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".
  • Estimating savings from OSS code reuse, or: where does the money comes from? « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    as As can be seen in the image there are costs that are related to the integration of COTS in our case OSS within a newly developed product These costs are related to the evaluation and searching of OSS tailoring the adaptation of the code for the project needs and development of glue code the layer of code between OSS modules and between OSS and internally developed code I would like to present some results based on the COCOMO II model adapted to a model where a varying percentage of code is developed or reused from OSS First of all some assumptions The average company cost of a developer is fixed at 25 per hour It should be a reasonable approximation of european costs in particular costs in mediterranean areas like Spain France Italy Greece we know that it is considerably lower than other estimates especially US ones but this way we provide a lower bound for savings instead of averages The tailoring of code is performed on 15 of the OSS code percentage comes from several separate projects with estimates ranging from 5 for mature projects with structured and well documented interfaces to 20 for complex deeply interlocked code like that found in embedded systems Tailoring cost is higher than traditional coding for this reason the COCOMO complexity index is increased to 6 compared to new code development Volatility is based on our own model for cost estimation and data from literature on COTS Empirical observations on COTS software integration effort based on the initial COCOTS calibration database Abts C Boehm B W Bailey Clark E and it can be approximate with an average effort equivalent to 1 5 to 2 5 full time person year This is the result Project size lines of code of OSS total cost Keuro Savings duration years avg staffing 100000 0 1703 0 1 7 20 5 100000 50 975 43 1 3 15 4 100000 75 487 71 0 9 8 6 1000000 0 22000 0 3 3 141 7 1000000 50 12061 45 2 6 103 2 1000000 75 3012 86 2 32 10000000 0 295955 0 7 5 818 10000000 50 160596 46 5 9 631 2 10000000 75 80845 73 3 8 421 In the case of 10Mlines of code the saving is estimated at more than 210M that is consistent with previous estimates of savings by Nokia in reusing open source within Maemo Even for the small project of 100000 lines the savings are estimated at 1 2M Another interesting aspect is related to staffing and time not only the use of OSS can reduce development time substantially but it allows for a substantial reduction in the amount of staff necessary for the development In the smallest example 100000 lines of code still substantial the average staffing is reduced from more than 20 developers to slightly less than 9 bringing this project within reach even by small companies and in my personal view it explains the exceptional take

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/estimating-savings-from-oss-code-reuse-or-where-does-the-money-comes-from/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Reliability of open source from a software engineering point of view « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    As Succi et al pointed out In terms of defects our analysis finds that the changing rate or the functions modified as a percentage of the total functions is higher in open source projects than in closed source projects This supports the hypothesis that defects may be found and fixed more quickly in open source projects than in closed source projects and may be an added benefit for using the open source development model emphasis mine I have a personal opinion on why this happens and is really related to two different phenomenons the first aspect is related to code reuse the general modularity and great reuse of components is in fact helping developers because instead of recoding something introducing new bugs the reuse of an already debugged component reduces the overall defect density This aspect was found in other research groups focusing on reuse for example in a work by Mohagheghi Conradi Killi and Schwarz called An Empirical Study of Software Reuse vs Defect Density and Stability available here we can find that reuse introduces a similar degree of improvement in the bug density and the trouble report numbers of code As it can be observed from the graph code originated from reuse has a significant higher quality compared to traditional code and the gap between the two grows with the size as expected from basic probabilistic models of defect generation and discovery The second aspect is that the fact that bug data is public allows a prioritization and a better coordination of developers on triaging and in general fixing things This explains why this faster improvement appears not only in code that is reused but in newly generated code as well the sum of the two effects explains the incredible difference in quality 50 150 times higher than any previous effort like formal methods automated code generation and so on And this quality differential can only grow with time leading to a long term push for proprietary vendor to include more and more open source code inside of their own products to reduce the growing effort of bug isolation and fixing This entry was posted on Monday April 6th 2009 9 57 am and is filed under 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 4 1 by Michael April 12th 2009 at 03 42 An aspect of the projects mentioned is that they are used by skilled users themselves often developers This is a fundamentally different model to the typical consumer model which shoves a shrink wrapped product down the luser s throat and expects them to pay for every upgrade driven by features not stability Of course this improved model is a direct result of free software s 4 fundamental freedoms and not merely because the source is accessible Quote 2 by Yonah April 12th 2009 at 09 25 So the Vice President

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/reliability-of-open-source-from-a-software-engineering-point-of-view/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Another data point on OSS efficiency « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    attrarre clienti di dimensioni relativamente più grandi A parità di fatturato insomma le aziende solo Open Source sembrano avere maggiori chances di ottenere commesse da aziende con oltre 50 dipendenti quindi medio grandi rispetto al nostro universo di riferimento my english translation Finally comparing the individual data on firms with turnover of less than 500 000 euros with the variable on size classes of customers by number of employees one can hipotesize a correlation between the use of software Open Source and the ability to attract customers of relatively larger scale At the same turnover in other words companies Open Source only seem to have more chances to obtain work orders from companies with more than 50 employees ie medium large compared to our universe of reference This given the relative similarity of other data like revenue per employee of the cluster provide at least an hint that OSS gives leverage in the kind of activities that a small company can create or propose to the market As I wrote in my previous post In the smallest example 100000 lines of code still substantial the average staffing is reduced from more than 20 developers to slightly less than 9 bringing this project within reach even by small companies and in my personal view it explains the exceptional take up of OSS by new and innovative companies that even before external sources of capital like VCs are capable of creating non trivial projects with very limited resources This entry was posted on Wednesday March 18th 2009 8 17 am and is filed under 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 2 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/another-data-point-on-oss-efficiency/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • business models « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    can start from the overall economic value of IT in general There is one thing that we know for sure the total economic value of a country or a region like Europe 12 3T trillion of Euro We also know the average IT expenditure of companies and Public Administrations that is 4 source Gartner IT key metrics data EU eBusiness Watch with wide variations small companies around 7 going up with size up to the average for Fortune 500 3 This means that the average IT spending including services employees hardware software whatever This means that the overall IT spending in Europe is approximately 492B of which 24 is hardware source Assinform Gartner IDC which means that software and services market is valued at 374B Estimates from Forrester are in the same range so we are at least consistent with the big analyst firms Still with me Good Now the next step is estimating the savings that are directly imputable to open source We have two sources an internal source code replaced by OSS and external savings reported by IT personnel through use of OSS Let s start with savings from OSS adoption that can be estimated using data from Infoworld and our data from COSPA at 15 for light adopters less than 25 OSS products used to 29 for heavy adopters more than 25 OSS products up to the 75 of specific cases reported by Gartner for maintenance and licensing Taking into account the share of use of OSS in general and the variation in use of OSS among different sizes we can estimate that the savings directly introduced by OSS amount to 41B those do not appear anywhere but in the adopters balance sheets that is in a reduction of IT expenses or a better result for the same IT expenditure think about the TV set example outlined before And now software development It may sound strange but only a small part of software is ever developed for the market what is called shrinkwrapped The majority of software is developed internally or through external companies for a specific internal need and is never turned into an external product In fact when we consider the service part of the non hardware IT market we discover that nearly half of that value is actually sponsored software development and the remaining 35 is non software services support training ancillary activities This means that in Europe 244B are software spending in a form or the other for example employee wages What can we say about this software We know that a part of it is Open Source because the majority of developers 69 according to Evans Data is using open source components within their code We also know thanks to Veracode that sampling find that between 30 and 70 of code submitted as Internally Developed is identifiably from third parties most often in the form of Open Source components and Commercial shared libraries and components In our own database we found out

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

  • economics « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    start from the overall economic value of IT in general There is one thing that we know for sure the total economic value of a country or a region like Europe 12 3T trillion of Euro We also know the average IT expenditure of companies and Public Administrations that is 4 source Gartner IT key metrics data EU eBusiness Watch with wide variations small companies around 7 going up with size up to the average for Fortune 500 3 This means that the average IT spending including services employees hardware software whatever This means that the overall IT spending in Europe is approximately 492B of which 24 is hardware source Assinform Gartner IDC which means that software and services market is valued at 374B Estimates from Forrester are in the same range so we are at least consistent with the big analyst firms Still with me Good Now the next step is estimating the savings that are directly imputable to open source We have two sources an internal source code replaced by OSS and external savings reported by IT personnel through use of OSS Let s start with savings from OSS adoption that can be estimated using data from Infoworld and our data from COSPA at 15 for light adopters less than 25 OSS products used to 29 for heavy adopters more than 25 OSS products up to the 75 of specific cases reported by Gartner for maintenance and licensing Taking into account the share of use of OSS in general and the variation in use of OSS among different sizes we can estimate that the savings directly introduced by OSS amount to 41B those do not appear anywhere but in the adopters balance sheets that is in a reduction of IT expenses or a better result for the same IT expenditure think about the TV set example outlined before And now software development It may sound strange but only a small part of software is ever developed for the market what is called shrinkwrapped The majority of software is developed internally or through external companies for a specific internal need and is never turned into an external product In fact when we consider the service part of the non hardware IT market we discover that nearly half of that value is actually sponsored software development and the remaining 35 is non software services support training ancillary activities This means that in Europe 244B are software spending in a form or the other for example employee wages What can we say about this software We know that a part of it is Open Source because the majority of developers 69 according to Evans Data is using open source components within their code We also know thanks to Veracode that sampling find that between 30 and 70 of code submitted as Internally Developed is identifiably from third parties most often in the form of Open Source components and Commercial shared libraries and components In our own database we found out that

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

  • open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    OEM and vendors that may want to switch services or that want to push internally developed offerings In this case they will have nothing left to do but to go with the competition or create their own variant something that already happened increasing the adoption costs The alternative is the A rising tide lifts all boats make it a purely open source project where there is a real distributed control like Eclipse Turn it to the Apache foundation Make all the interested partners a part of the foundation or consortium make the code public with limited exceptions like for prerelease hardware drivers and try to track as much as possible the projects where you take things from Apply a strict code contribution regime to strengthen your position against IP claims and especially don t turn it into a product Yes you read it properly the code should be a strict open source project This way it would be extremely difficult for an external party to sue the origin given the difficulties in identifying a directly derived infringing device Google could have then using this more sanitized and cleaner base provided insurance through a third party for IP infringement claims if the code base adopter would want to use such an opportunity some may decide to fight on their own of course This implies that an Android OEM can substitute the Google services and use something else that by the way is possible even now but would have easily prevented most antitrust based attacks The purely open code base and the increased external participation would have further shortened the time to market for providing a new board to the marketplace reduced adoption costs and facilitated an external ecosystem of providers for Android based services Google could have at least avoided some of the worst blows increased its credibility with the various OS communities and reduced the cost of adopting Android for an OEM pushing more and more the platform This in exchange for some of the tight control that currently Google exercise on the platform Unfortunately I think it s too late for that and we will still have to face the sad situation that the life of a mobile platform is dictated purely by judges android google open source software patents 2 Comments Open Source as a differentiator Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models on July 4th 2011 What is an open source company What is the real differentiation element introduced by Open Source These and more questions were introduced by a great post by Matthew Aslett if you don t follow him go and follow now I ll wait Yes do it You will thank me later called The decline of open source as an identifying differentiator It is an excellent analysis of how companies mostly stopped using the term open source in their marketing materials and has a follow up here that provides a summary of the main responses by other analysts and observers The post raises several interesting points and in my opinion provides a great basis for a more general discussion what is the difference introduced by open source Is there a difference at all Let s start with an observation of the obvious the use of open source to build software is now so widespread that it is not a differentiating element anymore There goes the various built on open source components of some companies practically all companies are using open source inside It s simply not a difference So let s start with what is the real differential between OSS and proprietary The licensing An open license may introduce a difference for the adopter This means that if such a differential is used by the company it must provide a value that derives from the intrinsic property of open source as a legal framework For example independence from supplier at least theoretically both in case of provider change and independence in terms of adding or integrating additional components even if the company is in disagreement The development model The collaborative development model is not a certainty it arises only when there is a clear infrastructure for participation When it does happen it is comparatively much faster and more efficient than the proprietary and closed model For this to be a real differentiator the company must engage in an open development model and this is actually happening only in a very small number of cases In general the majority of companies that we surveyed in FLOSSMETRICS have now a limited degree of differentiation when compared to their peers and even as a signaling open source is now no more interesting than other IT terms that entered the mainstream we can discuss further whether cloud will disappear in the background as well Of the companies we surveyed I would say that those that we marked originally as specialists are the ones more apt to still use open source as a differentiating term with open core ones the least since they don t reap the advantages of a distributed development model neither the adopter reaps the advantages of the open source licensing A potential difference may arise for development tools or infrastructures where open source is a near necessity in this case the natural expectation will be for the platform to be open thus not a differentiating element any more FLOSS open source OSS business models 2 Comments Composing the Open Cloud puzzle Posted by cdaffara in blog on May 5th 2011 When it rains it pours This was my first thought while reading the RedHat announcement of yet another cloud project OpenShift a new PaaS and Cloudforms IaaS The excellent Stephen O Grady of RedMonk provided a very complete Q A covering the announcement and the implications quite well This is just the last of many many announcements in the same line that makes the Open Source cloud environment a very active and crowded one What exactly was announced RedHat leveraged its acquisition of Makara a PaaS vendor with a quite interesting technical solution and its own Jboss DeltaCloud platform to create a combination of PaaS and IaaS designed to facilitate deployment and management of Java PHP Python and Ruby applications It falls in a market that recently saw VMWare s entry in the market with CloudFoundry previous entrants like Eucalyptus OpenNebula Nimbus OpenStack and the still unreleased Yahoo IaaS It would seem that there is really too much to choose from but the reality is that each piece does have a place and the biggest problem in finding this place is that we forget to look at the big picture that is on the puzzle box The first point is that there is no single market for cloud IaaS PaaS whatever There are several distinct areas and for every one there is a potentially different combination the software SaaS producer that for small scales may be interested in hosting its own small IaaS PaaS with the opportunity to move it or dynamically expand outside on Amazon for example when bursts come in People still think that every company has a full swing of consumption from very little to galactic scale while the majority of SaaS producers tend to have a very static set of customers and acquisitions are slow compared to procurement time and easily managed With a full cloud you pay an extra for scalability the capability to grow dynamically leap and bounds and that extra may not be economically justified Also many companies already invested in hardware and networking for their own in house small datacenter and until the amortment period is ended those companies for financial and fiscal reasons would not turn to a full external cloud So the next best thing is to create their own little IaaS for single customer instances PaaS for shared customers on the hardware they already have The economics here is related to the reduction in management costs and the opportunity to simplify code deployment The Telcos my own sources indicate that lots of telcos are working feverishly to create their own cloud offering now that there is a potential solution that has no license costs They could have built it earlier with VMWare or Citrix but the licensing alone would have placed them out of the market with the new open source stacks with a relatively limited investment it is possible to reuse the massive hardware cache already in house to consolidate and offer a IaaS to individual customers usually mid to large companies willing to outsource their varying computational loads outside or directly dematerialize their server farm It is mostly a transitional market that will however be important for at least 5 years from now The System Integrators large scale INT and consultancies are pushing a set of integrated offerings that cover everything technical management legal and procurement aspects for companies that are willing to move their IT completely off their backs It is not a new model Accenture Atos Origin et al are doing it since the beginning of time but thanks to the availability of open source components it does provide a more compelling economics The small VARs there is a large number of very small companies that targets the very low end of the market and that provide a sort of staircase to the cloud for small and mostly static workloads It is a market of small consultants system administrators and consultancies that cover that part of the market that is largely invisible for larger entities and that is starting to move towards web apps hosted email and so on but still need to manage some legacy system that is currently in house The service provider it just started as a movement but in my opinion will become quite big the specialized and cloud based service an example is the freshly released Sencha io I believe that those specialized providers will be among the most important contributors to the individual OSS components that are internally used to deliver a service and will provide a backbone of updates for most of the ancillary parts like storage DB identity and so on And the obvious question is who will win In my view if every actor works properly there will be more than a dominant actor The reason is related to the two main factors of adoption that is packaging and acceleration Packaging is the ease of installation deployment management and in general user and developer friendliness of the whole So taking for granted that RedHat will open source it as it did with all the previous acquisitions the main advantage for OpenShift and CloudForms will be ease of installation for RedHat and clone users that are still the majority of enterprise Linux deployments It will be natural for a RHEL user to start converting some servers into a RedHat IaaS and PaaS given the fact that systems will also fall under a simplified management through RHT Satellites the main interest in this case will be for system integrators and developers that already standardized under RedHat A potential future enhancement could be the push towards a better identity management a sore point for most IaaS with the exception of the Grid inspired Nimbus RedHat does have a good Java based provisioning and identity server in house that can probably be expanded with external tools like ForgeRock s OpenIM OpenIDM The first one that will solve the cloud identity problem will actually have a gold mine in its hands OpenStack is more relevant for bare metal installs and will probably get the majority of new unbranded installs thanks to its massive acceleration the incredible rate of change that is clearly visible by the amount of new features delivered in any release The combination of OpenStack and CloudFoundry is probably of interest mainly for large companies that want to create an internal development environment reducing developer friction in this sense I believe that the market for secondary services will be probably limited but with a substantial contribution from independents that improve the platform to facilitate their own internal jobs The end result is that we will still see several competing platforms each evolving to occupy a niche and taking and giving pieces of code to the others The obvious result will be the pressure on proprietary vendors that in my opinion will have a very hard time to keep the same development pace of these collaboratively developed solutions cloud computing clouds IaaS open source PaaS No Comments Nokia is one of the most active Android contributors and other surprises Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on April 22nd 2011 Updated added other examples from WebKit IGEL and RIM Yes it may be a surprise but that s the beauty of Open Source you never know where your contributions will be found In this regard I received a gentle mention from my friend Felipe Ortega of the Libresoft group of a nice snippet of research from Luis Canas Diaz Brief study of the Android community Luis studied the contributions to the Android code base and splitted the contributions using the email of the originator assigning those with google com or android com as internal and classifying the others Here is a sample of the results Since October 2008 Commits Domain 69297 google com 22786 android com 8815 NULL 1000 gmail com 762 nokia com 576 motorola com 485 myriadgroup com 470 sekiwake mtv corp google com 422 holtmann org 335 src gnome org 298 openbossa org 243 sonyericsson com 152 intel com Luis added Having a look at the name of the domains it is very surprising that Nokia is one of the most active contributors This is a real paradox the company that states that Android is its main competition helps it One of the effects of using libre software licenses for your work is that even your competition can use your code currently there are Nokia commits in the following repositories git android git kernel org platform external dbus git android git kernel org platform external bluetooth bluez In fact it was Nokia participation in Maemo and later Meego and its funding of the dbus and bluez extensions that were later taken up by Google for Android Intrigued by this result I made a little experiment I cloned the full Android gingerbread GIT repo 2 3 separated the parts that are coming from preexisting projects like the Linux kernel and the various external dependencies many tens of project included to my surprise a full Quake source code leaving for example Chromium but removing WebKit I then took apart the external projects and counted Google contributions there in an approximate way and folded back everything You get a rough size of 1 1GB of source code directly developed or contributed by Google which means that around 75 of the source code of Android comes from external projects Not bad in terms of savings Update many people commented on the strangeness of having fierce competitors working together in ways that are somehow friendly towards a common goal Some of my twitter followers also found the percentage of 75 of non Google contributions to be high and this update is meant to be an answer for both First of all there is quite a long history of competitors working together in open source communities the following sample of Eclipse contributors provide an intial demonstration of that But there are many other examples as well WebKit theweb rendering component used in basically all the mobile platforms except Windows Mobile and on the desktop within Chrome and Safari was originally developed by the KDE free software community taken by Apple and more recently co developed by Nokia Samsung RIM and Google And on WebKit page it is possible to find the following list KDE KDE is an open source desktop environment and application development framework The project to develop this software is an informal association WebKit was originally created based on code from KDE s KHTML and KJS libraries Although the code has been extensively reworked since then this provided the basic groundwork and seed code for the project Many KDE contributors have also contributed to WebKit since it became an independent project with plans that it would be used in KDE as well This has included work on initially developing the Qt port as well as developing the original code KSVG2 that provides WebKit s SVG support and subsequent maintenance of that code Apple Apple employees have contributed the majority of work on WebKit since it became an independent project Apple uses WebKit for Safari on Mac OS X iPhone and Windows on the former two it is also a system framework and used by many other applications Apple s contribution has included extensive work on standards compliance Web compatibility performance security robustness testing infrastructure and development of major new features Collabora Collabora has worked on several improvements to the Qt and GTK ports since 2007 including NPAPI plugins support and general API design and implementation Collabora currently supports the development of the GTK port its adoption by GNOME projects such as Empathy and promotes its usage in several client projects Nokia Nokia s involvement with the WebKit project started with a port to the S60 platform for mobile devices The S60 port exists in a branch of the public WebKit repository along with various changes to better support mobile devices To date it has not been merged to the mainline However a few changes did make it in including support for CSS queries In 2008 Nokia acquired Trolltech Trolltech has an extensive history of WebKit contributions most notably the Qt port Google Google employees have contributed code to WebKit as part of work on Chrome and Android both originally secret projects This has included work on portability bug fixes security improvements and various other contributions Torch Mobile Torch Mobile uses WebKit in the Iris Browser and has contributed significantly to WebKit along the way This has included portability work bug fixes and improvements to better support mobile devices Torch Mobile has ported WebKit to Windows CE Mobile other undisclosed platforms and maintains the QtWebKit git repository Several long time KHTML and WebKit contributors are employed by Torch Mobile Nuanti Nuanti engineers contribute to WebCore JavaScriptCore and in particular develop the WebKit GTK port This work includes porting to new mobile and embedded platforms addition of features and integration with mobile and desktop technologies in the GNOME stack Nuanti believes that working within the framework of the webkit org version control and bug tracking services is the best way of moving the project forward as a whole Igalia Igalia is a free software consultancy company employing several core developers of the GTK port with contributions including bugfixing performance accessibility API design and many major features It also provides various parts of the needed infrastructure for its day to day functioning and is involved in the spread of WebKit among its clients and in the GNOME ecosystem for example leading the transition of the Epiphany web browser to WebKit Company 100 Company 100 has contributed code to WebKit as part of work on Dorothy Browser since 2009 This work includes portability performance bug fixes improvements to support mobile and embedded devices Company 100 has ported WebKit to BREW MP and other mobile platforms University of Szeged The Department of Software Engineering at the University of Szeged Hungary started to work on WebKit in mid 2008 The first major contribution was the ARMv5 port of the JavaScript JIT engine Since then several other areas of WebKit have been tackled memory allocation parsers regular expressions SVG Currently the Department is maintaining the official Qt build bots and the Qt early warning system Samsung Samsung has contributed code to WebKit EFL Enlightenment Foundation Libraries especially in the area of bug fixes HTML5 EFL WebView etc Samsung is maintaining the official Efl build bots and the EFL early warning system So we see fierce competitors Apple Nokia Google Samsung co operating in a project that is clearly of interest for all of them In a previous post I made a similar analysis for IGEL popular developers of thin clients and HP Palm The actual results are Total published source code without modifications for IGEL 1 9GB in 181 packages total amount of patch code 51MB in 167 files the remaining files are not modified Average patch size 305KB Patch percentage on total publisheed code 2 68 Total published source code without modifications for Palm 1 2GB in 106 packages total amount of patch code 55MB in 83 files the remaining files are not modified Average patch size 664KB Patch percentage on total published code 4 58 If we add the proprietary parts and the code modified we end up in the same approximate range found in the Maemo study that is around 10 to 15 of code that is either proprietary or modified OSS directly developed by the company IGEL reused more than 50 million lines of code modified or developed around 1 3 million lines of code Open Source allows to create a derived product in both case of substantial complexity reducing the cost of development to 1 20 the time to market to 1 4 the total staff necessary to more than 1 4 and in general reduce the cost of maintaining the product after delivery I believe that it would be difficult for anyone producing software today to ignore this kind of results This is the real end result it would be extremely difficult for companies to compete without the added advantage of Open Source It is simply anti economic to try to do everything from scratch while competing companies work together on non differentiating elements for this reason it should not be considered a strange fact that Nokia is an important contributor to Google Android android open source 29 Comments On Symbian Communities and Motivation Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on April 7th 2011 This is an updated repost of an article originally published on OSBR I have followed with great interest the evolution of the Symbian open source project from its start through its tentative evolution and up to its closure this month This process of closing down is accompanied by the claim that the current governance structure for the Symbian platform the foundation is no longer appropriate It seems strange Considering the great successes of Gnome KDE Eclipse and many other groups it is curious that Symbian was not able to follow along the same path I have always been a great believer in OSS consortia because I think that the sharing of research and development is a main strength of the open source model and I think that consortia are among the best ways to implement R D sharing efficiently However to work well Consortia need to provide benefits in terms of efficiency or visibility to all the actors that participate in them not only to the original developer group For Nokia we know that one of the reasons to open up Symbian was to reduce the porting effort As Eric Raymond reports they did a cost analysis and concluded they couldn t afford the engineering hours needed to port Symbian to all the hardware they needed to support I had this straight from a Symbian executive face to face around 2002 But to get other people to contribute their work you need an advantage for them as well What can this advantage be For Eclipse most of the companies developing their own integrated development environment IDE found it economically sensible to drop their own work and contribute to Eclipse instead It allowed them to quickly reduce their maintenance and development costs while increasing their quality as well The Symbian foundation should have done the same thing but apparently missed the mark despite having a large number of partners and members Why The reason is time and focus The Eclipse foundation had for quite some time basically used only IBM resources to provide support and development In a similar way it took WebKit which is not quite a foundation but follows the same basic model more than two years before it started receiving substantial contributions as can be found here And WebKit is much much smaller than Symbian and Eclipse For Symbian I would estimate that it would require at least three or four years before such a project could start to receive important external contributions That is unless it is substantially re engineered so that the individual parts some of which are quite interesting and advanced despite the claims that Symbian is a dead project can be removed and reused by other projects as well This is usually the starting point for long term cooperation Some tooling was also not in place from the beginning the need for a separate compiler chain one that was not open source and that in many aspect was not as advanced as open source ones was an additional stumbling block that delayed participation Another problem was focus More or less anyone understood that for a substantial period of time Symbian would be managed and developed mainly by Nokia And Nokia made a total mess of differentiating what part of the platform was real what was a stopgap for future changes what was end of life and what was the future Who would invest in the long term in a platform where the only entity that could gain from it was not even that much committed to it And before flaming me for this comment let me say that I am a proud owner of a Nokia device I love most Nokia products and I think that Symbian still could have been a contender especially through a speedier transition to Qt for the user interface But the long list of confusing announcements and delays changes in plans and lack of focus on how to beat the competitors like iOS and Android clearly reduced the willingness of commercial partners to invest in the venture Which is a pity Symbian still powers most phones in the world and can still enter the market with some credibility But this later announcement sounds like a death knell Obtain the source code through a DVD or USB key You must be kidding Do you really think that setting up a webpage with the code and preserving a read only Mercurial server would be a too much of a cost The only thing that it shows is that Nokia stopped believing in an OSS Symbian Update after the change of CEO and the extraordinary change in strategy it is clear that the reason for ditching the original EPL code was related to its inherent patent grant that still provides a safeguard against Nokia patents embedded in the original Symbian code There is a new release of Symbian under a different non OSS license the original code is preserved in this sourceforge project while Tyson Key preserved the incubation projects and many ancillary documentation like wiki pages at this Google code project A full copy of the original EPL open source symbian 4 Comments The neverending quest to prove Google evilness Why Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on March 22nd 2011 Ah my favorite online nemesis in a good sense as we have always a respectful and fun way of having a disagreement Florian Mueller is working full time to demonstrate in his own words a clear pattern of extensive GPL laundering by Google which should worry any manufacturer or developer who cares about the IP integrity of Android and its effect on their proprietary extensions or applications It should also be of significant concern to those who advocate software freedom Wow Harsh words at that despite the fact that Linus Torvalds himself dismissed the whole thing with It seems totally bogus We ve always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too he also amusingly suggested that If it s some desperate cry for attention by somebody I just wish those people would release their own sex tapes or something rather than drag the Linux kernel into their sordid world Ah I love him In fact I expressed the same point to Florian directly both in email and in a few tweets but it seems very clear that the man is on a crusade given how he describes Google actions the very suspect copying of Linux headers and now these most recent discoveries it s hard not to see an attitude There s more to this than just nonchalance Is it hubris Or recklessness A lack of managerial diligence or It reduces the GPL to a farce like a piece of fence in front of which only fools will stop while smart people simply walk around it Well there is no such thing and I am not saying this because I am a Google fanboy heck I even have a Nokia phone but because this full blown tempest is actually useless and potentially damaging for the OSS debate I will start with the core of Florian arguments Google took GPL code headers they sanitized it with a script to remove copyrighted information what is left is not GPL anymore in particular is not copyrighted Which Florian sees as a way to work around the GPL Well it s not and there are sensible reasons for saying this Let s look at one of the incriminated files ifndef HCI LIB H define HCI LIB H ifdef cplusplus endif ifdef cplusplus endif static inline int hci test bit int nr void addr return uint32 t addr nr 5 1 nr 31 endif or for something longer ifndef RFCOMM H define RFCOMM H ifdef cplusplus endif include sys socket h define RFCOMM DEFAULT MTU 127 define RFCOMM PSM 3 define RFCOMM CONN TIMEOUT HZ 30 define RFCOMM DISC TIMEOUT HZ 20 define RFCOMM CONNINFO 0x02 define RFCOMM LM 0x03 define RFCOMM LM MASTER 0x0001 define RFCOMM LM AUTH 0x0002 define RFCOMM LM ENCRYPT 0x0004 define RFCOMM LM TRUSTED 0x0008 define RFCOMM LM RELIABLE 0x0010 define RFCOMM LM SECURE 0x0020 define RFCOMM MAX DEV 256 define RFCOMMCREATEDEV IOW R 200 int define RFCOMMRELEASEDEV IOW R 201 int define RFCOMMGETDEVLIST IOR R 210 int define RFCOMMGETDEVINFO IOR R 211 int define RFCOMM REUSE DLC 0 define RFCOMM RELEASE ONHUP 1 define RFCOMM HANGUP NOW 2 define RFCOMM TTY ATTACHED 3 ifdef cplusplus endif struct sockaddr rc sa family t rc family bdaddr t rc bdaddr uint8 t rc channel endif What can we say of that They contain interfaces definitions constants that are imposed by compatibility or efficiency reasons For this reason they are not copyrightable or more properly would be excluded in the standard test for copyright infringement in the abstraction filtration test In fact it would not be possible to guarantee compatibility without such an expression But Florian guesses the authors put a copyright notice on top That means that it must be copyrighted In fact he claims The fact that such notices are added to header files shows that the authors of the programs in question consider the headers copyrightable Also without copyright there s no way to put material under a license such as the GPL Actually it s simply not true I can take something add in the beginning a claim of copyright but that does not imply that I have a real copyright on that Let s imagine that I write a file containing one number and put a c notice on top Do I have a copyright on that number No because the number is not copyrightable itself The same for the headers included before to test for copyright infringement you must first remove all material that is forced for standard compatibility then Scenes a Faire a principle in copyright law that says that certain elements of a creative work are not protected when they are mandated by or customary for an environment then code that cannot be alternatively expressed for performance reasons What is left is potential copyright infringement Now let s apply the test to the code I have pasted What is left Nothing Which is why up to now most of the commentators that are working on the kernel mentioned that this was also just a big large interesting but ultimately useless debate In fact in the BlueZ group the same view was presented include bluetooth bluetooth h is only an interface contract It contains only constants and two trivial macros Therefore there is no obligation for files that include bluetooth h to abide by the terms of the GPL license We will soon replace bluetooth h with an alternate declaration of the interface contract that does not have the GPL header so that this confusion does not arise again Nick Pelly It is interesting that this comes in and out in many projects and several times it happened in Wine in importing vs recoding Windows header definitions and I am sure in countless others The real value of this debate would be not to claim that Google nearly certainly is an horrible profiteering parasite that steals GPL code but to verify that the headers used do not contain copyrighted material because that would be an extremely negative thing Has this happened Up to now I am still unable to find a single example Another totally different thing is asking if this is impolite taking without explicitly asking permission on a mailing list for example But we are not looking at headlines like Google is impolite we are looking at Google s Android faces a serious Linux copyright issue or More evidence of Google s habit of GPL laundering in Android That s not constructive that s attention seeking I would really love to see a debate about copyrightability of header files I am not claiming that all header files are not copyrightable of course or copyrightability of assembly work the Yellow Book problem But such a debate is not happening or it is drowned under a deluge of Google is evil half proofs Of course that s my opinion android droid fosspatents gpl gpl laundering open source 1 Comment App stores have no place in a web apps world Posted by cdaffara in divertissements on February 14th 2011 I have read with great interest the latest Matt Asay s post Enough with the Apple App Store apathy that provides a clear overview of why App Stores should be at the center of open source advocates rage Matt is right and some developers already started addressing this like some of VLC project developers but I believe that the current monopoly of app stores is just a temporary step in the wait for real web apps App stores in fact do just a few things well others not as well and they take a hefty percentage of all transactions just because they can Let s think about what an app store is about Discovery one of the main advantages of a central point for searching applications is well the fact that there is a single point for searching Since developers when submitting an app need to perform a categorization or tagging it to make it searchable an app store is actually quite helpful in finding something Until there is too much of something In fact already in the iOS app store and partially in the Android one looking for something is increasingly a hit and miss affair with lots and lots of similar if not identical applications trying desperately to emerge in the listing or maybe to end up under the spotlight of some best of compilation In fact as Google would happily tell you when you have too many things pure listings are

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

  • open source economics « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    can start from the overall economic value of IT in general There is one thing that we know for sure the total economic value of a country or a region like Europe 12 3T trillion of Euro We also know the average IT expenditure of companies and Public Administrations that is 4 source Gartner IT key metrics data EU eBusiness Watch with wide variations small companies around 7 going up with size up to the average for Fortune 500 3 This means that the average IT spending including services employees hardware software whatever This means that the overall IT spending in Europe is approximately 492B of which 24 is hardware source Assinform Gartner IDC which means that software and services market is valued at 374B Estimates from Forrester are in the same range so we are at least consistent with the big analyst firms Still with me Good Now the next step is estimating the savings that are directly imputable to open source We have two sources an internal source code replaced by OSS and external savings reported by IT personnel through use of OSS Let s start with savings from OSS adoption that can be estimated using data from Infoworld and our data from COSPA at 15 for light adopters less than 25 OSS products used to 29 for heavy adopters more than 25 OSS products up to the 75 of specific cases reported by Gartner for maintenance and licensing Taking into account the share of use of OSS in general and the variation in use of OSS among different sizes we can estimate that the savings directly introduced by OSS amount to 41B those do not appear anywhere but in the adopters balance sheets that is in a reduction of IT expenses or a better result for the same IT expenditure think about the TV set example outlined before And now software development It may sound strange but only a small part of software is ever developed for the market what is called shrinkwrapped The majority of software is developed internally or through external companies for a specific internal need and is never turned into an external product In fact when we consider the service part of the non hardware IT market we discover that nearly half of that value is actually sponsored software development and the remaining 35 is non software services support training ancillary activities This means that in Europe 244B are software spending in a form or the other for example employee wages What can we say about this software We know that a part of it is Open Source because the majority of developers 69 according to Evans Data is using open source components within their code We also know thanks to Veracode that sampling find that between 30 and 70 of code submitted as Internally Developed is identifiably from third parties most often in the form of Open Source components and Commercial shared libraries and components In our own database we found out

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

  • EveryDesk: a portable linux USB cloud client - carlodaffara.conecta.it
    the excellent package management tool that drastically increases the probability that the system would continue to work after an update a welcome change from Ubuntu we integrate Gnome 3 the latest Firefox and Chromium on a BTRFS install that supports compression and error concealment so it works properly even on low cost USB devices On an 8Gb USB key you get 4Gb free and all the apps at your disposal ready to go The only major change in hardware support is the fact that EveryDesk is now a 64 bit only operating system but we believe that despite the limitation it can still be useful at large It integrates some components that are maybe less interesting for individual use for example the XtreemFS file system that can be used to turn individual PCs into scale out storage servers in a totally transparent way and with great performance or many virtualization enhancements On the user side we already installed some of our favorite additions among fonts software and tools Firefox uses by default the exceptional Pdf js embedded viewer that uses no separate plugins and is faster than Adobe Acrobat and there is the usual assortment of media codecs and ancillary little things We love every moment that we work on this project and I would like to thank the many people that helped us sent criticisms and praises One wrote I can t believe how well it works without time lags I normally associate with running on a CD or a thumb and I can t thank our users enough they are our real value As usual you can download EveryDesk from Sourceforge This entry was posted on Tuesday March 27th 2012 9 06 am and is filed under EveryDesk You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/a-new-everydesk-is-out/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive