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".
  • Index of /tag/floss/page
    floss page Name Last modified Size Description Parent Directory 2 28 Apr 2015 08 54 3 28 Apr 2015 08 54 Apache 2 2 15 CentOS Server at carlodaffara conecta

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/floss/page/?p=22 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • blog « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    and licensing the resulting product as a whole under a traditional commercial license In my classification that would fit within the R D cost sharing Page 5 Another industry analyst firm the 451 Group identified more than 100 ICT companies who rely on OSS to 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 suggestion is to evaluate the whole cost of an IT adoption using metrics that cover the full lifetime of an application my favourite is the German WiBe model Page 9 A second key principle is a balance that preserves constructive competition and healthy incentives when individuals and companies are rewarded for creative differentiation customers benefit from a dynamic marketplace that offers more product choices Incentives for commercial investment in new innovation should coexist and coevolve alongside practical mechanisms for sharing intellectual property IP with the overarching focus on a dynamic industry that continues to bring great ideas to customers And this is for those that are asking for the abolition or the reduction in scope of software patents and the invocation of open standards that are non IPR encumbered I already wrote in the past against software patents and I believe to be not alone in claiming that the hypothetical advantage of software patents seems to pale in comparison to the extensive damage that it is causing to the industry And no claiming that the thriving software ecosystem that we see now happens because of software patents should be rephrased in the thriving software ecosystem that we see now happens despite of software patents Page 10 We have long sought to contribute to the growth of an open ecosystem whether through publicly documenting thousands of application programming interfaces APIs It took the European Commission and a record fine for violation of EU monopoly laws to abtain the release of crucial APIs Page 10 More than 500 commercial IP agreements with companies from a wide range of industries including companies building their businesses around OSS Again I would not claim that after the substantial brouhaha in the Novell patent pact considering that it does not covers things like OpenOffice Page 10 And we have stated broad openness to noncommercial OSS development through the Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers Nice despite the fact that noncommercial OSS is an oxymoron as placing additional redistribution limits make it non OSS The paper ends with a very promising phrase We recognize that in the future Microsoft s relationship with OSS may be punctuated by strong emotions and the possibility of interests that at times will be in conflict But we are profoundly optimistic will surface new opportunities for Microsoft and open source to grow together in purposeful and complementary ways I would be very happy to have Microsoft as a good OSS citizen even with the recognition that their path may sometimes conflict this is true also of other fellows like IBM or Sun as well But I would start with a more balanced introduction or at least one that has not such a significant percentage of hidden ideas Openness is before everything else in the mind if your ideas are strong enough they will survive and thrive 8 Comments From theory to practice the personal desktop linux experiment Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data blog on March 3rd 2009 In my previous post I tried to provide a simple theoretical introduction to the UTAUT technology adoption model and the four main parameters that govern the probability of adoption as a complement I will present here a small demonstration on how to use the model to improve the adoption of a specific technology that is the user chosen personal computer with Linux as single operating system The reason for the user chosen is related to the different adoption processes for personal computers in a personal setting for example hobbyist student micro enterprise versus the business or public authority environment those will be discussed in a future post The idea for this experiment came out of a workshop I held in Manila where I had the pleasure to discuss with the technical manager of the largest PC chain in the Philippines about how to best introduce a Linux PC into the market To set the context we will present an example of an optimization exercise for the take up of a Linux based PC to be distributed and used mainly for personal purposes and acquired through direct channels like large distribution networks computer reseller chains individual stores The first important point is related to the market there are really two separate transactions the first one from the computer manufacturer to the chain and the second from the chain to the individual users The two markets are distinct and have widely differing properties from manufacturer to chain there is a small number of legal agreements the reseller redistribution agreements the main driver for the manufacturer is to acquire volume while the chain is interested in profit margins for the single sale and overall volume how fast the stock can be moved and sales of complimentary products from chain to users there is a large number of very small transactions the main driver for the chain is to get as much margin on aggregate sales as possible think selling the PC the printer and associated consumables while the buyer is looking for a specific set of functionalities at a reasonable price like being able to browse the web using email writing letters and such What is useful for the first transaction may be useless for the second the fundamental idea is that both transactions have to happen and be sustainable for the market to be self sustaining and long running a short running market may even be negative if a chain start selling a model and discontinues it after a little while the end users may believe that it is no longer sold because of defects or because it was not competitive Think for a moment about the comments after WalMart stopped selling in store the very low cost Linux PC that is still offered online despite the fact that no real quality issues was found most commentators associated the end of the experiment with a general failure for Linux PCs as for the source of the reference to quality issues it is extracted from the Comes vs Microsoft documents related to WalMart We understand that there has not been a customer satisfaction issue WalMart sets fairly strict standards for customer return rates and service calls So our optimization experiment need to satisfy two constraints guarantee a margin eventually compounded from accessory sales on every sale guarantee low inventory fast turnaround and this means that adopters should buy with a high probability after first or second sight Let s recall the four parameters for adoption and apply them for the specific situation performance expectancy is this PC fast is it able to perform the tasks that I need effort expectancy is it easy to use social influence is it appropriate for me to use to be shown buying it what my peers will say when I will show it facilitating conditions is there someone that will help me in using it will it work with my network Let s start with performance expectancy Most Linux pc are really very low cost substandard machines assembled with the overall idea that price is the only sensitive point In this sense while true that Linux and open source allows for far greater customizability and speed it is usually impossible to compensate for extreme speed differences this means that to be able to satisfy the majority of users we cannot aim for the lowest possible price A good estimate of the bill of materials is the median of the lowest quartile of the price span of current PC in the market approximately 10 to 20 more than the lowest price After the hardware is selected our suggestion is to use a standard linux distribution like Ubuntu and add to it any necessary component that will make it work out of the box Why a standard distribution Because this way users will have not only a potential community of peers to ask for help but the cost of maintaining it will be spread as an example most tailor made Linux distributions for NetBooks are not appealing because they employ old version of software packages This provides an explanation of why Dell had so much success in selling Linux netbooks compared to other vendors with one third of the netbooks sold with plain Ubuntu Having a standard distribution reduces costs for the technology provider provides a safety mechanism for the reseller chain that is not dependent on a single company and provides the economic advantage of a cost less license that increase the chain margin Effort expectancy what is the real expectancy of the user Where do the user obtains his informations from The reality is that most potential adopters get their information from peers magazines and in many cases from in store exploration and talks with store clerks The clear preference that most users demonstrate towards Windows really comes from a rational reasoning based on incomplete information the user wants to use the PC to perform some activites he knows that to perform such activities software is needed he knows that Windows has lots of software so Windows is a safe bet The appearance of Apple OS X demonstrated that this reasoning can be modified for example by presenting a nicer user experience OS X owners get in contact with other potential adopters are shown a different environment that seems to be capable of performing the most important talks and so 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 new system quickly XP 80 80 of the Linux test participants said that they would need a maximum of one week to achieve the same competency as on their current system XP 85 92 of the Linux test participants rated the use of the computers as easy XP 95 This provides evidence than when properly presented a Linux desktop can provide a good end user experience The other important part is related to applications two to five screenshots for every major application will provide an initial perception that the machine is equally capable of performing the most common tasks and equally important is the fact that such applications need to be pre installed and ready to use And with ready to use I mean with all the potential enhancements that are available but not installed like the extended GIMP plugin collection that is available under Ubuntu as gimp plugin registry or the various thesauri and cliparts for OpenOffice org A similar activity may be performed with regards to games that should be already installed and available for the end user Some installers for the most requested games may be added using wine through a pre loader and installer like PlayOnLinux we found that in recent Wine builds performance is quite good and in general better than that of proprietary repackaging like Cedega One suggestion that we added is to have a separate set of repository from which to update the various packages to allow for pre testing of package upgrades before they reach the end users This for example would allow for the creation of alternate packages outside of the Ubuntu main repositories that guarantee the functionality of the various hardware part even if the upstream driver changes like it recently happened with the inclusion of the new Atheros driver line in the kernel that complicated the upgrade process for netbooks with this kind of hardware chipset The cost and complexity of this activity is actually fairly low requiring mainly bandwidth and storage something that in the time of Amazon and cloud computing has a much lower impact and limited human intervention The next variable is social acceptance and is much more nuanced and difficult to assess it also changes in a significant way from country to country so it is more difficult for me to provide simple indications One aspect that we

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/category/blog/page/4/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    EveryDesk Use Cases Tuesday June 22nd 2010 Tags EveryDesk open source OSS adoption OSS migration public administrations Posted in EveryDesk 3 Comments And now for something totally different EveryDesk Monday June 21st 2010 Tags open source OSS adoption OSS business models OSS migration public administrations Posted in OSS adoption blog 16 Comments About software forges Thursday June 17th 2010 Tags open source Posted in blog divertissements 3 Comments Why HTML5 Co are better for browsers and what is still missing Thursday May 27th 2010 Tags open source Posted in divertissements 2 Comments An analysis of WebM and its patent risk updated Tuesday May 25th 2010 Tags open source Posted in divertissements 36 Comments How to analyse an OSS business model part five Wednesday May 19th 2010 Tags open source OSS adoption OSS business models Posted in OSS business models 2 Comments On open source competence centers Monday April 26th 2010 Tags open source OSS adoption public administrations Posted in OSS adoption 8 Comments Older Entries Newer Entries 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

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/5/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OSS business models « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    4 Comments Another take on the financial value of open source Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on March 13th 2009 The real value of open source in financial terms has been one of my favourite arguments and I had the opportunity to research in this area for a long time thanks to our work for the customers for which we provide consulting on OSS business models I recently found a new post on this by Bruno Von Rotz with some preliminary conclusions like total value of USD 100 to 150 billion I would assume that some of it comes from enterprises and large organizations but this is probably max 20 30 of it I would like to provide first of all a validation of the first part and a comment on the second As for the software market Gartner published in 2006 a very well done study on OSS in the context of the overall software market and among the various results there is one that I found quite interesting Considering the fact that some parallel data points like results 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 2 Comments Our definitions of OSS based business models Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on March 13th 2009 Two days ago Matthew Aslett was so kind to comment on our new research on OSS business models especially our new taxonomy based on our latest extensions of the FLOSSMETRICS methodology and the increase in the number of surveyed companies We both share the interest in having a clear simple and usable set of definitions to avoid confusion when referring to specific business models and he decided to publish the previously private set of definitions that were adopted in the CAOS report Open source is not a business model As I would like to find a converging set of definitions I will publish here a pre release of our next edition of the OSS guide that covers in more detail what Lampitt classify as vendor licensing strategy My hope is to see if it is possible to find an agreed to definition that can be shared by researchers and experts As already mentioned in my previous post we introduced several changes compared to the previous edition It does for the first time disaggregate what was originally called ITSC Installation training support consulting because many successful companies are now specializing in a single activity This is a significant change from 2006 when we started collecting data on OSS models when companies were performing in a more or less undifferentiated way all those activities We believe that this specialization will continue with the enlargement of the commercial OSS market We removed the badgeware category from the list We found that some of the vendors that originally followed this model disappeared and for those remaining protection from freeriding and overall model was more or less morphed into a open core or split oss commercial As the visibility clause can now be included in the GPLv3 I believe that the remaining few badgeware licenses will disappear quickly As for our missing model proprietary built on open we found that basically the majority of products use OSS inside so we are waiting to finish our second strand of research on how to separate those products that are entirely OSS based from those that merely use OSS our current idea is related to the substitution principle is it possible to market the same product when all OSS components are substituted by non OSS ones Does it falls in the same market or it becomes something radically different This is a common theme that tries to answer questions like would it have been possible for Google to be based on proprietary software Taking this into consideration here is our new taxonomy Dual licensing the same software code distributed under the GPL and a commercial 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 buy a commercial license that is in a sense an exception to the binding clause by those that value the free as in speech idea of free libre software this is seen as a good compromise between helping those that abide to the GPL and receive the software for free and make their software available as FLOSS and benefiting through the commercial license for those that want to maintain the code proprietary 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 that becomes mainly limited to bug fixes and small additions Open Core previously called split OSS commercial this model distinguish between a basic FLOSS software and a commercial version based on the libre one but with the addition of proprietary plugins Most companies adopt as license the Mozilla Public License as it allows explicitly this form of intermixing and allows for much greater participation from external contributions as no acceptance of double licensing is required 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 Product specialist s companies that created or maintain a specific software project and use a pure 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 environment IDE originally open sourced 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 Gosh estimates that it is possible to obtain savings in terms of software research and development of 36 through the use of FLOSS this is in itself the largest actual market for FLOSS as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of developers are using at least some open source software within their own code Indirect revenues A company may decide to fund open source 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 open source software The loss leader is a traditional commercial model common also outside of the world of software in this model effort is invested in an open source project to create or extend another market under different conditions For example hardware vendors invest in the development of software drivers for open source operating systems like Linux to extend the market of the hardware itself Other ancillary models are for example those of the Mozilla foundation that 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 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 the last few years a large number of companies shifted from an open core model to a pure product specialist one to leverage the external community of contributors 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 5 Comments Comparing companies effectiveness a response to Savio Rodrigues Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized on March 9th 2009 I was intrigued by a twit from Stéfane Fermigier Comparing only 1 oss vendor RHAT and 1 proprietary monopolistic one MSFT is really a deep piece of economic science with a link to this article by long time OSS debater supporter critic fellow Savio Rodrigues that compares the financial breakdown of RedHat and Microsoft and concludes that the commonly held hypothesis that open source gives a capital advantage by providing savings on R D is not true In particular The argument is that commercial vendors spend on items such as advertising marketing R D and most importantly expensive direct sales representatives We re told that open source vendors spend significantly less on these items and hence can be more capital efficient These costs make up the difference between the costs of doing business as a commercial vendor vs an open source vendor Somehow those numbers didn t seem right to me I am always skeptical of the We re told part as I also remember the we re told that all open source is developed by students in basements we re told that we can give the source code and people will start work on it and many other unsubstantiated or out of context comments I would like to point out a few things first of all there are structural limits in how public listed companies can perform and how the financial breakdown is performed If Savio tried to extend his somewhat limited analysis to other public companies in the same sector he would have found that most of them are nearly identical in R D versus SG A costs when compared within the same class in terms of market capitalisation In fact only startups that rarely can go to the stock market have an higher than average R D Other companies with similar properties are companies in the biochemistry and drug design firms that have a long incubation period to create a product and for this reason have a high R D share Then the balance sheet is in itself not a good way to measure the productivity or savings in development compared to same class companies In fact as I wrote some days ago savings due to the adoption of OSS are not inherently visible in balance sheets but appear as better quality product or as the capability of producing goods at a lower price point In fact just thinking of comparing RedHat with a company that is 55 times larger should provide an idea of how big an advantage is OSS in terms of efficiency Many companies are helped by the existence of a trialable product and in this sense there may be a core of truth in the idea that cost for customer acquisition may be lower I am not convinced that cost reduction is so significant at least not to the same extent of R D advantages that are clearly easier to measure and that tend to be significant I agree with Savio that competition should not happen exclusively on pricing but it may be a part of a larger strategy but I contend that by looking just at two balance sheet breackdowns can give us information on whether OSS is more or less efficient in terms of product creation I continue to believe that in many markets OSS provides a substantial advantage after all Rishab et al estimated the average R D advantage at 36 my estimates are from 20 to 75 in specific industrial areas but in any case substantial update Savio added another company Tibco which is similar to RedHat size as before it shows very similar results It is my belief that even adding additional companies will more or less show that for software intensive companies the results will be more or less the same I also believe that the real comparison should happen outside the financial sheets by comparing the market in which markets do the company compete What is the average size of the competitors If we can show that on average OSS companies tend to be efficient competitors in markets much larger than their own then we can show that OSS can give an advantage If Rishab s evaluation is right the 36 increased efficiency should bring the equivalent of a capital advantage of 50 roughly so we should check whether RedHat or Alfresco effectively compete with companies that

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/category/oss-business-models/page/5/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Index of /tag/open-source/page
    Description Parent Directory 2 28 Apr 2015 08 54 3 28 Apr 2015 08 54 4 28 Apr 2015 08 54 5 28 Apr 2015 08 54 6 28 Apr 2015 08 54 7 28 Apr 2015 08 54 Apache

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/open-source/page/?p=372 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    even in absence of a connection If the pages allow for detached operation using Gears HTML5 persistent storage or similar mechanisms the system will work even without a connection It is a stopgag solution but is sensible most of the time spent in desktop applications is centered on online services that are unusable without a connection so it makes sense when considering the OS as something that is not competing in the same market as a traditional PC Local cached web applications may provide in the future more flexibility in this sense but moch effort needs to be done to make it a worthwhile path If we consider how people spend time on the PC we can use the data from Wakoopa that ublished recently a measurement of time spent per application on Windows OSX and Linux and shows that for example on Windows the time is spent with Firefox 28 71 Internet Explorer 6 88 Google Chrome 6 62 Windows Explorer 5 92 Windows Live Messenger 4 25 Opera 2 97 Microsoft Office Word 2 51 Microsoft Office Outlook 2 22 World of Warcraft 1 45 Skype 1 30 Apart from Microsoft Word no other application can be used without a connection at the same time most of the applications may be supplanted by future versions of web applications if the evolution around HTML and related standards continue at the current pace For games up and coming standards like WebGL and O3D may provide this in a clientless way this is similar to the Quake Live game that at the moment requires an additional plug in but that may be potentially recoded using only those standards It integrates digital identities better than anyone else You login once then everything just works Enterprise users with large scale SSO systems sometimes encounter this but is not that common in consumer and smaller companies and is a great productivity tool It is just the beginning more sophisticated user interfaces are needed this one for example would be great but many companies including Microsoft are making great progresses in this direction It introduces a different model Desktop PC are flexible adaptable usable without connectivity complex fragile difficult to manage Thin bitmap based like RDP or ICA clients are slightly easier to manage require no support require substantial infrastructure investments cannot work detached have marginally lower management costs The model adopted by Google leverages the local computing power for rendering pages reducing back end costs is simpler to manage requires no support and can integrate through plug ins or browser functionalities rich functionalities like 3D with WebGL and O3d or native processing through NaCL but always within the context of web delivered applications The future will be the final judge after all even if something is not successful directly it may seed a future evolution that is capable of shaking the market substantially The real impact of Negroponte s OLPC was not the machine in itself despite the boatloads of innovations contained within but the re framing of the netbook market similarly maybe it will be not ChromiumOS that will lead the change but I believe that it is a bold statement in fact much bolder than the code that was released chromium chromiumos FLOSS google open source 5 Comments See you at OMAT Rome Posted by cdaffara in blog on November 9th 2009 I am grateful to Flavia Marzano for the invitation to being part of the roundtable on applications and services for handling digital assets where I will present an overview of the tools and best practices for using open source in the context of Enterprise2 0 It is part of OMAT360 the oldest running conference on digital information management started in 1990 and representing a wonderful opportunity to present the last results from FLOSSMETRICS The conference is free with a registration page here and an english presentation here I would love to use the opportunity to meet anyone that may be interested in the topics or in OSS in general conference FLOSS open source 1 Comment Why COMmunity COMpany is a winning COMbination Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models on October 16th 2009 There is an interesting debate partially moved by Matt Asay with sound responses from Matthew Aslett that centered on the reasons for or not moving part of the core IP asset of an open source company towards an externally controlled group like a consortia Matthew rightly indicates that this is probably the future direction of OSS the 4 0 of his graph and I tried to address this with a few friends on twitter but 140 chars are too few So I will use this space to provide a small overview of my belief the current structure based on open core is a temporary step in a more appropriate commercialization structure that for efficiency reason should be composed of a commuity managed or at least transparently managed consortia that manages the core of what now is the open source part of open core offerings and a purely proprietary company that provides the monetization services may those be proprietary add ons paid services and so on Why Because the current structure is not the most efficient to enable participation from outside groups if you look at the various open core offerings the majority of the code is developed from in house developers while on community managed consortia the code may be originated by a single company but is taken up by more entities The best example is Eclipse as recently measured 25 of the committers work for IBM with individuals accounting for 22 and a large number of companies like Oracle Borland Actuate and many others with percentages that go from 1 to 7 in a collective non IBM collaboration Having then a pure proprietary company that sells services or add ons also removes any possibility of misunderstanding about what is offered to the customer and thus will make the need of a OSS checklist unnecessary Of course this means that the direction of the project is no longer in the hand of a single company and this may be a problem for investors that may want to have some form of exclusivity or guarantee of maintaining the control But my impression is that there is only the illusion of control because if there is a large enough payoff forks will make the point moot exactly like it happened with MySQL and by relieving control the company gets back a much enlarged community of developers and potential adopters FLOSS open source 3 Comments 2020 FLOSS Roadmap 2009 Version published Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption blog on October 13th 2009 Having contributed to the new edition of the 2020 FLOSS roadmap I am happy to forward the announcement relative to the main updates and changes of the 2020 FLOSS roadmap document I am especially fond of the FOSS is like a Forest analogy that in my opinion captures well the hidden dynamics that is created when many different projects create an effective synergy that may be difficult to perceive for those that are not within the same forest For its first edition Open World Forum had launched an initiative of prospective unique in the world the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap see 2008 version This Roadmap is a projection of the influences that will affect FLOSS until 2020 with descriptions of all FLOSS related trends as anticipated by an international workgroup of 40 contributors over this period of time and highlights 7 predictions and 8 recommendations 2009 edition of Open World Forum gave place to an update of this Roadmap reflecting the evolutions noted during the last months see OWF keynote presentation According to Jean Pierre Laisné coordinator of 2020 FLOSS Roadmap and Bull Open Source Strategy For the first edition of the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap we had the ambition to bring to the debate a new lighting thanks to an introspective and prospective vision This second edition demonstrates that not only this ambition is reached but that the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap is actually a guide describing the paths towards a knowledge economy and society based on intrinsic values of FLOSS About 2009 version full printable version available here So far so good Contributors to the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap estimate that their projections are still relevant The technological trends envisioned including the use of FLOSS for virtualization micro blogging and social networking have been confirmed Contributors consider that their predictions about Cloud Computing may have to be revised due to accelerating adoption of the concepts by the market The number of mature FLOSS projects addressing all technological and organizational aspects of Cloud Computing is confirming the importance of FLOSS in this area Actually the future of true Open Clouds will mainly depend on convergence towards a common definition of openness and open services Open Cloud Tribune Following the various discussions and controversies around the topic FLOSS and Cloud Computing this opinion column aims to nourish the debates on this issue by freely publishing the various opinions and points of view 2009 s article questions about the impact of Cloud Computing on employment in IT Contradictory evolutions While significant progress was observed in line with 2020 FLOSS Roadmap the 2009 Synthesis highlights contradictory evolutions the penetration of FLOSS continues but at political level there is still some blocking In spite of recognition from intellectuals the alliance between security and proprietary has been reinforced and has delayed the evolution of lawful environments In terms of public policies progress is variable Except in Brazil United Kingdom and the Netherlands who have made notable moves no other major stimulus for FLOSS has appeared on the radar The 2009 Synthesis is questioning why governments are still reluctant to adopt a more voluntary FLOSS attitude Because FLOSS supports new concepts of society and supports the links between technology and solidarity it should be taken into account in public policies Two new issues Considering what has been published in 2008 two new issues have emerged which will need to be explored in the coming months proprietary hardware platforms which may slow the development of FLOSS and proprietary data which may create critical lock ins even when software is free The global economic crisis While the global crisis may have had a negative impact on services based businesses and services vendors specializing in FLOSS it has proved to be an opportunity for most FLOSS vendors who have seen their business grow significantly in 2009 When it comes to Cloud based businesses the facts tend to show a massive migration of applications in the coming months Impressive growth in terms of hosting is paving the way for these migrations Free software and financial system this new theme of the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap makes its appearance in the version 2009 in order to take into account the role which FLOSS can hold in a system which currently is the target of many reflexions Sun Oracle The acquisition of Sun by Oracle is seen by contributors to the 2009 Synthesis as a major event with the potential risk that it will significantly redefine the FLOSS landscape But while the number of major IT players is decreasing the number of small and medium size companies focused around FLOSS is growing rapidly This movement is structured around technology communities and business activities with some of the business models involved being hybrid ones FLOSS is like forests The 2009 Synthesis puts forward this analogy to make it easier to understand the complexity of FLOSS through the use of a simple and rich image Like forests and their canopies which play host to a rich bio diversity and diverse ecosystems FLOSS is diverse with multiple layers and branches both in term of technology and creation of wealth Like a forest FLOSS provides vital oxygen to industry Like forests which have brought both health and wealth throughout human history FLOSS plays an important role in the transformation of society Having accepted this analogy contributors to the Roadmap subsequently identified different kind of forests old growth forests or primary forests which are pure community based FLOSS projects such as Linux cultivated forests which are the professional and business oriented projects such as Jboss and MySQL and FLOSS tree nurseries which are communities such as Apache OW2 and Eclipse And finally the IKEAs of FLOSS are companies such as Red Hat and Google Ego altruism The 2009 Synthesis insists on the need to encourage FLOSS users to contribute to FLOSS not for altruistic reasons but rather for egoistical ones It literally recommends users to only help when it benefits themselves Thanks to FLOSS public sector bodies NGOs companies citizens etc have full free and fair access to technologies enabling them to communicate on a global level To make sure that they will always have access to these powerful tools they have to support and participate in the sustainability of FLOSS New Recommendation To reinforce these ideas the 2020 FLOSS Roadmap in its 2009 Synthesis added to the existing list of recommendations Acknowledge the intrinsic value of FLOSS infrastructure for essential applications as a public knowledge asset or as knowledge commons and consider new means to ensure its sustainable development Contact http www 2020flossroadmap org contact FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models public administrations No Comments All the possible errors in a single slide Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on October 5th 2009 I found this slide deck from a very large and visible software company that I will not name leaving it as an the exercise for the reader I believe that it was created to provide a clear response to many popular misconceptions on open source software Unfortunately it seems to collect in a single slide most of the myths and false assumptions that I have already mentioned in our past work within FLOSSMETRICS First of all zero cost is something that may be true or not it simply is not the defining attribute of open source software At the same time saying that proprietary software has lower ongoing cost is not overall true and I have tons of independent confirmation of that claiming that proprietary has more features is as before not universally true saying that proprietary software maintains backward compatibility generated substantial laughter across the poor people here in the office that has to provide support to our commercial customers claiming that proprietary is more secure recalled the recent attack against DNS claiming that it was poorly protected freeware Should I continue Open standards anyone And the last one implying that only proprietary software is based on managed development Any commercial OSS vendor would happily dismiss this claim as untrue Commitment on support I believe that my fellow three readers would not encountering any difficulties in thinking about proprietary products that got bought and buried underground or that simply got scrapped altogether Ah I would happily send my guide to this fellow slide author but I believe that probably this would not change this company views a single bit FLOSS open source 1 Comment OSS the real point is software control Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on September 30th 2009 Ah the morning aroma of a freshly brewed flame war With our restless Matt Asay that sternly observes that in the free software open source war open source won and we are all the better for it Of course this joins the rack of those that consider Richard Stallman a relic of a passed era or the thoughtful comments of my favourite thinker Glyn Moody or the pragmatic and reasoned views of Matthew Aslett of the 451 group If there is one thing that emerges clearly from all these discussions is that fundamentalism is wrong It is wrong when it is spelled OSS is better it is wrong when it claims Microsoft is better without any reasoning Because rational thinking should be the basis of discussion not religion This is not to say that religion or moral motivations are bad but beliefs should be recognised beforehand to avoid turning any discussion into a flame war That s why I may feel at ease in criticizing Stallman for what I perceive as personal attacks and at the same time recognize the fact that without him and the GPL the free software and open source world would be much less developed and relevant My perspective is simple every user developer administrator that depends on software and basically everyone does today should think before using a software or service and understand who control it and if this who is not the user what can happen It is not just a question of religious beliefs but practical thinking is the software yours Does the service you are using gives you the opportunity of moving somewhere else What happens if the developers are not going in the direction you need If we consider this as the basis for discussion lots of arguments in the OSS FS camp become much simpler The crusade against software patents is a way of defending the rights of use of the end user against arbitrary legal attacks in this sense the only real reason for being not happy of having something like Mono is not the fact that it is a Microsoft standard but the fact that it is probably covered by unknown patents The same thing applies for Flash most people is dependent from a single company for what amounts as a platform still not replicated by OSS alternatives like Gnash and in any case potentially covered by patents not only by Adobe but by many other companies as well The victory of pragmatism that Matt proclaims is not actually related to FS and OSS that are the same exact thing but the general overcoming of emotional based arguments that is absolutely a positive thing But the new pragmatism should also be viewed with suspicion exactly as the claims that free software is better without reason I will

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/open-source/page/5/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    OSS business model part two Thursday February 18th 2010 Tags open source OSS business models Posted in OSS business models 2 Comments How to analyse an OSS business model part one Wednesday February 17th 2010 Tags open source OSS business models Posted in OSS business models 3 Comments The H264 codec problem or we should find a better way Tuesday January 26th 2010 Posted in blog divertissements No Comments ChromiumOS a look in the code and in the model updated Tuesday November 24th 2009 Tags chromium chromiumos FLOSS google open source Posted in blog divertissements 5 Comments See you at OMAT Rome Monday November 9th 2009 Tags conference FLOSS open source Posted in blog 1 Comment Why COMmunity COMpany is a winning COMbination Friday October 16th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models 3 Comments 2020 FLOSS Roadmap 2009 Version published Tuesday October 13th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models public administrations Posted in OSS adoption blog No Comments Older Entries Newer Entries 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

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/6/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OSS business models « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    to a 1B company What I am not convinced of is that this is in itself such a significant goal after all the importance of being big is related 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 in the shift from shy participants that prefer to have individual developers commit changes to projects thus relieving the company from any liability but still reaping the advantages of participation to contribution and championing 3 Comments The dynamics of OSS adoption 1 Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on February 24th 2009 There are many different mechanisms behind OSS adoption and understanding the differences makes it easier to help companies in using them efficiently after all word of mouth may be sufficient to get visibility but it may be not enough to guarantee adoption and then converting this adoption into paid services In fact monetization may require a large number of adopters to get a small percentage of paid users in many domains only 0 05 of adopters pays for services a percentage that we call unconstrained monetization percentage or UMP to make it sound more academic While it is true that the incremental cost for the OSS company of having a new adopter is zero or extremely

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/category/oss-business-models/page/6/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive



  •