect there are situation where the pre existing network effect will actually be able to extinguish OSS as soon as there is sufficient pricing discretionality by the proprietary vendor End equilibrium in real life markets are not always optimal the existence of monopolies is the most visible example of this fact and the fact that there is a company that has been found guilty of multiple abuse of monopoly markets should make this clear The process is as important as the end result you can become rich after a life of poverty and receive all your money your last day of life or have a generally well off life constantly increasing and spending what you obtain What life do you prefer So among all the paths that lead to an OSS in this case a FLOSS world the one that enforces in a constant way an increase of the FLOSS component is preferable to one that in an hypothetical way will lead in the end to market domination In general of all the aspects of OSS that are interesting and there are many I find the GPL family of licenses as the brightest examples of law engineering and I believe that a substantial reason for the successes of OSS are dependent on it Of course there are other economical aspects that are relevant and I agree with the fact that OSS is in general more efficient as I wrote here here and here I disagree with both the premise and the conclusions however as I believe that the set of barriers created by the GPL are vital to create a sustainable market here and now and not in an hypotetical future 3 Comments The procurement advantage or a simple test for purity Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on April 20th 2009 There is no end in sight for the open core debate or for the matter what role companies should have in the OSS marketplace We recently witnessed the lively debated sparked by a post by James Dixon that quickly prompted Tarus Balog to descent into another of his informed and passionate posts on open core and OSS This is not the first and will not be the last of public discussions on what an OSS vendor is and I briefly entered the fray as well I am quite sure that this discussion will actually continue for a long time just lowering its loudness and turning into the background as OSS becomes more and more entrenched inside of our economy There is however a point that I would like to make about the distinction between pure OSS and open core licensing a point that does not imply any kind of ethical or purity measure but just a consideration on economics When we consider what OSS is and what advantage it brings to the market it is important to consider that a commercial OSS transaction usually has two concrete partners the seller the OSS vendor and the buyer that is the user If we look at the OSS world we can see that in both the pure and the open core model the vendor has the added R D sharing cost reduction that as I wrote about in the past can provide significant advantages But R D is not the only advantage the reality is that pure OSS has a great added advantage for the adopter that is the greatly reduced cost and effort of procurement With OSS the adopter can scale a single installation company wide without a single call to the legal or procurement departments and it can ask support from the OSS vendor if needed eventually after the roll out has been performed With open core the adopter is not allowed to do the same thing as the proprietary extensions are not under the same license of the open source part so if you want to extend your software to more servers you are forced to ask the vendor exactly the same of proprietary software systems This is in fact a much overlooked advantage of OSS that is especially suited to those departmental installations that would be probably prohibited if legal or acquisition department would have to be asked for budget I believe that this advantage is significant and largely hidden I started thinking about it while helping a local public administration in the adoption of an OSS based electronic data capture for clinical data and discovered that for many authorities and companies procurement selecting the product tendering tender evaluation contracting etc can introduce many months in delays and substantially increase costs For this reason we recently introduced with our customers a sort of quick test for OSS purity The acquired component is pure OSS if eventually after an initial payment the customer is allowed to perform extensions to its adoption of the component inside and outside of its legal border without the need for further negotiation with the vendor The reason for that eventually after an initial payment because the vendor may decide to release the source code only to customers this is something that is allowed by some licenses and the inside and outside of its legal border is a phrase that explicitly includes not only redistribution and usage within a single company but also to external parties that may be not part of the same legal entity This distinction may not be important for small companies but may be vital for example for public authorities that need to redistribute a software solution to a large audience of participating public bodies a recent example I found is a regional health care authority that is exploring an OSS solution to be distributed to hospital medical practitioners and private and public structures Of course this does not imply that the vendor is forced to offer services in the same way services and software are in this sense quite distinct or that the adopter should prefer pure OSS over open core in fact this is not an expression of preference for one form over the other We found this simple test to be useful especially for those new OSS adopters that are not overly interested in the intricacies of open source business models and makes for a good initial question to OSS vendors to understand what are the implication of acquiring a pure vs an open core solutions 4 Comments A brief research summary Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data blog on April 17th 2009 After two months and 24 posts I would like to thank all the kind people that mentioned our FLOSSMETRICS and OpenTTT work especially Matthew Aslett Matt Asay Tarus Balog Pamela Jones and many others with which I had the pleasure to exchange views with I received many invaluable suggestions and one of the most common one was to have a small summary of the posted research as a landing page So here is a synthesis of the previous research posts Why use OSS in product development a set of examples from a thesis by Erkko Anttila Open Source Software and Impact on Competitiveness Case Study from Helsinki University of Technology that provided hard data on the different hybrid community company approaches by Nokia and Apple and the relative gains and advantages The dynamics of OSS adoption 1 an initial view on the different dynamics behind open source adoption starting with diffusion processes Some data was also presented on unconstrained monetization On business models and their relevance A follow up post on work by Matthew Aslett introducing my view that future OSS business models will see more industry consortia and specialists as more and more groups start to take advantage of the collaborative model and will need more coordination on how to contribute back Transparency and dependability for external partners Outlining the transparency advantages of most OSS projects with two examples mentioned Zimbra and Alfresco and the added advantage for partners that can synchronize their work with that of the OSS community The dynamics of OSS adoptions II diffusion processes A presentation of diffusion processes as one of the models in OSS adoption and a presentation of the UTAUT model for estimating the degree of acceptance of OSS From theory to practice the personal desktop linux experiment A long example on how to apply the previously discussed models in a theoretical exercise creating an end user large scale linux PC for personal activities The post was inspired by work done during the Manila workshop along with UN s International Open Source Network for facilitating take up of open source by south east Asean SMEs Rethinking OSS business model classifications by adding adopters value A presentation of the new classification of OSS business models I have to thank Matthew Aslett of the 451 group for the many comments and for accepting to share his work from the CAOS report with us Comparing companies effectiveness a response to Savio Rodrigues A post written in response to work by Savio Rodrigues on the relative shares of R D of OSS companies compared to traditional IT companies Our definitions of OSS based business models A follow up of the rethinking post it outlines the new definitions of OSS business models created for the final part of the FLOSSMETRICS project Another take on the financial value of open source Our estimates of the value of the open source software market and a call for further research on non code contributions OSS based business models a revised study based on 218 companies A post providing the summary of the extended FLOSSMETRICS study on open source companies that increased its number from 80 to 218 with some observation on relative size and usage of the various models Estimating savings from OSS code reuse or where does the money comes from One of my favourite posts provides a long discussion of the savings obtained when using OSS inside of other products with some additional data obtained through COCOMO modeling Another data point on OSS efficiency A short post focusing on data from the italian TEDIS research that showed how OSS companies are on average more capable to take on larger customers when compared with benchmark IT companies of the same size The new FLOSSMETRICS project liveliness parameters Fresh from the other project researchers I provided a list of the new project liveness parameters that will be used in the SME guide Reliability of open source from a software engineering point of view A post that presents some results on how open source tends to be of higher quality under specific circumstances and a follow up idea on how this may be due to basic software engineering facts related to component reuse Open source and certified systems A post inspired by a recent white paper on e voting the post presents my views on high integrity and life critical open source systems 2 Comments Open source and certified systems Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on April 16th 2009 A recent white paper published by the Election Technology Council an industry trade association representing providers for over 90 of the voting systems used in the United States analyses the potential role of open source software in voting systems concludes that it is premature Given the economic dynamics of the marketplace state and federal governments should not adopt unfair competitive practices which show preferential treatment towards open source platforms over proprietary ones Legislators who adopt policies that require open source products or offer incentives to open source providers will likely fall victim to a perception of instituting unfair market practices where do I have heard this curious sometimes the deja vu feeling The white paper however does contain some concepts that I have found over and over the result of mixing the legal perspective of OSS the license on which the software is released with the technical aspects the collaborative development model arriving at some false conclusions that are unfortunately shared by many others For this reason I would like to add my perspective on the issue of certified source code and OSS First of all there is no causal relation between the license aspect and the quality of the code or its certifiability It is highly ironic that the e voting companies are complaining of the fact that OSS may be potentially not tested enough for critical environments like voting given the results of some testing on their own software systems the implementation of cryptographic protection is flawed this key is hard coded into the source code for the AV TSx which is poor security practice because among other things it means the same key is used in every such machine in the U S and can be found through Google The result is that in any jurisdiction that uses the default keys rather than creating new ones the digital signatures provide no protection at all No use of high assurance development methods The AccuBasic interpreter does not appear to have been written using high assurance development methodologies It seems to have been written according to ordinary commercial practices Clearly there are serious security flaws in current state of the AV OS and AV TSx software source Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter Wagner Jefferson Bishop Of course there are many other reports and news pieces on the general unreliability of the certified GEMS software just to pick

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/category/oss-data/page/2/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Index of /tag
    chromiumos 28 Apr 2015 08 54 cloud computing 28 Apr 2015 08 54 clouds 28 Apr 2015 08 54 conference 28 Apr 2015 08 54 conferences 28 Apr 2015 08 54 droid 28 Apr 2015 08 54 economics 28 Apr 2015 08 54 everydesk 28 Apr 2015 08 54 floss 28 Apr 2015 08 54 fosspatents 28 Apr 2015 08 54 google 28 Apr 2015 08 54 gpl laundering 28 Apr 2015 08 54 gpl 28 Apr 2015 08 54 html5 28 Apr 2015 08 54 iaas 28 Apr 2015 08 54 image quality 28 Apr 2015 08 54 jpeg 28 Apr 2015 08 54 libvpx 28 Apr 2015 08 54 naughton 28 Apr 2015 08 54 open source economics 28 Apr 2015 08 54 open source 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oracle google lawsuit 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oracle 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oraclegoogle 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oss adoption 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oss business models 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oss licenses 28 Apr 2015 08 54 oss migration 28 Apr 2015 08 54 paas 28 Apr 2015 08 54 public administrations 28 Apr 2015 08 54 software patents 28 Apr 2015 08

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/?p=267 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    revolution the event was founded in 2008 and now takes place every year in Paris with over 140 speakers from 40 countries an international audience of 1 500 delegates and some forty seminars workshops and think tanks Organized by a vast network of partners including the leading Free Open Source communities and main global players from the IT world the Open World Forum is the definitive event for discovering the latest trends in open computing As a result it is a unique opportunity to share ideas and best practice with visionary thinkers entrepreneurs and leaders of the top international Free Open Source communities and to network with technology gurus CxOs analysts CIOs researchers politicians and investors from six continents The Open World Forum is being run this year by the Systematic competitiveness cluster in partnership with Cap Digital and the European QualiPSo consortium Some 70 of the world s leading information technology companies are involved in the Forum as partners and participants For more information visit http www openworldforum org conferences EveryDesk open source 2 Comments Web versus Apps what is missing in HTML5 Posted by cdaffara in divertissements on September 2nd 2010 If there is a concept that is clear in the analysts minds is the fact that mobile in any form is the hot market right now Apple s iOS devices are growing by leaps and bounds dispelling the doom predictions of our beloved Ballmer There s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share No chance 2 or 3 which is what Apple might get or dismissing the iPad as yet another pc The reality is that new mobile platform are consolidating a concept the idea of the App store that is an integrated approach to managing and buying applications and the idea of apps for everything even for data that comes off straight from a web site like the recently launched Twitter app for the iPad that is in my own clearly subjective opinion beautiful After all the talks about platform independence portability universality of HTML5 and so on why Apps why closed or half open app stores when theoretically the same thing can be obtained through a web page I have a set of personal opinion on that and I believe that we still need some additional features and infrastructures from browsers and probably operating systems to really match the feature set and quality of apps If or when those missing pieces are delivered to the browser the whole development experience will in my opinion return back to the web as a medium substantially enlarging the potential user base and reducing the importance of a single OS to develop for User Interfaces this is actually one of the easiest things HTML5 CSS3 Canvas and a whole bunch of additions like WebGL are already closing in on the most refined native UI toolkits There is still a margin of course but that gap is closing fast Modern toolkits like Cappuccino one of my favorites used to create the stunning 280slides tool are quite comparable to native UIs and the few remaining features are being added at a frantic pace thanks in part to the healthy competition between Mozilla and WebKit Video actually WebM is in my tests a very good alternative to H264 in terms of quality and in decoding efficiency in my tests WebM playback uses 20 to 30 less CPU than the ffmpeg H264 decoder which is quite a good result As for quality the results of MSU graphics and media lab codec comparison found out that WebM is approximately equivalent to the baseline x264 encoding that is good enough for most applications The substantial drawback of WebM is at the moment the dreadful encoding time 5 to 20 times slower than comparable more mature encoders Substantial effort is needed before WebM can become encoding wise competitive 2D and casual gaming ah the hard point of gaming on the web Up to now gaming has been mainly relegated to the Flash engine and is one of the parts still not replicated well by HTML5 Javascript et al in fact Flash is quite important for the casual gaming experience and some quite stunning games are based on flash and comparable to native games if you want to waste some time look at RoboKill2 as an example However given the fact that no fully compatible open source flash player exist there are still issues with the real portability and platform independence of flash gaming in general despite the excellent improvements in Gnash and LightSpark also it may even be possible to see in the future a native translator to Javascript like the SmokeScreen project Actually there is a great deal of overlap of Flash with recent evolutions of Canvas HTML5 Javascript it is clear that the overall evolution of the open web platform is going in the direction of integrating most of flash functionalities directly within HTML 3D gaming There is at the moment no way to create something like the Epic Citadel demo or Carmack s RAGE engine on iOS The only potential alternative is WebGL that is like the previous links based on OpenGL 2 0 ES and paints on the HTML5 canvas that in the presence of proper support for hardware compositing should allow for complex interfaces and effects The problem is that browser support is still immature most browsers are still experimenting in an accelerated compositing pipeline right now and there are still lots of problems that need to be solved before the platform can be considered stable However after the basic infrastructure is done there is no reason for not seeing things like the current state of the art demos on the web modern in browser Javascript JIT are good enough for action and scripting web workers and web sockets are stable enough to create complex asynchronous event models It will take an additional year probably until the 3D support is good enough to see something like WoW inside a browser Local binary execution for those things that actually cannot be done by a browser local execution is the only alternative For example having a complex VPN client embedded in a web page is something that would simplify the task of connecting to a web or non web in an easy way without downloading any additional package This model was demonstrated by Google in its ChromeOS presentation showing off a game based on the Unity web player ported to the Native Client NaCl environment The problem of the initial implementation of NaCl was that the binary was actually not portable across cpu architectures the new pNaCl portable NaCl uses the incredibly good LLVM infrastructure to generate portable bytecodes Payment there is one thing that is sorely missing or incomplete and that is billing and payment management from the web application Within iOS and thanks to iTunes and carrier interactions paying even in game or in app is easy and immediate There is no similar ease of use and instant monetization within web applications at the moment One of the missing things is actually the overall management of digital identities that is inextricably linked to the payment possibilities and channels DRM yes DRM Or content protection or whatever Despite the clear indication that DRM schemes do not work there is no shortage of studios or content producer that want to ensure that there is at least a minimum form of protection against unwanted use I don t believe that this form of protection is useful at all but I am not confident in people accepting this in the next 5 years and this means that DRM should be possible in the context of the browser Possible alternatives are the use of a ported content execution engine imagine a video player based on pNaCl that brings its own DRM engine inside Or integrating an open source DRM engine like DReaM if it survives the Oracle changeover that is This kind of tool can also help to prevent cheating in online games imagine a WoW like game based on Javascript what prevents the user to change the code on the fly with something like GreaseMonkey and other multiplayer environments App stores what is an app store A tool to reduce searching costs and in Apple iTunes model a framework for app management and backup In a sense something like this is possible right now with some browser OS integration the excellent Jolicloud has something like that right now and with some additional support for web packaging formats and remote synchronization like Mozilla Sync this can become ubiquitous What do you think Is there something else missing Comments are as usual welcome app stores html5 open source web applications 5 Comments Windows phone 7 Android and market relevance Posted by cdaffara in divertissements on September 1st 2010 Updated despite the Business Insider claims the list of motives is actually a perfect copy of those mentioned by Steve Ballmer in a CNN interview and I also found that the list of motives for the claimed inferiority of Android is actually from 2008 as can be found here I found quite funny that basically the same motivations apply two years later for a different OS in 2008 it was Windows Mobile 6 5 a totally different operating system and are quite similar to the list of motivations from MS to avoid open source namely inferior user experience hidden costs and IPR risks Maybe Microsoft has not changed so much as it would like to claim A recent Business Insider post provided other than a nice retouched photo of Google s Schmidt with menacing red eyes a snippet of conversation with an anonymous MS employee that claimed that Android free OS is not free at all and its costs are much higher than the 15 asked by Microsoft as licensing fees Having had my stint on mobile economics I would like to contribute some of my thoughts on what is actually implied by the MS employee and why I believe that some parts of it are not accurate Before flaming me as a Google fanboy I would like to point out that I am not affiliated with Google MS anyone else apart my own company of course and my cellphone is a Nokia Enough said OEMs are not using the stock Android build All Android OEMs are bearing costs beyond free That goes with the definition of OEM it is hardly a surprising idea My gripe with the phrase is that the author had conveniently conflated the concept of free as freely available operating system with free as in I have nothing to do everything is done for me for free The second concept is actually quite uncommon and I had never met an OEM product manager that believed in something like that It reminds me a lot of the old taglines used in the infamous MS comparisons that were with blessings from all sacked from Microsoft web site So in conclusion yes you will bear costs other than downloading Android from GIT And surprise I am sure MS will ask for engineering costs for adapting WinPhone7 for any adaptation outside the stock image Lawsuits over disputed Android IP have been costly for Android OEMs See Apple HTC as just one example Microsoft indemnifies OEMs who license Windows Phone 7 against IP issues with the product That is legal disputes over the IP in Windows Phone 7 directed at OEMs will be handled by Microsoft This goes a long way toward controlling legal costs at the OEM level Ah please Microsoft you are so friend of OSS and you still drum the IPR violation song Anyway I am quite sure that indemnification can be quite easily acquired probably from Google or from a third party It depends on the kind of IPR that the OEM itself does have in some cases such a patent safety scheme is uneconomical It is in any case a business decision Symbian did not had indemnification either or only as an additional product but that did not stopped Symbian from becoming the most widely used mobile OS Android s laissez faire hardware landscape is a fragmented mess for device drivers For background just like PCs mobile devices need drivers for their various components screen GPS WiFi Bluetooth 3G radio accelerometer etc Android OEMs have to put engineering resources into developing these drivers to get their devices working The Windows Phone 7 chassis strategy allows devices to be created faster saving significant engineering cost It s essentially plug and play with device drivers authored by Microsoft This apart from the use of the clearly pejorative mention of fragmented mess is naturally true It is also another surprise the reason of Windows success namely the external ecosystem of hardware devices mostly unpredictable that were basically developed and managed outside of Microsoft control After much bashing of Apple s walled garden now Microsoft seem to imply that the same model that brought them success is now useless and that to win in mobile you have to adopt Apple centrally managed hardware experience It may be true or not but I suspect that hardware manufacturers will be more happy to create many permutation and device models designed for different price points and different users in a way that would be incompatible with MS central control and central device driver development What happens if I need to push on the market a device that deviates from the MS chassis Will MS write the driver for me for free What if it doesn t want to write it The chassis model is nice if you are Apple and are selling basically a single or a few models if you are going to market with many hardware vendors you are forcing the same undifferentiated hardware on all OEM and this is a great no no How are you going to go against competitors that do employ exactly the same model bill of material same procurement channel Also this phrase is a clear indication that someone inside of MS still don t understand what real open source is about The amount of engineering necessary for creating a complex product out of OSS is substantially lower than proprietary alternatives as I demonstrated here and here the driver development effort can easily be shared among many different projects that use the same component lowering the development costs substantially Windows Phone 7 has a software update architecture designed to make it easy for OEMs to plug in their custom code independent of the OS code We ve seen the delays due to Android OEMs having to sink engineering resources into each and every Android update Some Android OEMs skip updates or stop updating their less popular devices Because of the unique update architecture Windows Phone 7 OEMs don t need to roll their own updates based on the stock build Costs are reduced significantly This is another part that is until Phone 7 is out difficult to judge It is a part that I believe stems from an underlying error OEMs add code to differentiate and to push branded apps and services not because they have to compensate for an OS missing functionality especially now with Android 2 2 Android 1 5 and 1 6 needed some addition from third parties because of lack of features Carriers once sold a device are not that interested in providing updates after all you are already locked in a contract I had seen no official documentation on why Phone7 can be so modular that no engineering is needed even for custom layers on top of the user interface we will see Android OEMs need to pay for licenses for many must have features that are standard in Windows Phone 7 For example software to edit Office documents audio video codecs see some costs here or improved location services for this Moto licenses from Skyhook just as Apple once did Of course all of these license fees add up I like the concept of must have it is widely different for every user and company For example I am sure that using Google Docs or Zoho or Microsoft Web office that is quite good on its own would go against the edit Office documents part as for the audio video codecs of course you have to license them unless you use WebM or similar Or like many OEM you are already a licensee for H264 and other covered standards in this case you pay around 1 per device As for other services I found no mention of location services from MS at least not in the public presentations If anyone has more details on them I would welcome any addition Windows Phone 7 supports automated testing Android doesn t When OEMs hit the QA phase of the development lifecycle it s faster and less expensive to QA a Windows Phone 7 device than an Android device Again if you have a single chassis or a few of them testing is certainly easier However there are quite a few testing suites that allow through the emulator to provide a very good automated testing facility Finally Windows Phone 7 comes with great user experiences in the Metro UI Zune Xbox LIVE Exchange and Visual Studio for app development Creating these experiences for Android is costly They re not baked into the stock build of Android Well there are quite a few tools for app development on Android as well How exactly Exchange should be counted as a great user experience is something I am not understanding well but that is probably a limit of mine In synthesis the new MS concept is we do it like Apple I am not sure that this can work for anyone that is not Apple though first of all because up to now product engineering excellence was not among MS most touted virtues and because this will in turn

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/open-source/page/2/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Everydesk online: a full desktop as a Facebook application « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    java or flash For this kind of applications we are working on a system that embeds a full HTML5 desktop in a FaceBook application making it accessible from any recent web browser including the iPad This way you can have a full desktop everywhere you go We hope that it can be of interest as soon as it is ready we will release source code and blueprints We have prepared a small demo of how it works right now it is a real screen capture from my own personal EveryDesk Online instance done on a normal ADSL line It should give an idea on how it may work for you open source OSS adoption This entry was posted on Tuesday October 26th 2010 7 01 am and is filed under EveryDesk divertissements You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 2 Trackbacks 0 1 by davide October 26th 2010 at 16 56 It is indeed an interesting thing but on facebook Come on make it an independent web application don t rely on such a ugly platform Yes it has half billion users but that doesn t mean they are the users who d like to use your platform not to speak about privacy concerns Quote 2 by cdaffara October 27th 2010 at 07 09 Dear Davide first of all many thanks for your comment EveryDesk Online is actually an embeddable HTML5 part and can be made standalone as part of FaceBook or as a Google WebApp When thinking about a demo actually we asked a sample of the current beta testers and the overwhelming majority asked for FaceBook first so we built it there first I am not a big FaceBook fan apart

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/everydesk-online-a-full-desktop-as-a-facebook-application/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EveryDesk is a finalist of the OpenWorldForum demo cup! « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    of them experts in Open Source and innovation Larry Augustin SugarCRM Jean François Caenen Capgemini Jean Marie Chauvet LC Capital Stefane Fermigier Nuxeo Jean François Gallouin Via Innovation Roberto Galopini consultant Thierry Koerlen Ulteo Jean Noel Olivier Accenture Bruno Pinna Bull Alain Revah Kublax Stefane Fermigier joint chairman of the Jury commented When choosing the finalists from among the many submissions we received we took three key criteria into account the innovative and open nature of the projects being presented the impact that we thought they might have on their respective markets and their ability to produce a spectacular demo that would leave a lasting impression on the audience Jean Marie Chauvet also joint chairman of the Jury added The very high quality and variety of the entries we received shows that the Open Innovation Awards organized as part of the Open World Forum are helping to establish this event as the essential annual focal point for innovation in the open software world The 2010 Demo Cup is organized by the Open World Forum with operational support being provided by the Open Software Special Interest Group of the Systematic competitiveness cluster For more information visit http www openworldforum org connect awards awards or contact Stefane Fermigier at sf nuxeo com About the Open World Forum The Open World Forum is the leading global summit meeting bringing together decision makers and communities to cross fertilize open digital technological economic and social initiatives At the very heart of the Free Open Source revolution the event was founded in 2008 and now takes place every year in Paris with over 140 speakers from 40 countries an international audience of 1 500 delegates and some forty seminars workshops and think tanks Organized by a vast network of partners including the leading Free Open Source

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/everydesk-is-a-finalist-of-owf-innovation-awards/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • conferences « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    and innovation Larry Augustin SugarCRM Jean François Caenen Capgemini Jean Marie Chauvet LC Capital Stefane Fermigier Nuxeo Jean François Gallouin Via Innovation Roberto Galopini consultant Thierry Koerlen Ulteo Jean Noel Olivier Accenture Bruno Pinna Bull Alain Revah Kublax Stefane Fermigier joint chairman of the Jury commented When choosing the finalists from among the many submissions we received we took three key criteria into account the innovative and open nature of the projects being presented the impact that we thought they might have on their respective markets and their ability to produce a spectacular demo that would leave a lasting impression on the audience Jean Marie Chauvet also joint chairman of the Jury added The very high quality and variety of the entries we received shows that the Open Innovation Awards organized as part of the Open World Forum are helping to establish this event as the essential annual focal point for innovation in the open software world The 2010 Demo Cup is organized by the Open World Forum with operational support being provided by the Open Software Special Interest Group of the Systematic competitiveness cluster For more information visit http www openworldforum org connect awards awards or contact Stefane Fermigier at sf nuxeo com About the Open World Forum The Open World Forum is the leading global summit meeting bringing together decision makers and communities to cross fertilize open digital technological economic and social initiatives At the very heart of the Free Open Source revolution the event was founded in 2008 and now takes place every year in Paris with over 140 speakers from 40 countries an international audience of 1 500 delegates and some forty seminars workshops and think tanks Organized by a vast network of partners including the leading Free Open Source communities and main global players from the IT world the Open World Forum is the definitive event for discovering the latest trends in open computing As a result it is a unique opportunity to share ideas and best practice with visionary thinkers entrepreneurs and leaders of the top international Free Open Source communities and to network with technology gurus CxOs analysts CIOs researchers politicians and investors from six continents The Open World Forum is being run this year by the Systematic competitiveness cluster in partnership with Cap Digital and the European QualiPSo consortium Some 70 of the world s leading information technology companies are involved in the Forum as partners and participants For more information visit http www openworldforum org conferences EveryDesk open source 2 Comments OpenWorldForum 2010 Join me in the OSS governance session Posted by cdaffara in blog on August 19th 2010 I will have the opportunity to present our most recent results on the best practices for OSS adoption at the Open World Forum governance session moderated by Martin Michlmayr HP community manager and Matteo Melideo QUALIPSO project consortium leader The program is available here and packs quite a substantial amount of high quality talks I hope to see you there The Open

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/conferences/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive