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".
  • 30 « April « 2009 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    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

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2009/04/30/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Random thoughts: TomTom, Alfresco « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    be used and or licensed for only the following purposes i to install repair and maintain hardware firmware and portions of operating system software which are utilized in the boot process ii to provide to an operating system runtime services that are specified in the EFI Specification iii to diagnose and correct failures in the hardware firmware or operating system software iv to query for identification of a computer system whether by serial numbers asset tags user or otherwise v to perform inventory of a computer system and vi to manufacture install and setup any hardware firmware or operating system software So hardly useable for anything within Linux At the moment probably the safest choice would be for embedded vendors to remove the FAT32 specific portions from the code and use only the traditional 8 3 FAT allocation eventually extending the use of filesystem in file strategy commonly used in games like ID software s PAKs As for Alfresco first of all I wish all the best for Alfresco and their product It is always one of my favourite examples of successful commercial OSS system and so I am happy to see that they are getting substantial increases in their turnover including a nearly doubling of revenue year over year On the other hand I understand perfectly the frustration that some of the biggest enterprises in the world and I mean Fortune 50 and even Fortune 10 are only using the open source version of the product It seems to me that the choice of what features should be available to enterprise customers vs open source ones is a good initial choice and I hope them every possible success However I am perplexed if the OSS Alfresco is doing so well doubling revenues is there really a need for a

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/random-thoughts-tomtom-alfresco/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • I respectfully disagree. « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    generate a significant portion of their revenue At the same time it found the majority of open source vendors utilize some form of commercial licensing to distribute or generate revenue from open source software Of course The error is the same already mentioned that is the confusion between proprietary and commercial Page 7 OSS approaches tend to be relatively more successful when the end users of a technology are themselves developers as opposed to nontechnical end users The phrase is incorrect and arise from the identification of OSS developers as volunteers that scratch an itch From a logical point of view there are two errors first of all there are many technical users that are not developers system administrators are a good example In fact the very high penetration of OSS in server environments is not strictly related to developer participation Second the assumption that OSS is inherently difficult to use implied in the phrase is easily dispelled by the great success of FireFox and OpenOffice both of which require no developer in sight Page 7 Windows Server product strategy continues to focus on offering a product that IT administrators will choose over alternatives including Linux because it is highly manageable with readily available skills supported by a wide range of third party applications and offers the lowest total cost of ownership TCO This is marketing not research first of all the TCO debate is still not solved in favor of Microsoft and after reviewing the TCO numbers for COSPA I suspect that that would not be an easy win for them Then it implies that OSS skills are not readily available again something that is unproven and it implies that OSS alternatives have a limited range of third party applications look at RedHat certified applications list for a good counterexample Page 8 For developers the entire NET Framework is available as a reference source to enable them to debug against the source code And since it is not open source this should probably not be mentioned here Page 9 One key supporting principle is respect for the diverse and continually evolving ways that individuals and companies choose to build and market what they create No efficient effective technical solution should be precluded or advantaged because an individual a vendor or a development community has chosen a particular business model whether based on software licensing service and support advertising or increasingly some combination thereof This is aimed squarely at those governments that are trying to estabilish pro OSS policies and ignores the fact that in many cases the inherent market situation with a de facto monopoly is not a balanced market in itself Recently it was found that Software tenders by Eu ropean public adm in istration often may not comply with EU regulations illegal ly favour in g proprietary applications so the advantage is at the moment squarely for proprietary software vendor and the recent guidelines from the EU are designed to provide a more balanced market My own

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

  • OSS-based business models: a revised study based on 218 companies « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    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 The distribution of revenue approximate as most companies are not publishing revenue data seems to match that of average IT sector with the vast majority of companies of small size less than 5M around 10 are medium sized 5 to 20M and very few can be classified as large Another observation 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 Overall there seems to be no significant difference in revenuse comparing same class companies between product specialists compared to open core companies but this is based on uncertain estimates of relative revenues and should be taken as purely speculative What seems to be constant is the reported increase in visibility and sales leads experienced by companies that adopted a pure open source model be it dual licensing specialists or based on indirect revenues as before it is possible to check this kind of increase only through web based metrics that are in many cases unreliable and by indirect measurements like user participation in forums or dedicated conferences This entry was posted on Monday March 16th 2009 4 10 pm 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 4 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name required E Mail required will not be published Website Submit Comment Free and Open Source Software

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/119/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Another take on the financial value of open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    from the OECD estimates on software market more or less confirm the predictions from Gartner we can say that OSS has a financial value of 120B now and will reach 150B in 2010 perfectly in line with the predictions from Bruno What I am not convinced is the calculation of the share 0f voluntary contributions Vs company contributions If Gartner data is accurate and I believe that this is the case we can expect that companies should contribute between 40 and 50 of value to a project and this is somewhat consistent with projects like Linux or Eclipse where there is a large ecosystem not only of adopters but of commercial companies working on top and where company contributions are in that range In this sense I believe the 20 30 percentage mentioned by Bruno to be too restrictive the problem is that measuring code is not the only way to measure contributions I use frequently this as an example In the year 2000 fifty outside contributors to Open Cascade provided various kinds of assistance transferring software to other systems IRIX 64 bits Alpha OSF correcting defects memory leaks and translating the tutorial into Spanish etc Currently there are seventy active contributors and the objective is to reach one hundred These outside contributions are significant Open Cascade estimates that they represent about 20 of the value of the software Do these contributions appear as source code No exactly as localization efforts for OpenOffice or KDE do not appear in source code metrics My belief is that the value of OSS right now is even much larger than 120B and that we have simply no way to measure this hidden value but it s there This entry was posted on Friday March 13th 2009 3 27 pm and is filed under

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/another-take-on-the-financial-value-of-open-source/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Our definitions of OSS-based business models « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    FLOSS 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 It is based on 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 Linux distributions were classified as platforms the interesting observation is that those distributions are licensed for a significant part under pure FLOSS 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 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 FLOSS 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 OSS 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 online 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 OSS 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

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

  • Rethinking OSS business model classifications by adding adopters' value « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    adopters of OSS models This section is in my opinion quite important in making this a sort of cheatsheet for companies that will be interested in using an OSS business model in the future but is still subject to some revision I would be grateful for any suggestion or correction to it Anyway here is a link to the table in ODS format and in html format This entry was posted on Friday March 6th 2009 10 43 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 8 Trackbacks 9 1 by Matthew Aslett March 6th 2009 at 11 19 Shame its not very printer friendly I m old school like that but great stuff and potentially very useful I ll take a proper look before I offer any feedback Quote 2 by cdaffara March 6th 2009 at 11 32 You are of course right I have added a download for the ODS file so it may be easier to print it out And the license is CC Attribution Sharealike Quote 3 by Matthew Aslett March 6th 2009 at 11 36 Fantastic Quote 4 by Andrew Ross March 14th 2009 at 17 40 This is excellent Thank you It might be interesting to keep track of companies vs business model and graph their results over time This might provide an insight as to the relative effectiveness of each model Does anyone know if this has been done already Quote 5 by cdaffara March 14th 2009 at 18 39 Unfortunately I know of no such effort despite its potential high usefulness We started collecting data on business models around 2004 but it was done in an unorganized and unstructured way the Flossmetrics project was the opportunity to perform an initial large scale analysis Quote 6 by Rinse Repeat March 19th 2009 at 05 39 Oh my Are people still wasting their time writing these articles I think this topic was covered completely about 5 years ago Quote 7 by cdaffara March 19th 2009 at 08 20 For Rinse Repeat it may be a surprise but despite many efforts there is still much more to say and I started writing on this in the European Working Group on Libre Software in 1999 After all we are still writing on the death of newspaper and the internet right now like Clay Shirky s new post on this and after all the topic was believed to be completely covered 10 years ago The fact is that OSS changes models change and the ecosystem change there are many more companies working with OSS now how to monetize things changed and still there is debate on whether there is a best model or what this model would be After all with OSS at 25 of the software market right now having no new research done in 5 years would be quite

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/rethinking-oss-business-model-classifications-by-adding-adopters-value/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • From theory to practice: the personal desktop linux experiment « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    the diffusion process can happen For the same process to be possible with Linux we must improve the knowledge of users to show them that normal use is no more intimidating than that of Windows and that software is available for the most common tasks This requires two separate processes one to show that the basic desktop is capable of performing traditional tasks easily and another to show what kind of software is available My favourite way for doing this for in store experiences is through a demo video usually played in continuous rotation that shows some basic activities for example how Network Manager provides a simple one click way to connect to WiFi or how Nautilus provides previews of common file formats There should be a fast 5 minute section to show that basic activities can be performed easily I prefer the following list web browsing showing compatibility with sites like FaceBook Hi5 Google Mail changing desktop properties like backgrounds or colours connecting to WiFi networks printer recognition and setup package installation I know that Ubuntu or OpenSUSE or Fedora users will complain that those are functionalities that are nowadays taken for granted But consider what even technical journalist sometimes may write about Linux It booted like a real OS with the familiar GUI of Windows XP and its predecessors and of the Mac OS icons for disks and folders a standard menu structure and built in support for common hardware such as networks printers and DVD burners Booted like a real OS And icons So much for the change in perspective like the Vista user perception problem demonstrated So a pictorial presentation is a good media to provide an initial fear reducing informative presentation that will not require assistance from the shop staff On the same side a small informative session may be prepared we suggested a 8 page booklet for the assistants to provide answers comparable to that offered for Windows machines Usability of modern linux distribution is actually good enough to be comparable to that of Windows XP on most tasks In a thesis published in 2005 the following graph was presented using data from previous work by Relevantive The time and difficulty of tasks was basically the same most of the problems that were encountered by users were related to bad naming of the applications The main usability problems with the Linux desktop system were clarity of the icons and the naming of the applications Applications did not include anything concerning their function in their name This made it really hard for users to find the right application they were looking for This approach was substantially improved in recent desktop releases adding a suffix to most applications for example GIMP image editor instead of GIMP As an additional result the following were the subjective questionnaire results 87 of the Linux test participants enjoyed working with the test system XP 90 78 of the Linux test participants believed they would be able to deal with the

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/from-theory-to-practice-the-hobbyst-desktop-linux-experiment/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive