Open Source and Applications Development

Community source is designed to coordinate the work of different user IT organizations sharing the same purpose and requirements. An alternative to commercial applications and custom development, it gives users control and shares risk across peer organizations. Although several such public sector communities exist and yield great promises, many struggle with achieving critical mass and a viable business model. This panel will compare and contrast community source with more traditional software sourcing options and explore critical sustainability success factors.

Academia has adopted open source software for some online learning initiatives because it addresses persistent technical challenges

The open source learning management system has gradually reached maturity. In this session, we will share ideas and lessons learned about making open source LMS enterprise-ready. Currently SFSU has one of the largest Moodle installations in the United States and is the sole university hosting an anonymous Moodle CVS server.

Has the vision proffered for "Open Source 2007" been realized? Will 2010 mark continued progress in the collaborative development of applications software—perhaps one of the most potent tools for addressing the challenging trends confronting IT in higher education?

The author discusses the positive and negative aspects of open source.

To address this question, we examined 120 project teams from SourceForge, representing a wide range of FLOSS project types, for their communications centralization as revealed in the interactions in the bug tracking system. We found that FLOSS development teams vary widely in their communications centralization, from projects completely centered on one developer to projects that are highly decentralized and exhibit a distributed pattern of conversation between developers and active users.

We suggest, therefore, that it is wrong to assume that FLOSS projects are distinguished by a particular social structure merely because they are FLOSS. Our findings suggest that FLOSS projects might have to work hard to achieve the expected development advantages which have been assumed to flow from "going open." In addition, the variation in communications structure across projects means that communications centralization is useful for comparisons between FLOSS teams. We found that larger FLOSS teams tend to have more decentralized communication patterns, a finding that suggests interesting avenues for further research examining, for example, the relationship between communications structure and code modularity.