Recent Updates Page 121 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 1:24 pm on December 31, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Telcos enjoy Open Source 

    In the last years we have been seeing open source adoption getting popular by telcos.
    In my entrepreneurial experience telco operators use open source infrastructures to achieve a competitive advantage through customization; viable OS projects in this respect are freeRADIUS, OpenLDAP and Squid, just to name a few.

    Beyond my experiences I noticed MySQL is doing very well in the telco arena, and the SCOPE alliance, founded by Alcatel, Ericsson, Motorola, NEC, Nokia and Siemens to

    enable and promote the availability of open carrier grade base platforms based on COTS hw/sw and FLOSS building blocks

    has almost one year now.

    Also Telecom Italia has recently revealed its strategical approach to open source, showing an interest in developing enabling ecosystems based on OS community.

    There are even new generation companies, like Tellme , build almost completely on open source, read the full story.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 12:47 pm on December 30, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Commercial Open Source Software 

    I meet a lot of people using the term “commercial software” as the opposite of open source or free software, and that’s why I titled my blog Commercial Open Source Software. I was amazed today when I happened to read Wheeler’s essay Commercial is not the opposite of Free-Libre / Open Source Software.
    David A. Wheeler, who has written a number of articles as the famous “Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!” paper or the list of the most important software innovations, about himself and his approach to open source said:

    I’m not a Linux advocate. I’m an advocate for considering the use of open source software / free software (OSS/FS). As I clearly state in my “Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!” paper, I think it’s a serious problem that many people fail to even consider OSS/FS products.

    I always recommended his paper to have a in depth look into the TCO thing, and from now on I will suggest people getting wrong thinking that FLOSS and commercial software are opposites to read his last work.

    I found interesting his walk through the U.S. regulation to show that FLOSS programs are commercial items for purposes of the U.S. government, and I hope it applies to other countries.

    I liked very much his conclusion, a good advice for CIO busy choosing good consultants:

    A speaker who uses the term “commercial” as an antonym for FLOSS is probably someone who doesn’t understand FLOSS yet. And someone doesn’t understand the fundamentals of how software is governed will be constantly confused about what controls every device on the planet. Be wary of people who have such a basic lack of understanding; they are far less likely to give good software advice or to make good software-related decisions.

    Thanks David for your job!

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 11:58 am on December 29, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Franchising (Matt Asay) 

    I’m glad Matt Asay found time to post about my franchising idea. The ball is rolling.

    Matt reporting numbers I cited from IDC and Forrester studies said:

    IDC found that 38% of enterprises hire outside consultants to do their migration services and 39% hire outside consultants to do implementation services. For these same services, 59% and 66%, respectively, do the work themselves, internally.

    This means that either a) this sort of work is best/cheapest done internally or b) no one has created a viable model to do these basic services better/cheaper/faster.

    I believe both a) and b) apply, and it makes perfect sense to me because:

    • Medium to Large companies use OS to take back control, and to save money;
      .
    • SMEs use OS just to save money, and they keep outsourcing IT services..

    Large companies demand OS add-value services, and they don’t want to cope with the myriads of small to nano firms delivering OS-based solutions. Today they have no many options, since medium to large System Integrator are not ready yet to deliver those services, at least in Europe.

    SMEs instead need more basic service than anything else, and they’re the perfect target.
    No one has created yet a viable model to do these basic services better/cheaper/faster, as Matt said, and setting Service Level Agreement (SLA) could greatly help.

    SLA in my vision are a must, and the reason is simple: customers don’t know much about open source, but that “it costs nothing”. And unfortunately the perceived value of a good/service is somehow related to its price. On the other hand perceptual benchmarking is done by customers comparing known reference goods/services, and here I see an opportunity.

    What if those basics services would be delivered on time, on budget and respecting pre-established criteria? Entepreneurs and professionists (lawyers, technical studies, etc) are driven by the urgence of their business, they want clear and prompt answers, but local small firms don’t follow any checklist, don’t offer any real SLA, don’t match their needs.

    The franchisor may offer a solid experience in organizing, training franchisees making them able to cope with customers expectations, besides all other usual services. I believe training is the key.

    IT basic services today are supplied by artisans, and perceived as a sort of “digital handicraft”. What we need is moving from artisanship to an industrial age of IT services.
    But Industrialising IT requires changes on the part of providers of IT services, and of customers.

    Another interesting suggestion from Matt:

    For this reason I think Novell, with its experience with its YES! certification program, might be in the pole position to deliver a robust franchising program. It, too, has a strong open source desktop offering (better than Sun’s, in my opinion), Linux, etc. And since a big swath of enterprises (44%, according to data cited by Roberto) use Linux for web/email services, as well as file/print, where Novell has good experience, it might be a good product fit, too.

    Novell the mixed-source company might well be a candidate. I found two reason to say Sun is the perfect candidate, and I’m curious to know your opinion on that:

    • Sun is (mostly) an hardware vendor, being a franchisor might help them to sell hardware;
      .
    • Sun is giving away almost all its software, and it has no clear OS strategy yet..

    The first reason is quite simple, and it’s a very good one to spend time and effort in developing a franchising model. The second doesn’t deserve any explanations, I guess.

    IBM is my the second best.

    Frank Hecker, executive director of the Mozilla Foundation, author of the classical Setting up a shop – The business of Open-Source Software, on Matt Asay blog argued that:

    I’m also not an expert in ISV channel programs, but these two aspects seem a major departure from traditional arrangements. I have to wonder how successful a vendor like Sun or Novell with an existing channel program would be in moving their channel partners to such a model.

    He is right, overlapping between the franchising model and the channel program is an issue.
    Open Source Franchising demand an effort to clearly identify differences between those channels, and this it’s definitely much easier for Sun than for Novell (because of different channel programs).

    The ideal franchisee is a startup company, young people able and willing to invest time and money, smart and rigorous hacker.

     
    • Frank Hecker 9:07 pm on December 30, 2006 Permalink

      “The ideal franchisee is a startup company…” Do you mean that a startup company would be the best candidate to build a business based on franchising to others, or that startups would be good candidates for companies like Sun or Novell to recruit as franchisees?

      Because of potential conflicts with existing channel programs, I think a startup company would be best positioned to use a franchising model to grow its business, as opposed to creating a conventional channel program: As a new company a startup would not have any problems with channel conflicts.

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:49 pm on December 30, 2006 Permalink

      I believe startups would be good candidates for companies like Sun (IBM, Novell, etc) as franchisees. Startups must bear the burdens of liabilities of newness, of smallness and of fundamental uncertainty.
      Both newness and smallness might be well mitigated by a (good) franchising program, that’s why a startup might be interested.
      But a startup is viable from the franchisor perspective also, since it’s not lost in daily activities and can manage to spend time and effort to train its human resources.

      I follow your line of thought when you say it would be easier for a startup to run a franchising model (no channel conflicts), but a well established brand might make the difference.

      By the way it’s worth notice that multinationals are already having troubles with channel programs, but that’s another story.

  • Roberto Galoppini 6:03 pm on December 28, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Software Patent: “No Lobbyist As Such” 

    Over the last four years I have been actively involved with the so called war over software patent, and I had a chance to know many entepreneurs, politicians and lobbyists involved with.

    No one like Florian Mueller was able to keep a strategic vision all the time, and despite he was criticized by both parties, he was conceded the category award “Campaigner of the Year” by the European Voice, and many other awards.

    Evil lobbyist
    Evil lobbyist by mimax

    Unfortunately I couldn’t manage to help him to get his book translated in Italian, but I can recommend it as the most interesting and entertaining book you can read on the topic. Besides software patentability it’s a book about European legislative processes, about lobbyism and, somehow, about Democracy.

    Below some comments about the book from known voices.

    Florian’s book vividly conveys the feeling of what we experienced. A must-read for all who are concerned about software patents, and for those who want to know how things work in EU politics.
    Benjamin Henrion, FFII Belgium

    The fascinating story of how a group of activists made EU history and saved our industry from a potential flood of lawsuits. When reading this you feel like you’re standing in a parliament and talking directly to the politicians who made the decisions.
    Kaj Arnö, VP Community Relations, MySQL AB

    Technorati Tags: software patent, Florian Mueller, no lobbyist as such

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 2:32 pm on December 28, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Business development: surveys and considerations 

    Few months ago I took part in a survey on FLOSS firms conducted by CALIBRE researchers.

    CALIBRE researchers have derived a set of expectations for what they call open-sourcing,

    whereby companies seek to grow a community of open source developers around what has typically (but not always) been a proprietary product previously

    and have asked feedbacks to SMBs belonging to associations, consortia and other organizations bringing firms under a common umbrella.

    As participant I received summary results , and I made some considerations based on my personal experience as founder of the first Italian Consortium of FLOSS firms.

    Network Membership.
    I found interesting opinions expressed about the following statements:

    • Candidate companies must have skills/expertise that are beneficial to the existing members
      .
    • To become members of the network, candidate companies must be known to, or have a prior relationship with, existing members.

    To be in the know and having skills and expertise beneficial to existing members were not considered mandatory to get in the network by a large percentage. In my personal experience be known was a highly desirable characteristic: it took me months gathering firms to start up the consortium just because we all pretend to choose each other.

    Member reputation.
    About the following statements:

    • Our company considers the competence and skills of other member companies before doing business with them
      .
    • It is important that our company is seen by other members as being professionally competent
      .
    • It is important that our company fulfills our obligations to other members to maintain our reputation in the network.

    More than 90% of firms said competence is a critical success factor, either to choose partners or to be seen as competent and trustable. I understand and share these results, and I had only positive cooperation experiences within the network.

    Shared Beliefs and Values.
    People were asked to comment the following statements about what network members share:

    • a common software development philosophy
      .
    • accepted ways of doing business
      .
    • a sense of common destiny

    Firms interviewed didn’t find a common ground on those topics. Despite OS firms base their business on commons-based peer-production, there was no high demand for sharing a common software development philosophy.
    The way others do business wasn’t an issue either. It makes perfect sense to me, since we’re speaking about loosely coupled organizations don’t set strict constraints.
    For just the same reason members don’t feel they’re sharing a sense of common destiny.

    Integrating Members’ activities.
    About the following statements:

    • Information on the skills and abilities of other network members is readily available;
      .
    • The network has transparent routines for coordinating work between member companies;
      .
    • The network enables seamless hand-off of tasks between partners.

    To my big surprise less than half participants to the survey reported availability of members’ skills, since it was one of our first goal when we set up the consortium.

    Almost 40% percent of interviewed firms said the network has transparent routines for coordinating work, and a quarter of them declared that the network enables seamless hand-off.
    I’m honestly amazed by these answers, in my experience coordinating activities among members was quite heavy, and troublesome when the goal was internally funded. I’m afraid loosely coupled organizations can’t pretend to set high standards when it comes to inter-firms cooperation, I would be interested to know how others coped with this issue.

    Network effectiveness.
    People about the business side commented the following statements:

    • Our company has benefited from the skills/expertise of other member companies
      .
    • Our company has benefited through the sharing of customer contacts with other network members
      .
    • The network has enabled our company to compete for contracts that we couldn’t compete for on our own.

    Almost 60% of interviewed members said they took advantage of others skills/expertise, a percentage higher than that one about availability of members’ skills, an apparent contradiction.
    Only 30% of members declared to have benefit through the sharing of customers, but more than 40% said they could compete for contracts being part of the network.

    Nothing really new under the sun, but I believe networks of FLOSS firms will have a greater impact on commercial open source, and I’m looking forward to read and comment CALIBRE findings, as soon as available.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 1:43 pm on December 27, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Letter to Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems 

    Dear Simon,

    much has been said about the importance of the establishment of a well organized Open Source Community to benefit the future of OpenOffice.org, and we do agree upon this goal.

    As Italian Native-Lang Project we believe that:

    • an open source project is about sequential innovation, it’s about contributing software, documents and tools to something as a community for the benefit of others;
      .
    • open source projects are open to the participation of anybody who can contribute value and is willing to work with the community, and volunteering demands big respect.
      .

    We have tried for seven months to get an answer about the hypothetic mismatch between OpenOffice.org license and the Italian dictionary and thesaurus released by Italian volunteers.
    The former is under LGPL, where textual resources are released under the GNU GPL license.

    We’re spending time and efforts from months to include such useful and powerful resources, while we could invest our energies in more important issues, like promoting ODF and OpenOffice.org along institutions, supporting users and developing and including more extensions.

    Should the Italian Native-Lang Project mantain a fork to distribute users a full version of OpenOffice.org, along with those textual resource?
    We do really hope not, and we’re looking forward to get your help with the legal review of licenses.

    The Italian Native-Lang Project team

     
    • Mirco 12:42 am on January 2, 2007 Permalink

      I’ve worked on Thesaurus please let it be uasble. Thanks a lot.

    • Simon Phipps 5:13 pm on February 3, 2007 Permalink

      Hi Roberto.

      I’ve looked into this and the problem was that, by using the GPL rather than the LGPL for your contribution, it was necessary for Sun’s legal team to conduct an extensive discussion about the implications of distributing it with OpenOffice.org (which as you know is licensed under LGPL), and that discussion was disrupted by staffing changes in mid-stream. Some delay in public comment was inevitable because of the fact you’d used a license the OpenOffice.org community has not chosen and because seeking legal advice in the US is necessarily a confidential matter under US law. I apologise for the extra delay that was unavoidably caused by the staffing changes.

      I have now received legal advice that gives me confidence that inclusion of this great facility will be OK from a licensing perspective, and it will proceed forthwith. I’d like to thank you and your team for both your important contribution to OpenOffice.org and for your patience waiting for the process to complete.

      S.

  • Roberto Galoppini 2:31 pm on December 24, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source: year in review, opinions 

    2006 was a great year for Open Source, no doubt.

    For eweek Open Source got big-time, because of:

    • Oracle announcement of offering support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux to address lack of “true enterprise support for Linux”, as Ellison himself said.
      .
    • Microsoft and Novell announcement of collaboration agreements, including patent protection.The two companies agreed to disagree on that point, lacking of good communication.
      .
    • Sun Microsystems finally decided to release Java.
      .

    CNET put GPLv3 debate on top of its list, but JBoss acquisition by Red Hat, Microsoft sponsorship of an open-source project to develop a converter between Open Office XML and OpenDocument file formats and French parliament dumpling Windows for Linux were on the list too.
    Last but not least I’d recommend Matt Asay reflections on 2006, detailed and not too personal.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 7:26 pm on December 23, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    OpenSolaris: Sun gets it certified and spread 

    Open Solaris 10 has received the Common Criteria at Evaluation Assurance Level 4+ (EAL 4+).

    What does it mean? Bill Vass, President and Chief Operating Officer of Sun Microsystems, wrote:

    At Sun, we continue to lead with Certified Open Source Operating Systems that will run on X86/X64 or SPARC hardware from any vendor, at a lower support cost than RedHat.

    The idea than seems to be making Open Solaris a viable alternative to the RH flavour of Linux.

    Ambitious. Projects like Belenix might help, but there is no easy way to such goal.
    Jonathan Schwartz about Open Solaris spread reported an effective picture showing all machines that connect back to Sun’s free update service.

    Schwartz said that:

    it doesn’t account for all Solaris 10 downloads, but shows the value of leveraging the internet to meet customers (new and old).

    But as I already wrote turning users into real customers is not trivial.

    My guess? Sun adopting a franchising business model, soon.

     
    • osgeek 8:04 pm on December 23, 2006 Permalink

      yeah, it is cool. Solaris 10 keeps getting better each passing day!
      osgeek

    • jamey 9:59 pm on December 23, 2006 Permalink

      More info on the Solaris Registrations Map can be found here.

  • Roberto Galoppini 6:12 pm on December 23, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Creative Commons: Lessig succeeded by Ito 

    Lessig, founding chairman of Creative Commons, after four years retired as chairman of the board, remaining as CEO.

    Lessig talking about his successor, Joy Ito, called him the perfect next chairman, said:

    The key to our success now, is to fit this project within an overall economy of creativity. We want to support and protect the sharing economy; we also want to build tools that would help support crossovers into the commercial economy. That will take the sensibility and insight that Joi has demonstrated in his whole career.

    Creative Commons 4th aniversary was celebrated in Second Life, while Lessig was in Portugal and Ito in in Japan.

    Ito made clear he is succeeding Lessing, not replacing him. Than he said:

    Many people now use Creative Commons because it makes business sense. The corporate world needs to hear this in a language they understand. I speak their language.

    I like it, and I’m sure he will positively contribute to Creative Commons success.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 3:32 pm on December 22, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Italian Government: funds to sustain open source innovation 

    Italy has been one of the most conservative European countries toward open source adoption by the public sector, but the Italian Budget law has some interesting news about free software.
    Before talking about what’s new, it’s worth to mention Italy has a long story about OS evaluation.

    In light of the spread of the Open Source phenomenon, the Italian Minister of Innovation and Technologies Mr Lucio Stanca decided to commission a study. On the 31th of October 2002, was established a Commission for free software in Public Administration. The Commission invited enterprises and associations for auditions and eventually published a Cognitive survey on open source software.

    The proposals in the study are summarized as follows:

    • Government offices should neither prohibit nor penalize the use of OSS packages: the criteria for selecting software solutions is “value for money”.
      .
    • Customized software should belong fully to the public office that developed it, but the proprietorship should not necessarily be exclusive. Outsourcing contracts should include suitable protection clauses.
      .
    • The re-use of customized software owned by public offices should be encouraged and facilitated, and successful results and best practices should be shared among all the public offices of the country.
      .
    • Public offices must be able to inspect and trace all licensed software, and must be safeguarded against the risk of a supplier no longer being able to provide assistance.
      .
    • Government information systems should interact through standard interfaces that do not depend on a single supplier.
      .
    • Public documents should be preserved and made available in one or more formats. At least one format must be open. Government offices can decide, however, whether any additional formats should be open or proprietary.
      .
    • The transfer of customized software and licenses between government offices should be unrestricted.
      .
    • Guidelines, planning tools and support services for the procurement of software products by government offices should be prepared, for which the expertise and resources present in the country should be strengthened and exploited.
      .

    The Commission suggested to let OSS would be eligible for e-government projects, as seen with the European Commission within the 5th, and the 6th Framework Programme for Research . The procurement and use of OSS was finally endorsed by Minister Stanca’s Directive of 18 December 2003.

    On February 2004 was established a Working Group by the Center for the application of Italian Ministry of Innovation and Technology politics (CNIPA). The working group by July 2004 released a document containing indications on how to be compliant with the Directive.

    Up to now very few public tenders have been really compliant with the Directive, and OSS is far to be considered widely as a valid alternative by Central Public Administrations.

    But two days ago everything changed: the Italian Budget law is considering open source as a favorable factor in assigning funds to sustain innovation by local public administrations.
    Beatrice Magnolfi, undersecretary State for Public Administration Reform and Innovation, commented the law said:

    We do support Italian software industry growth, an archipelago of SMEs managed by young people, bringing innovation and creativity into the market.

    But why is she speaking about an archipelago? The Italian ICT market, as shown by a recent analysis conducted by NetConsulting, is made by micro enterprise (under 9 employees) in 93,7 percent of cases; only 0,2% of ICT firms employ more than 250 employees. Now it’s where it comes from the deep interest toward small firms.

    Magnolfi talking about the availability of a public forge where Public Administrations and firms might buid an IT ecosystem said:

    It’s totally new! We’re making possible a marketplace where IT goods and services are exchanged more effectively, where public administrations’ needs and firms’ competencies and skills on open source platforms might meet.

    Is Italy going to have its own Adullact?

    Quaerendo invenietis – By seeking you shall discover..

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel