OPEN SOURCE:
High Risk or High Yield?
|
|
|
Scott E. Siddall |
|
Denison University |
|
|
What is open source?
|
|
|
|
|
“When programmers can read,
redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the
software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And
this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of
conventional software development, seems astonishing.” |
|
The Open Source Initiative http://opensource.org |
|
|
|
The open source manifesto |
|
The Cathedral and the Bazaar |
|
Eric S. Raymond, 1997 |
The Cathedral and the
Bazaar
|
|
|
Every good work of software
starts by scratching a developer's personal itch. |
|
Good programmers know what to
write. Great ones know what to rewrite (and reuse). |
|
When you lose interest in a
program, your last duty to it is to hand it off to a competent successor. |
|
Treating your users as
co-developers is your least-hassle route to rapid code improvement and
effective debugging. |
|
Release early. Release often.
And listen to your customers. |
|
Given a large enough
beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized
quickly and the fix obvious to someone. |
|
The next best thing to having
good ideas is recognizing good ideas from your users. Sometimes the latter is
better. |
|
|
|
- Eric S. Raymond |
The Culture of Open
Source
|
|
|
|
Complex software development |
|
By loosely coordinated
developers and contributors |
|
In an informal meritocracy |
|
|
|
software specifications are
rarely written |
|
continuous design instead |
|
virtual project management |
|
a gentle hierarchy |
Research on open source
development
|
|
|
“Free and open-source software development
is faster, better and cheaper in building a community and at reinforcing and
institutionalizing a culture for how to develop software” |
|
|
|
Walt Scacchi (2004) |
|
Institute for Software
Research |
|
UC Irvine |
Microsoft’s opinion?
|
|
|
The “Halloween” Documents of
1998 |
|
|
|
“…the intrinsic parallelism and
free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our
current licensing model…” |
|
|
|
“..commercial quality can be
achieved / exceeded by OSS projects.” |
|
|
|
“…OSS is long-term credible…” |
|
|
|
“…OSS advocates are making a
progressively more credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust
-- if not more -- than commercial alternatives.” |
|
|
|
“The ability of the OSS process
to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across
the Internet is simply amazing.” |
The word is out
Your business officer is
being encouraged…
Types of open source
software
|
|
|
|
Desktop operating systems |
|
Linux, Sun Java Desktop |
|
Web applications |
|
Portals, course management,
digital asset management, collaboration and communication tools |
|
Central services and
infrastructure |
|
Email systems, servers, network
management tools |
|
|
|
All could be “mission
critical” |
One campus’ open source
email system
|
|
|
Linux on redundant, commodity
x86 servers |
|
Postfix |
|
Amavisd-new |
|
Cyrus IMAP |
|
SpamAssassin |
Characteristics of open
source
|
|
|
|
Transparency of process |
|
Community |
|
Innovation based on needs and
adaptation |
|
Open standards |
|
|
|
Casey Green’s Four C’s of open
source: |
|
Code – do it better |
|
Control – retain it |
|
Cash – save it |
|
Community – do it together |
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
Open source software (OSS)
costs less than proprietary software |
|
Lower licensing cost – yes |
|
Lower total cost – perhaps as
cost allocations are shifted |
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
Build your own? |
|
Bear all the development costs |
|
Provide all your own support |
|
Buy? |
|
Share development costs with
others, plus a vendor profit |
|
Pay for support from vendor |
|
Borrow (open source)? |
|
No licensing costs, or share
the costs |
|
Provide your own support, buy
it, get it from the community |
|
|
|
|
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
|
OSS license management is easy |
|
OSS is more reliable and has
fewer bugs |
|
Depends on transparency of
development, number and commitment of developers, parallel debugging, etc |
|
|
|
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs
are shallow (Linus Torvalds) |
|
|
|
But how can Internet
connectivity and asynchronous development work more efficiently if the
mythical man month is true? |
|
(Adding more programmers to a
late project makes it later) |
|
|
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
|
OSS is more secure and
network-ready |
|
Usually it is: e.g., defensively designed Linux |
|
Users don't have open access to
code elements needed to spread malware |
|
Proprietary software can be as
secure, but fewer developers means fewer reviews |
|
OSS can be customized |
|
OSS is better because it's
transparent |
|
OSS is better because it uses
open standards |
|
So can proprietary software |
|
OSS is by and for a community |
|
Experimenting with OSS is
expensive |
|
Not meeting your goals is more
expensive |
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
|
What is the motivation for
creating OSS? |
|
Problem solving |
|
Altruism |
|
Ego |
|
Versus economic motivation for
proprietary software |
|
Community source developers are
in close contact with users |
|
Some proprietary developers
listen to their users as well |
|
Some applications aren't
compatible with open source |
|
True – we need more open
standards |
|
Proprietary software has more
features |
|
Proprietary software has better
user interfaces, documentation |
The Assertions
|
|
|
|
Some needs cannot be met with
OSS |
|
Proprietary software comes with
better support than OSS |
|
OSS can be difficult to
install, distribute, migrate to |
|
OSS avoids vendor lock-in |
|
OSS projects reuse software
elements efficiently |
|
Proprietary software developers
have better resources |
|
Is their commitment to the
software, the company, their salary? |
|
Students and faculty are more
familiar and comfortable with proprietary software |
|
|
That was the theoretical
part…
|
|
|
What about the practical? |
Selection, Selection,
Selection
|
|
|
A very high percentage of open
source project fail |
|
Those that reach a threshold of
development and use are priceless |
|
Know your source! |
Licensing
|
|
|
Open Source Initiative |
|
55 licensing models |
|
GNU Public License (GPL)
applies to 40,000 projects at Sourceforge |
|
GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT are all
popular |
|
|
Slide 21
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
Lower Risk
Lower Risk
High Yield
Higher Education OS
projects
|
|
|
|
Why? |
|
Learning and research are our
core competencies, our products – this is strategic! |
|
IHE are centers of research in
software development |
|
A diverse, capable and open
community: doctoral/research, masters, baccalaureate, associates |
|
Why not? |
|
The challenges of collaboration |
Community Source
|
|
|
|
Purposeful coordination of work
within a community |
|
Based on the principles of open
source development |
|
A greater reliance on |
|
Defined roles |
|
Responsibilities |
|
Funded commitments |
|
|
|
“People think just because it
is open-source, the result is going to be automatically better. Not true. You
have to lead it in the right directions to succeed.” - Linus Torvalds |
Potentially High Yield
Sakai Project
|
|
|
|
Core Institutions |
|
Michigan, Indiana, MIT,
Stanford, JA-SIG, OKI |
|
Sakai Educational Partners
Program |
|
44 institutions making
financial commitments |
|
Mellon and Hewlett funding |
Mellon Foundation
Projects
|
|
|
Sakai and Samigo |
|
Open Knowledge Initiative |
|
uPortal |
|
Westwood/Chandler |
|
DSpace |
|
Fedora |
|
ePortfolio |
|
LionShare |
|
Pubcookie |
|
PKI |
|
OpenCourseWare (OCW) |
|
Visual Understanding
Environment (VUE) |
|
TK4 (multimedia authoring tool) |
|
|
and open source
|
|
|
|
|
June 2004 Open Source Summit |
|
The Issues |
|
Risk management |
|
Consolidation among commercial
vendors; products discontinued |
|
Cost containment |
|
Commercial software is
expensive; |
|
Quality of software |
|
Not customizable to our needs |
|
Speed of development and
customization |
|
Compliance with vendor
schedules |
|
The needs |
|
A primer on open source in
higher education |
|
For executive administration as
well as IT management |
|
A better understanding of
models of collaboration |
|
It’s costly and IHE may not be
great at it |
|
Better licensing models |
|
For-profit partners to support
open source applications |
|
Criteria for evaluating open
source software |
|
|
and open source
|
|
|
|
Possible action plans |
|
Develop and promote licensing
schemes of use to IHE |
|
Educate the higher education
community about open source |
|
Catalog and assess open source
applications |
|
Help IHE adapt to new software
models |
|
Foster new models of support
for open source |
|
Track policies that may impact
open source adoption |
So…high risk or high
yield?
Practical
recommendations
|
|
|
|
Examine the entire cost |
|
Licensing, hardware, support,
training, documentation, migration from legacy tools |
|
Ask why you are considering any
application |
|
Are learning outcomes the
driver? |
|
Pilot the software |
|
Directly involve all
stakeholders; consider outsourcing the pilot |
|
Start with “low hanging fruit”
– not mission critical applications |
|
Understand and plan for support
needs |
|
Spend avoided licensing costs
on local staff development |
|
Keep looking – new
opportunities arise each week |
Consortial piloting in
Ohio
“Production Piloting”
|
|
|
Fully engage faculty and
students as well as technical staff in evaluations |
|
Co-source (partner with a
support entity) then focus on learning and teaching |
|
Collaborate: minimize the
reinvention of wheels |
“Production Piloting”
Resources - Articles
|
|
|
"The Cathedral and the
Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond, 1997. |
|
“A Second Look at the Cathedral
and Bazaar” by Nikolai Bezroukov, 1999.
In First Monday. |
|
Altruistic individuals, selfish
firms? The structure of motivation in Open Source software in First Monday by
Andrea Bonaccorsi and Cristina Rossi |
|
“Open Source 2007: How did this
happen?” by Brad Wheeler |
|
“Open Source CMS Pilots” by
Scott Siddall. March, 2004. |
|
“Socio-technical interaction
networks” by Walt Scacchi, 2004. |
|
“Using Open Source for
Strategic Advantage” by Alfred Essa (EDUCAUSE Live! Session, April 2004) |
|
“Update on Westwood and
Chandler for Higher Ed” by Scott Siddall. |
|
An Open Mind on Open Source by Karla
Hignite. In NACUBO’s Business Officer
magazine, August 2004. |
|
Open Source under the
microscope by Paul Festa, 2004. C/NET
News. |
|
Universities Offer Homegrown
Course Software by Jeffrey Young, July 23, 2004. The Chronicle of Higher Education. |
Resources – Web sites
|
|
|
Technical glossary related to
open source |
|
Sourceforge - “the" open
source software development site listing more than 80,000 open source
projects |
|
The Open Source Initiative –
promotes the definition of open source |
|
Open source research at the
Institute for Software Research, UC Irvine |
|
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research research bulletin, “Aligning IT Strategy to Open Source, Partnering
and Web Services.” Nov. 2003. |