• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Open Source Maturity and Suitability
 

Open Source Maturity and Suitability

on

  • 7,859 views

Invited talk to Simon Fraser University on "Open Source Maturity and Suitability" aka how to choose the 'right' open source project for you. Presented May 2005

Invited talk to Simon Fraser University on "Open Source Maturity and Suitability" aka how to choose the 'right' open source project for you. Presented May 2005

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,859
Views on SlideShare
7,842
Embed Views
17

Actions

Likes
7
Downloads
80
Comments
1

4 Embeds 17

http://www.slideshare.net 8
http://www.techgig.com 4
http://webexconnect.dev.mnl.com 3
http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • The usage of imagery in this display is really efficient. You have done a fantastic job here friend.
    Sharika
    http://financeadded.com http://traveltreble.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Open Source Maturity and Suitability Open Source Maturity and Suitability Presentation Transcript

  • Choosing The Right Open Source Project Scott Leslie, Edutools.info SFU, July 28, 2005
  • You are here? Outer Hebrides?
  • The Hype
    • Depending on who you ask Open Source represents
      • Greatest thing since sliced bread
      • The cure to all your ills
      • The Next ‘Insanely Great’ Thing
      • Salvation
      • The ONLY Way Forward
      • A threat to the Canadian way of life
  • Promises of Open Source
    • Get the solution you want; greater pedagogical flexibility
    • Avoid Vendor Lock-in
    • No Perpetual License Costs
    • Control over Product Development/Release Cycle
    • Increase Operating System and Other Platform Flexibility
    • Non-Proprietary/Open Standards
  • What this Presentation Isn’t
    • Not a presentation on the value of adopting open source
      • For some good work in this regard refer to
        • Chris Coppola, “Will Open Source Unlock the Potential of eLearning?” http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=10299&typeid=155
        • Randy Metcalfe, “Software Choice: Decision Making in a Mixed Economy,” http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/metcalfe/
        • Patricia Gertz, “Open Your Eyes: Open Architecture, Open Source, Open Projects,” http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=MAC0510&bhcp=1
        • Coppola and Neely, “Open source - opens learning,” http://www.opensourcesummit.org/open-source-200408.pdf
  • What this presentation is
    • ‘ Open Source’ is a moniker applied to a HUGE variety of software projects
    • Not all Open Source projects are equally suitable to every institution
    • Details an effort to develop a framework to understand OS project suitability in relation to institutional capacities
    • Want to help people in choosing the right/appropriate OS projects
  • About Edutools – http://www.edutools.info
    • Site dedicated to assisting decision makers in higher education
    • Past claim to fame the CMS comparison site
    • Originated with BC-developed ‘Landonline’ site
    • Redeveloped in 2001-2 with funding from Hewlett foundation
    • Scope expanded to include comparative analysis of e-learning policies & other student service technologies, and recently Learning Object Repository technology
  • Defining Open Source
    • Fundamental to definitions of Open Source are a set of freedoms enabled by a software license
    • Freedom to
      • View and learn from source code
      • Distribute copies
      • Use the software for any purpose
      • Modify and Share the modifications
    • Cf. OSI’s Definition of ‘Open Source’ - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
    • Definition very much centers around freedoms of what you can do with the code
    • BUT…
  • The irony is that…
    • OPEN SOURCE CODE
    • -
    • OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY
    • =
    • Conventional, in-house, ad hoc legacy software
  • Development/Acquisition Evolution BUY SHARE BUILD VS. BUY VS.
  • 3rd Try…
    • Open Source can be defined as always having the right to ‘fork’ the source code
    • BUT
    • Exercising that right to ‘Fork’ is fraught with challenges and often not desirable
    • For the most part, part of the definition is that ongoing participation is VOLUNTARY
  • Suitability = Maturity vs. Capability Organization’s Capability for Development ‘ Maturity’ of Project / Community ‘ Freeloading’ Very Mature Immature Low High Project Originator Real Risk of Failure Low Risk Decisions OS ‘Sweet Spot’ What makes OS communities thrive
  • Group Qualities of Organizations and Projects around…
    • Initial Development
    • Deployment and Integration
    • Ongoing Maintenance and Support
    • Overall Institutional or Project Attributes
  • Development
    • Organizational Factors
    • Project-based Developer Resources
      • experience with specific technologies
      • willingness to learn; interest in specific technologies under consideration
      • willingness of institution to support learning through development
    • Existing Software Development Process and Environment
    • Project Factors
    • Age of project
    • Number of releases
    • Project Reputation (for stability, rapidity of bug fixes)
    • Number of existing developers
      • extent to which OS development roles are explicit and filled
    • Activity within the development community, forums and mailing lists
  • Deployment and Integration
    • Organizational Factors
    • Existing framework, architecture or e-learning infrastructure into which new project must fit
      • existing open source components in use
      • exiting commercial components in use
    • Project Factors
    • Dependencies/ Standards
      • open source dependencies
      • commercial dependencies
      • support of open standards
      • existence within a larger suite of OS applications or architecture
    • Well documented API
    • 3 rd party support for deployment
  • Ongoing Maintenance and Support
    • Organizational Factors
    • Ongoing Developer Resources
    • Institutional Support Structures
    • Existing Bug tracking, testing and fixing processes
    • Institutional Tolerance for Beta Products
    • Project Factors
    • Documented procedure for becoming a new developer
    • Developer documentation / support community
    • Explicit and implicit developer education and socialization paths
    • End-user documentation / support community
    • 3rd party support providers / vendors
  • Overall Institutional or Project Attributes
    • Organizational Factors
    • Institution Type/Size
    • Preferred Project Management Style
    • Past Experience with Open Source projects
      • History of being risk takers or risk adverse
    • Related Institutional Networks and affiliations
    • Desire to commercialize or otherwise spin off derivative or related works
    • Project Factors
    • Governance Model
    • One guiding leader (cf. Moodle)
    • Hierarchical with different captains
    • Inner circle (cf. Sakai, http:// kb.indiana.edu/data/anlz.html?cust =731846.98763.30 )
    • None?
    • others…
    • Licensing Model
    • BSD-like
    • GPL-like
    • Apache, Linux-like
    • Educational Community License
    • others… (cf. http:// www.opensource.org /licenses/ )
    • Open source “market share”
  • Suitability = Maturity vs. Capability Organization’s Capability for Development ‘ Maturity’ of Project / Community Very Mature Immature Low High Real Risk of Failure #1 “ Low Risk Choice” #2 “ Adoption, not adaptation” #3 “ Major Boost” #4 “ Good Luck!”
  • Goal of Decision Tool
    • Provide a means of self-identification for institutional decision makers to recognize their capabilities and the projects they are well suited to
    • Identify areas of likely risk in choosing particular kinds of projects in an effort to address them before the projects are engaged
  • Final Thoughts
    • Beyond this question of ‘suitability’ there do seem to be some essential qualities of OS aligned with higher ed
      • in relying on local innovation rather than market forces to drive progress, it fosters diversity / increases pedagogical innovation
      • often results in increased learning for staff within institution
      • “ The collaborative nature of open source has a strong cultural affinity to higher education and its mission to advance and share knowledge for the greater public good” Coppola, http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id =10299&typeid=155
  • Example Organization 1
    • R1 University with history of development but no funding
      • Clearly identified requirements with some initial funding and no ongoing funding
      • Multiple OS supported on campus
      • Already using Linux and Apache extensively, and have history of “pushing the envelope”
      • Ed Tech team has some formal software development methodology, but no quality assurance systems in place
  • Capability Profile 1 – “R1 Uni” No desire to spin off derivative work Desire to commercialize derivative or related works Unknown Related Institutional Networks and affiliations Have been done this road before Past Experience with Open Source projects History of project-based work, distributed, multi-unit work teams Preferred Project Management Style Have been done this road before; can keep existing CMS in place Institutional Tolerance for Beta Products Desire to replace existing CMS Existing framework, architecture or e-learning infrastructure Some, but could use more formal environment Existing Software Development Process and Environment Risk area long term Ongoing Developer Resources Good but not great; the more they can bootstrap, the better Project-based Developer Resources
  • Example Organization 2
    • Community College System with Funding in Place but little experience
      • Need to implement new CMS, no standard CMS across system; some initial funding and ongoing funding
      • Standardized on Windows across system
      • Already using Apache in a few small instances; typically part of the “late majority” of adopters
      • Ed Tech team has no formal software development methodology, but do have a help-desk system in place that routes calls back to this team
  • Capability Profile 2 – “CommCollege” No desire to spin off derivative work Desire to commercialize derivative or related works Entire State System Related Institutional Networks and affiliations Are intrigued by the prospect but no real experience Past Experience with Open Source projects Not strong on project-based work Preferred Project Management Style Used to COTS Institutional Tolerance for Beta Products High risk as they require something soon to come out of this process Existing framework, architecture or e-learning infrastructure Problematic for engaging with other organizations & contributing back Existing Software Development Process and Environment Could use more Ongoing Developer Resources Could use more Project-based Developer Resources
  • OS Software Package 1 – “ALooter”
    • “Open Source Course Management System”
    • Started in 1999; typically releases quarterly
    • Core development at one university, but open forums and evidence that work from other developers is being adopted back into project
    • ‘LAMP’ based project
  • OS Software Maturity Profile 1 GPL Licensing Model Initial developers still control process & comm Governance Model None 3rd party support providers / vendors Good but could be improved End-user documentation / support community Informal at best Explicit and implicit developer education and socialization paths Very active Developer documentation / support community LAMP, so few concerns Dependencies/ Standards Very active Activity within the development community, forums and mailing lists Some Explicit OS Development Roles 8 / 1 main, many peripheral # developers/Organizations Fixes bundled as part of quarterly release cycle Project Reputation (for stability, rapidity of bug fixes) Over 10 major releases Number of releases
  • OS Software Package 2 – “HOLMS”
    • “ Open Source Course Management System”
    • Started in 2004; very few (<3) releases
    • Core development at one university; no evidence of developer forums but some evidence of inter-institutional partnerships emerging
    • Tomcat/MySQL/Jakarta Struts Application Framework based project
  • OS Software Maturity Profile 1 GPL Licensing Model Initial developers still control process & comm Governance Model None 3rd party support providers / vendors Not much End-user documentation / support community Informal , if at all Explicit and implicit developer education and socialization paths Not much Developer documentation / support community All OS, so few concerns Dependencies/ Standards No aparent developer forums Activity within the development community, forums and mailing lists Not evident Explicit OS Development Roles 3/ 1 main # developers/Organizations No apparent schedule or roadmap Project Reputation (for stability, rapidity of bug fixes) Under 3 releases Number of releases
  • Scenarios
    • #1 - “Low Risk Choices” – Org1 & Software1
    • #2 - “Adoption, not adaption” – Org2 & Soft2
    • #3 - “Major Boost” – Org1 & Soft2
    • #4 - “Risky choice/Good Luck!” – Org2 & Soft2