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".
  • 31 « March « 2009 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    Firmware Initiative Specification v 1 0 EFI Specification ii only as necessary to emulate an implementation of the EFI Specification and b to create firmware applications utilities and or drivers that will 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

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2009/03/31/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Random walks and Microsoft « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    foundation of choice a fact for which Matt Asay commented with some irony that openness claims are mainly directed towards competitors like Apple and its iTunes iPod offer I would like just to point out to one of the Comes vs Microsoft exhibits that are sometimes more interesting than your average John Grisham or Stephen King novels where we can find such pearls of openness and freedom of choice From Peter Wise Sent Monday October 07 2002 9 43 AM To Server Platform Leadership Team Subject CompHot Escalation Team Summary Month of September 2002 CompHot Escalation Team Summary Month of September 2002 Microsoft Confidential Observations and Issues Linux infestations are being uncovered in many of our large accounts as part of the escalation engagements People on the escalation team have gone into AXA Ford WalMart the US Army and other large enterprises where they ve helped block one Linux threat only to have it pop up in other parts of the businesses At General Electric alone at least five major pilots have been identified as well as a new Center of Excellence for Linux at GE Capitol Infestation is not exactly the word I would use to express the idea of customer choice but you know how the software world is a battle zone I am so relieved to see that they are now really perceiving open source as part of their ecosystem This entry was posted on Thursday February 26th 2009 9 20 am and is filed under OSS business models OSS data blog 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 0 Trackbacks 1 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name required E Mail required will not be published Website Submit Comment

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

  • Transparency and dependability for external partners « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    received well over 500 000 of these reports Microsoft has fixes in the pipeline for nearly 2 000 bugs in Windows code not in third party drivers or applications that caused crashes or hangs That s great Microsoft is getting a lot of feedback about Windows 7 What kind of feedback are testers getting from the team in return Very little I get lots of e mail from testers asking me whether Microsoft has fixed specific bugs that have been reported on various comment boards and Web sites I have no idea and neither do they emphasis mine Open source if well managed is radically different I had a conversation with a customer just a few minutes ago asking for specifics on a bug encountered in Zimbra answered simply by forwarding the link to the Zimbra dashboard Not to be outdone Alfresco has a similar openness Or one of my favourite examples OpenBravo Transparency pays becuase it provides a direct handle on development and provides a feedback channel for the eventual network of partners or consultancies that are living off an open source product This kind of transparency is becoming more and more important in our IT landscape because time constraints and visibility of development are becoming even more important than pure monetary considerations and allows for adopters to eventually plan for alternative solutions depending on the individual risks and effort estimates This entry was posted on Wednesday February 25th 2009 4 44 pm and is filed under OSS business models OSS data blog 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 1 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name required E Mail required will not be published Website Submit Comment 451 CAOS

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/transparency-and-dependability-for-external-partners/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • On business models and their relevance « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    to the fact that bigger companies have the capability of creating more complex solutions or to be capable of servicing customers across the globe But in OSS complex solutions can be created by engineering several separate components reducing the need of a larger entity creating things from scratch and cooperation between companies in different geographical areas may provide a reasonable offering with a much smaller overhead the bigger the company the less is spent in real R D and support A smaller but not small company may still be able to provide excellent quality and stability with a more efficient process that translates into more value for dollar for the customer I believe that in the long term the market equilibrium will be based on a set of service based companies providing high specialization and development consortia providing core economies of scale After all there is a strong economic incentive to move development outside of companies and in reduce coding effort through reuse Here is an example from the Nokia Maemo platform In this slide from Erkko Anttila s thesis more data in this previous post it is possible to see how development effort and cost was shifted from the beginning of the project to the end The real value comes from being able to concentrate on differentiating user centered applications those can be still developed in a closed way if the company believes that this gives them greater value but the infrastructure and the 80 of non differentiating software expenditure can be delivered at a much lower price point if developed in a shared way Development consortia like the Eclipse consortium can act as a liasion clearing office for external contributions simplifying the process of contribution from companies The combination of visibility and clear contribution processes can help companies

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

  • The dynamics of OSS adoption - 1 « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    adapt the features of the OSS and commercial parts as we wrote The model has the intrinsic downside that the FLOSS product must be valuable to be attractive for the users but must also be not complete enough to prevent competition with the commercial one 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 a purely open source way thus reducing the attractiveness of the commercial version In other words if the OSS product is too good few will be interested in getting the commercial part while if the OSS product is useless the number of adopters will be too low to increase visibility of the product This balance changes with time and for this reason companies adopting this model need to constantly update their offering and evaluate with time how to split the development effort across paid and OSS branches As I wrote in the beginning there are many different adoption processes in open source software some of those mechanisms are diffusion dissemination cluster propagation directed incentives enforcement In the following posts I will try to provide some insight into each and how to help an OSS company in leveraging the relevant process to help in both adoption and monetization This entry was posted on Tuesday February 24th 2009 9 03 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 4 Trackbacks 1 1 by Sandro Groganz February 24th 2009 at 11 46 The balance between what is often called an Enterprise Edition EE vs Community Edition CE is indeed delicate and a constant process But it s worth it because it allows a FOSS vendor to gradually move Enterprise functionality to the CE once they become commodity features and further disrupt the market by making its CE more attractive May I recommend to also label a CE as commercial software because although a FOSS vendor might not directly earn revenues from it there are system integrators who use it for customer projects and who might at least buy e g training from a vendor Quote 2 by admin February 24th 2009 at 11 58 Thanks for your comment I absolutely agree that open core is an effective model I am just not sure about its long term sustainability Also the labelling of CE as commercial software is appropriate but should be extended to most of OSS after all there is no objection on OSS to be commercialized outside the fringe fanatics Quote 3 by Sandro Groganz February 24th 2009 at 12 54 Concerning sustainability Jahia has an interesting business model labeled sustainable dual licensing Basically when EE customers ask them to develop a generic solution they recommend to them to make it part of the CE version which allows the customer to save maintenance costs

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/the-dynamics-of-oss-adoption-1/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Hello world! « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    adoption of OSS and sometimes helping companies in offering OSS based services so the focus will be clearly oriented towards commercialization and business aspects and less on technical aspects I hope that you will enjoy our effort and I invite any people interested in this research area to transform this blog into a conversation and discussion on what is still a wide open research space This entry was posted on Tuesday February 17th 2009 3 46 pm and is filed under OSS business models OSS data blog 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 0 No comments yet Cancel Reply Name required E Mail required will not be published Website Submit Comment No trackbacks yet blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized April 2015 M T W T F S S Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Archives August 2012 July 2012 March 2012 November 2011 September 2011 July 2011 May 2011

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

  • 17 « February « 2009 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    I hope that you will enjoy our effort and I invite any people interested in this research area to transform this blog into a conversation and discussion on what is still a wide open research space No Comments You are currently browsing the archives for Tuesday February 17th 2009 blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized February 2009 M T W T F S S Mar

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2009/02/17/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 20 « February « 2009 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    traditional albeit not always accurate COCOMO model Here are some results Maemo The total software stack includes 10 5 million lines of code product and development tools which is split into 85 coming directly from OSS and 15 either modified or developed by Nokia In source code lines the respective amounts are 8 9 Million lines of OSS code and 1 6 million lines of Nokia developed software Out of the 15 created by Nokia 50 are made available to the community as modifications to components or totally new components leaving roughly 7 5 of the software stack closed Based on the COCOMO model we can estimate the value of the utilized OSS to be 228 000 000 including both product software and tools Apple Based on the COCOMO model the total cost of internally developing the OSS included in the Darwin core and the used development tools would be 350 000 000 This is not however the only advantage as Ari Jaaksi of Nokia mentioned during one of his presentations No need to execute complex licensing negotiations Saving can be up to 6 12 months in real projects 6 12 months of totally non productive wait are not a bad savings but when added to the developers time saved by reuse we have estimated that for end user products the total savings are between 12 and 18 months and for consumer products especially in IT reducing time to market by one year means having a significant first mover advantage So the next time someone wonders why LCD TVs from Sony Sharp LG use Linux and other OSS components inside tell them that it s the only way to be competitive 5 Comments You are currently browsing the archives for Friday February 20th 2009 blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2009/02/20/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive



  •