Software Engineering group Norwegian University of Science and Technology Reidar Conradi, Øyvind Hauge,  Letizia Jaccheri,...
Why is this interesting for you? <ul><li>Experience from industry related research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What should we fo...
multi-faceted OS research  … political social  sciences software engineering … learning psychology juridical & economical …
research activities Focus on company based software engineering, reuse, and OTS  ITEA COSI project  Case Gentoo Education ...
Open Source Software (OSS):  origin and now <ul><li>1650?:  free flow of ideas begins in  scientific community.
1967-1977:  DoD/DARPA’s development of  Arpanet   /   Internet   TCP/IP  protocols -- open and distributed development, an...
1978-85:  Openness spread through  Berkeley’s  adaptation   of  Unix,  with built-in Internet protocols and generous BSD l...
1985: Free / Open software:  int’l movements (Stallman).
2000: Social computing  and  creative commons  for knowledge work – standardized formats for “zero-cost”,  digital informa...
2008:  1,5 billion Internet users, 3 billion w/ mobile phones. </li></ul>
OSS issues <ul><li>200.000 OSS “projects”,  each w/  net community  lead by original provider, co-developers, code integra...
Over 30 portals with domain-specific COTS/OSS software.
New way of making  open ICT standards :  rough consensus and (two implementations of) running code.
Over 50 licensing schemes.
Business model:  open and shared source supported by a cooperative foundation; separate payable services.  Ex. Apache web ...
Success criteria:  for provider, for code integrator  </li></ul>
OSS roles <ul><li>OSS (component) provider:  Leads a “gone-open” software project, ex. Linus Thorvald & Linux
OSS participant:  assists the provider in more technical work –  the OSS “idea” of joint, altruistic work
OSS integrator:  makes new software system by  re-using  OSS software/components
OSS user:  may download “free” (not open) binary software on a private computer, e.g. Acrobat
OSS customer:  specifies and finances new software, later as OSS? </li></ul><ul><li>OSS skills:  technical, commercial, or...
Software reuse, components,  OTS = Off-The-Shelf (COTS, OSS) <ul><li>Software reuse:  by code libraries in repositories
Develop  for reuse:  make assets / components
Develop  with reuse:  CBSE using these assets
Advantages  of CBSE, own or OTS components: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cheaper, earlier & better software
Spread novel work practices & software architectures
Re-user communities for experience mgmt/support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-technical  obstacles:  price/licensing, ROI, (r...
NTNU: CBSE and OTS studies <ul><li>1990-98: EU projects (e.g. REBOOT) on  internal software reuse ; hard!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Open Nordic 2008 NTNU

1,318 views
1,254 views

Published on

A presentation held at Open Nordic (http://conference.ez.no/) 2008.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,318
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Letizia
  • Open Nordic 2008 NTNU

    1. 1. Software Engineering group Norwegian University of Science and Technology Reidar Conradi, Øyvind Hauge, Letizia Jaccheri, Eskil Sund www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su / www.research.idi.ntnu.no/oss Open Source Research at NTNU
    2. 2. Why is this interesting for you? <ul><li>Experience from industry related research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What should we focus on in future research? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experience from education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What should students know about Open source? </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. multi-faceted OS research … political social sciences software engineering … learning psychology juridical & economical …
    4. 4. research activities Focus on company based software engineering, reuse, and OTS ITEA COSI project Case Gentoo Education Open source and Art Case Open standards (ARM) Open source survey OTS surveys
    5. 5. Open Source Software (OSS): origin and now <ul><li>1650?: free flow of ideas begins in scientific community.
    6. 6. 1967-1977: DoD/DARPA’s development of Arpanet / Internet TCP/IP protocols -- open and distributed development, anti-authoritarian “ counter culture” .
    7. 7. 1978-85: Openness spread through Berkeley’s adaptation of Unix, with built-in Internet protocols and generous BSD licenses with all source provided.
    8. 8. 1985: Free / Open software: int’l movements (Stallman).
    9. 9. 2000: Social computing and creative commons for knowledge work – standardized formats for “zero-cost”, digital information: Wikipedia, the world is ”flat”, ...
    10. 10. 2008: 1,5 billion Internet users, 3 billion w/ mobile phones. </li></ul>
    11. 11. OSS issues <ul><li>200.000 OSS “projects”, each w/ net community lead by original provider, co-developers, code integrators, users, ... </li></ul>eZ has had 2.3 mill. downloads, Adobe Acrobat 500 mill. <ul><li>COTS and OSS: many similarities.
    12. 12. Over 30 portals with domain-specific COTS/OSS software.
    13. 13. New way of making open ICT standards : rough consensus and (two implementations of) running code.
    14. 14. Over 50 licensing schemes.
    15. 15. Business model: open and shared source supported by a cooperative foundation; separate payable services. Ex. Apache web server.
    16. 16. Success criteria: for provider, for code integrator </li></ul>
    17. 17. OSS roles <ul><li>OSS (component) provider: Leads a “gone-open” software project, ex. Linus Thorvald & Linux
    18. 18. OSS participant: assists the provider in more technical work – the OSS “idea” of joint, altruistic work
    19. 19. OSS integrator: makes new software system by re-using OSS software/components
    20. 20. OSS user: may download “free” (not open) binary software on a private computer, e.g. Acrobat
    21. 21. OSS customer: specifies and finances new software, later as OSS? </li></ul><ul><li>OSS skills: technical, commercial, organizational, creative </li></ul>
    22. 22. Software reuse, components, OTS = Off-The-Shelf (COTS, OSS) <ul><li>Software reuse: by code libraries in repositories
    23. 23. Develop for reuse: make assets / components
    24. 24. Develop with reuse: CBSE using these assets
    25. 25. Advantages of CBSE, own or OTS components: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cheaper, earlier & better software
    26. 26. Spread novel work practices & software architectures
    27. 27. Re-user communities for experience mgmt/support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-technical obstacles: price/licensing, ROI, (re)negotiate rqmnts, less “control”, too “radical” </li></ul>
    28. 28. NTNU: CBSE and OTS studies <ul><li>1990-98: EU projects (e.g. REBOOT) on internal software reuse ; hard!
    29. 29. 2000-: New global “bazaar” of COTS/OSS
    30. 30. 2003-08: Industrial surveys on OTS reuse Norway, Germany, Italia, China Developer panels and follow-up interviews with qualitative data to give insight
    31. 31. Research instruments and raw data: “gone open” – please repeat our studies!! </li></ul>
    32. 32. NTNU: Roles in OTS-based reuse <ul><li>From forthcoming paper by Jingyue Li et al., IEEE Software 2008 </li></ul>
    33. 33. NTNU: learnings on OTS reuse <ul><li>1a. Ask colleagues to find “right” component; </li></ul>1b. Otherwise search the net, download 3-6 candidates for evaluation and selection <ul><li>Summary: no formal selection method, selection can be hosted by most lifecycle processes, need component “uncle” for maintenance, “quality“ not a problem
    34. 34. Problems: effort estimation, integration, debugging, customer non-participation, licensing, company policies, how to classify components (ontologies) </li></ul>
    35. 35. Action Research on Gentoo OSS <ul><li>PhD by Thomas Østerlie
    36. 36. Gentoo: OSS release management tool, scripts, 300 co-developers in 40 countries
    37. 37. Worked as co-developer for two years; distributed, participative, “in-process” field study
    38. 38. Remote debugging: mutual guesswork, as “sense-making”, informal processes
    39. 39. Data: diaries, emails, IRC/version logs </li></ul>
    40. 40. research activities Focus on company based software engineering, reuse, and OTS ITEA COSI project Case Gentoo Education Open source and Art Case Open standards (ARM) Open source survey OTS surveys
    41. 41. ITEA COSI project <ul><li>Industry and academia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2006-2008
    42. 42. Understand and benefit from Open source software and development practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared internal development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Norwegian COSI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ICT Norway </li><ul><li>eZ Systems, Keymind, Linpro, NTNU </li></ul><li>Budget about 18 MNOK </li><ul><li>Sponsored by NFR: about 8 MNOK </li></ul></ul></ul>
    43. 43. Adoption of OSS in the Software Industry <ul><li>About 50% reuse and integrate OSS components </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Into all kinds of products
    44. 44. To all kinds of customers
    45. 45. Large companies more often than small
    46. 46. Consultancy companies more often than software houses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>15-20% participate in OSS development </li></ul><ul><li>About 5% provide their own OSS products </li></ul>
    47. 47. Motivations for adoption of OSS <ul><li>Simplify developer’s job </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High availability of information, components and their source code
    48. 48. Simple procurement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reusable software assets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase productivity
    49. 49. Increase quality </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reduced costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced development effort
    50. 50. No licenses fees </li></ul></ul>
    51. 51. Identification, Evaluation and Selection of OSS <ul><li>Evaluation until something ”good enough” is found
    52. 52. Tested further through test integration and prototyping </li></ul><ul><li>Informal knowledge driven process based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Previous experience
    53. 53. Recommendations
    54. 54. Informal searches
    55. 55. “ Surveillance” of the OSS community </li></ul></ul>
    56. 56. research activities Focus on company based software engineering, reuse, and OTS ITEA COSI project Case Gentoo Education Open source and Art Case Open standards (ARM) Open source survey OTS surveys
    57. 57. Open standards and ARM <ul><li>Cooperation between ARM Norway and NTNU (half dozen master’s since 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>A master’s project (single person one year) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>development of a multi-platform graphics application.
    58. 58. Used ARM’s platform for embedded graphics. </li></ul></ul>
    59. 59. Open standards and ARM <ul><li>Open Vector Graphics (OpenVG) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenVG is a standard for embedded systems
    60. 60. Targets: Map applications, scalable user interfaces, e-book readers, games and SVG viewers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open format for describing vector graphics in XML which provides uniform representation of 2D graphics.
    61. 61. SVG Tiny – A mobile profile targeting light weight mobile devices </li></ul></ul>
    62. 62. Open standards and the application SVG Tiny application Application size ~20.000 LOC Open Standards PNG JPEG XML11 SMIL XLINK DOM3 Other W3C standards... PC platform ARM platform
    63. 63. Results from application development and porting <ul><li>Ease of adoption </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenVG is an open standard, thus royalty-free.
    64. 64. Specification and reference implementation publicly available. No project expenses. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenVG allows for efficient and creative implementations.
    65. 65. Efficient SVG Tiny viewer achievable on a regular PC and ARM platform. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conformance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenVG conformance tests assure correct implementations.
    66. 66. Consistent and correct behaviour of application on PC and ARM platform. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Portability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OpenVG API abstracts and de-couples application from hardware .
    67. 67. High degree of application portability. Less effort </li></ul></ul>
    68. 68. research activities Focus on company based software engineering, reuse, and OTS ITEA COSI project Case Gentoo Education Open source and Art Case Open standards (ARM) Open source survey OTS surveys
    69. 69. Cases: Art and open source software <ul><li>Main objective SArt </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to propose, and assess, and improve methods, models, and tools for software development in art context </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cases (sourceforge) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Open Digital Canvas Project
    70. 70. Sonic Onyx Project (mobile phones)
    71. 71. The Flyndre Project </li></ul></ul>
    72. 72. SArt: art and open source software
    73. 73. Premiered art competition The Open Wall Open Contest <ul><li>http:// mediawiki.idi.ntnu.no/wiki/sart / </li></ul><ul><li>Deadline 15th September
    74. 74. The prize award will take place at this year’s festival for art and technology in Trondheim, Trondheim Matchmaking, the 16th - 18th of October.
    75. 75. 1st prize 2000 €, 2nd prize 1500 €, 3rd prize 1000 € </li></ul>
    76. 76. NTNU Resources <ul><li>Software engineering group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>publications, student reports, and courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wiki on open source research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http:// research.idi.ntnu.no/oss </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The ITEA COSI Project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.itea-cosi.org/ </li></ul></ul>
    77. 77. Further work with NTNU: ideas? <ul><li>We want feedback </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What should we focus on in future research?
    78. 78. What should students know about Open source? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cooperation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National research school
    79. 79. International master
    80. 80. Norwegian Research Council </li><ul><li>Verdikt and other possibilities </li></ul></ul></ul>

    ×