Posts Tagged ‘standards’

First UEFI PlugFest for Linuxers

2013/10/31

After the 3 days dedicated to LinuxCon US 2013 in New Orleans, it was time to contribute to the UEFI Plugfest organized for the first time as a co-located event.

So what is a UEFI plugfest ? Well it’s a place where hardware manufacturers and software producers meet to check the compatibility of their implementations with regards to UEFI. So Every hardware manufacturer brings some systems, sometimes early units or prototypes, and try them with the latest operating systems available to find out potential issues, some other bring cards to see whether their UEFI driver works fine on computer manufacturer and operating system producers want to try their latest version on these often brand new systems.

UEFI PlugFest

I think it was a brilliant idea to mix the 2 populations for multiple reasons:

  • UEFI members were for sure impressed by the technical knowledge floating around, and employed in such an open fashion, which is not the standard way of working of this standard body.
  • Linux kernel members could exchange with manufacturer representatives of UEFI systems which definitely helped reducing all the FUD around this technology, in particular Secure Boot. They also had the opportunity to test some not yet available hardware platform to ensure their distributions/drivers/tools were working fine or fix them if that wasn’t the case

UEFI PlugFest - Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud, HP

So in the HP area, under the lead of Dong Wei who is UEFI Forum Vice President and HP Fellow, we tried with 2 colleagues various Linux distributions (and even Windows, but not me !) on the 4 systems that were around. And some findings were interesting !

UEFI PlugFest - Dong Wei, HP

  • Debian 7.1 had grub issue at boot and we were not able to install it
  • Mageia 3 has no UEFI support yet and we were not able to install it easily. However, support is planned for Mageia 4, and some info have been published recently to detail how to perform UEFI based installation.
  • Ubuntu 13.10 provides all what is needed to install in a UEFI compliant environment, thanks to their documentation. We were also able to test SecureBoot with success with their version of Matthew Garrett‘s shim bootloader, signed by Microsoft. They are also working on an interesting tool: FWTS aka Firmware Test Suite, which should be adopted by all distributions IMHO in order to have (for once !) a single tool able to perform firmware compliance tests for a Linux environment. Easy to use, pretty comprehensive, reports lots of useful info. Too bad that they are not providing their certification tools online anymore :-(
  • OpenSUSE 12.3+ again has what is needed for UEFI support. Same mechanism with a shim bootloader, but this time signed multiple times by Microsoft and SUSE. However, this requires a more recent implementation of the UEFI specification, which wasn’t the case on all our system during this event. SUSE provides in particular an excellent documentation on UEFI support, including the possibility to sign its own kernel with pesign in order to use it with SecureBoot.
  • Fedora 19 provides mostly all what is needed. Install worked in UEFI mode without problem. We used the updated version of the shim and shim-unsigned packages from Fedora 20 in order to avoid some issues. However, the multisign issue met with OpenSUSE was also encountered here. More over, Fedora doesn’t provide a good documentation yet for signing your own kernel, which was reported upstream and could benefit from this article. Also the usage of mokutil is broken and should be fixed for Fedora 20.
  • UEFI PlugFest - Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud, HP

    We also got visited by two Kernel Maintainers Greg Kroah-Hartman and James Bottomley who even tried some of his tools on our systems.
    UEFI PlugFest - James Bottomley, Parallels - Neill Kapron, HP

    Note that Some USB keys even correctly formated didn’t boot correctly on some platforms so if you encounter this issue, try using another USB key.

    Finally I made some tries with MondoRescue on the Last Fedora distribution installed. I thought the work done to support EFI on Itanium would be sufficient, but there are some detection problems for the boot loader in mindi need to be solved and are now tracked upstream as well.

    And on top of all what I was able to learn working with my 3 colleagues, I was pointed to a very instructive article from Ken Thomson on Trusting Trust, I hadn’t read before (and I encourage you to read it), following discussions on Secure Boot. And we had a very nice dinner downtown, a walk through Bourbon Street
    Bourbon Street

    followed by a real air of New Orleans Jazz.
    DSC_8789

    That was the end of a very rich US week. More to come on other more recent travels later.

Free Standards are what make IT progressing

2013/04/25

Maybe I’m wrong. I generally don’t relay that much the movements (justified !) that are happening on Internet around Open Source and Open Data. I’m much more in a mood to promote stuff rather than to rant against what is not working (with exceptions as everybody :-))

Now having recently been elected at the board of the AFUL association for the defence of Open Source and Linux, I also need to become more vocal with regards to these subjects, and some areas are really frightening so need more voices to support them.

If you look back in our short IT history, you can see that each time standards have been promoted (for small fees such as the PC, Unix, or for free such as the Internet, the W3C) it has allowed our industry to flourish and develop itself in an incomparable way. And of course, FLOSS has been a clear accelerator of the Internet development.

DRM are by nature incompatible with an Open Internet, and Open Source. HTML5 shows great promises, especially its new agentless video conferencing system. So we should keep what is good in it, and stop bloating it with useless and jail-full features.

Lots of entities have now publish a letter in order to promote a DRM free Web. Forward and promote these information to your own networks. You can sign the petition available at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5/ if you agree with that vision.

For french speaking people, also read the latest LinuxFR.org article.

If you think that Internet can’t develop itself without open access to content, please act and sign this.

Time to drop flash

2013/01/30

I’ve never been anti-non-FLOSS: I’ve used StarOffice back in 1995, when it would allow me to not use a Windows PC, but to do everything I had to do with a LInux system. I’ve used and still use AcrobatReader (and Okular). And on LInux I’m using flash, especially to look at Video published, such as on http://youtube.com

But today, trying to get an update for flash, I read on Adobe’s Web site that Flash Player 11.2 would be the last version for Linux. Only security fixes will continue to be provided. Well so instead of being an incitation to move back to Windows (you dreamed guys ;-)) or adopting Mac, It’s an incitation to drop flash usage as much as possible, and use more open video format.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m always favouring open format, and free, libre, open source software. But I’m also practical, and if I need to use a software to have my work done which is not FLOSS, I dislike that but can use it as long as it’s not core to my activity. And honestly, flash is probably the last one with regards using non-FLOSS on my systems. Flash is not core anyway. It’s for entertainment mostly so I’m ok with a proprietary plugin, especially when Mageia does a great packaging work making it very easy to use.

But now, if Adobe doesn’t care about Linux users, then all Vidéo providers shouldn’t care either about the flash format and start moving off it ASAP. (including french TV for their news).

When I think about the “awesome” presentation I had today at LCA, about native (without plugin) Video conferencing between Firefox and Chrome, using native HTML5 WebRTC format, I think all these funcky formats are just doomed to disappear anyway. The richness of Open Source, and it’s rapid evolution pace doesn’t allow anymore to companies, even the size of Adobe, to resist. And for sure their decision will accelerate the move. Especially as mobile users, who are mostly Linux users nowadays, ar using more video content.

So many thanks to those who are working on such standards and techno; it will make our lives much more easier, and still fun in a near future.

Logiciel Libre et présidentielle

2012/04/04


Candidats.fr

S’il est un domaine étrangement absent du débat public et des discours des présidentiables, c’est bien le domaine de l’informatique :-( Et pourtant, c’est un domaine touchant de nombreux français, tant dans leur travail quotidien, de par l’utilisation toujours plus prégnante des technologies du numérique, que dans leurs activités privées (gestion de photos, de musiques, de films, d’associations, navigation Internet, courrier électronique, bureautique, gestion de comptes, …).

Et s’il est un domaine où des économies drastiques peuvent être effectuées, c’est bien celui du logiciel dans le secteur informatique. Bien sûr en tant qu’utilisateur de technologies libres, et de distributions Linux depuis 1993, je suis particulièrement conscient de ces aspects, et du reste, c’est un des facteurs, avec la maîtrise technologique, qui poussent les clients avec lesquels j’interagis pour HP à adopter de plus en plus massivement ces technologies (et de façon plus importante que ce que les chiffres ne montrent, en raison du mode de diffusion du logiciel libre).

De plus en plus de résultat montre également que le secteur public bénéficie fortement de son adoption: Notre gendarmerie nationale, comme la ville de Munich sont deux exemples chiffrés et parfaitement analysés.

Et cela n’est pas difficile, ni pour un politique, ni pour un citoyen de comprendre la raisonnement: la réduction des coûts importants sur les licences (réduits à 0), la mise en concurrence sur les aspects support et prestation intellectuelle (amenant un prix de marché raisonnable et une qualité obligatoire), la meilleure maîtrise de l’environnement informatique par les équipes en charge (ou en infogérance si préféré), la meilleure sécurité apportée par la transparence du code, l’interopératbilité par le respect des standards et normes, tout contribue naturellement à ce que tous les partis et citoyens analysant honnêtement la situation tirent la même conclusion: il faut adopter massivement ces technologies, pour améliorer tant notre indépendance nationale, produire localement en bénéficiant de la production des autres, créer des emplois à forte valeur ajoutée, réduire les bugdets de l’état comme celui des entreprises (même en comptant les investissement dûs à la formation complémentaire), remettre le facteur humain au coeur des choix et replacer les technologistes qui ont permis ces avancées à leur juste niveau dans les chaînes de décision.

Pourtant, personne n’en parle. Ou si peu. ni de l’importance des données et formats ouverts !

Avec le si faible nombre de réponses obtenues au texte de candidats.fr (et aucun des 6 candidats que les sondages annoncent comme majeurs), comment se déterminer ? J’engage donc les candidats à la présidentielle, mais aussi ceux pour les législatives qui suivront à faire non seulement part de leurs intentions dans l’adoption de standards ouverts et des logiciels libres, mais aussi à les promouvoir dans les discours, comme l’un des moyens de réduire la dette de notre pays, d’améliorer l’emploi ainsi que notre indépendance technologique.

En 2012, votez FLOSS !

Meego IVI: a GENIVI compliant solution

2011/08/20

Linux usage has long been strong in the embedded market. And Meego, initially targeting mobile devices and being seen as an Android competitor, has been added new features to make it more IVI oriented. The GENIVI compliance has just been achieved by Meego IVI recently.

Of course I’d have prefered that they use project-builder.org instead of OBS, but that at least shows that these continuous packaging concepts are valid and taken in account by more and more communities.

I think that all these movements to create more standardized environment for dedicated vertical computing usage brings lots of good news: good news for the Open Source community as it improves the its feature set, improve the underlying platform by a larger usage, good news for the car industry as it provides to them a robust, low cost platform they can fully master (with all its features as I described earlier) and build on top, good news for consumers as they may end up having more homogeneous interfaces, and more over open ones given them the possibility to get more info on their own vehicle, or add new features themselves to what their IVI platform gives to them.

The Open World Forum event in September in its industrial track should detail this topic.

With all the recent announcements around WebOS, maybe that could be a new area of development now for this other Linux based platform.

FHS 3.0: First draft published

2011/08/17

The Linux Foundation has just announced the release of its first draft for FHS 3.0 and expect comments from the community. Time to speak !

And of course, I couldn’t resist making again comments ;-)

Proposition of Cross-Distro Mini-Conf for Linux.conf.au 2012

2011/07/02

Time has come again to think to our friends down under ! Since I was there in 2007 for a MondoRescue conference I think this is really a place to be in the FLOSS ecosystem when possible; Too bad it’s so far away from France :-( Travel costs are not light either.

But I thought I should propose the follwoing mini-conf, as the one I attended in Fosdem 2010 on the same topic worked very interesting, and allowed to start some joint collaboration that I think is fruitful and avoid/reduce fragmentation.

I hope it will be accepted to give me an opportunity to fly there and meet with the great community which gathers there each year.

So here it is (Thanks to the great example provided by Martin Michlmayr last year)

The “Cross-Distribution” mini-conf at LCA 2012 (Ballarat, Australia; January 16-20 2012) is for people interested in cooperation between Open Source distributions. Topics include contributors agreements, licensing policies, packaging best practices and tools, sharing patches to upstream projects, communications, working with upstream Open Source developers, translations, governance, workflow in place, version control systems, bug reporting management and sharing, vcs-pkg.org, funding, marketing, lessons from your experience, and whatever related topics people would like to bring up. Whether you are a single contributor working on a single package, or leading a full distribution, managing a full distribution infrastructure, or representing it in the press, whether it’s famous as Debian or less as AbulEdu this mini-conf hopes to bring different people together to exchange thoughts and facilitate discussion about these topics.

Presentation submitters should feel free to suggest their own topics. Here is a list of potentially interesting subjects (in no particular order):

* Building software packages on a large scale
* Choosing valid licenses and copyright policies
* Patch management
* Working with upstream
* Forking a distribution
* Experiences in distributed development
* Managing bug report and enhancement request
* Tools to support making a distribution
* Translation of a distribution
* Reuse between distributions
* Collaborationbetween distributions
* Distribution structures
* FHS
* Distribution Development Management and Governance
* Distribution Corporate Governance
* Lessons learned in building up your distribution
* Marketing
* Communication
* Copyrights
* Applying your copyright and license choices

We hope to receive proposals for:

* 50 minute expert panel discussions
* 50 minute full presentations
* 25 minute half presentations
* 5-10 minute lightning talks (e.g. success stories, …)

To submit a proposal, please contact Bruno Cornec at bruno.cornec@hp.com and include the following information:

* Your name
* Brief bio noting any previous speaking experience
* Talk title
* Brief outline of your proposed talk
* Notes of any special equipment / facilities you may require

Second day at Solutions Linux 2011

2011/05/12

I attended in the morning the round table on Governance lead by ALexandre Zapolsky (Linagora)

3 companies were represented:

Alterway (created in 2006) – 10 MEUR – 120 people (Represented by Véronique Torner)
Activities: Consulting – Hosting – Training
Governance for large enterprise (Open CIO Summit)

Smile (created in 1991) – 33 MEUR – 10 years on FLOSS – 540 people (Represented by Patrice Bertrand)
Activities: FLOSS integration, Web site/Intranet development,
Leading the FLOSS Working Group at Syntec Numérique.

Linagora (created in 2000) – 13 MEUR – 130 people (Represented by Michel Marie Maudet)
Activities: SW Editor (OBM) – OSSA – Consulting

Véronique said that 3 years ago in the CIO Summit, CIOs thought they had no Open Source.
This year, they have representatives from Safran, Ministère de la Justice, PriceMinistère, Nature et Découverte, La Poste, Auchan. Hidden before at infra level. Now seen at CIO level. So will to control and govern.

Patrice said 3 years ago that Gartner revealed the presence of FLOSS in the enterprise.
Contacts were performed with Carrefour, Véolia, EDF. Enterprises do not see how to do Contributions.
Purchasingdepartment is one of the entities interested by the governance aspects. CIOs want to rationalize.

Michel-Marie mentioned that Linagora worked with Carrefour, Air France, Renault on these topics.
CIOs have to mitigate risks wrt Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, IBM (MISO) which represent 80% of their budgets and thusthey have a policy of diversification and of cost reduction.

Véronique mentioned that the recent crisis revealed Open Source and allowed to dialog with CEOs on the topic. FLOSS was considered as an entry level/low cost solution before. It’s now considered for its true qualities, creating value in the enterprise.

Patrice reported that studies put quality before price, even if price remains in the scope.
Price reduction is coming from the packaged offered proposed by the various actors. Cost reduction is done due to the economy of scale (when deploying hundreds, thousands of SW).

Véronique underlined that in the infrastructure space, FLOSS has been key for deployment. On some other areas (apps like CMS), the cost difference may be less important. Sharepoint may be at 0EUR inside a large enterprise, so what is the benefit of a drupal there. This has to be worked in other ways. Some customers said that Red Hat is sometimes more expensice than a proprietary solution.

Michel-Marie asked what is the value here: lots of SW are deployed but 80% of its functions is unused. CIOs today consider more the value brought. In the management/monitoring area, the BMC/IBM offerings are like Christmas trees but stick less to customer needs. The right term is to be cost effective. Some customers say today that they have more problems to find competencies around commercial solutions than on FLOSS ones, because engineer schools have adopted massively FLOSS technos. It’s now the reverse of what it was still 5 years ago.

La Poste Governance representative precised that the goal is to work on technical cost reduction (Nagios praised), but they realized rapidly that they should work on value analysis more precisely, and that the value is in the people (more agile), so cost is similar to proprietary solutions, but FLOSS gives much less problems on the long run (open formats, archiving constraints, …)

Alexandre then orientated the discussion now around the Governance aspects themselves, and what policy to put in place.

Patrice said that FLOSS governance consists of writing in a document what the enterprise want in term of FLOSS adoption, derived in term of support, RH, contributions, … Maturity is not there on his side in France.

Véronique has seen organizational models in place, with people dedicated to FLOSS governance (La Poste is precisely an example with a FLOSS IT central group + dedicated teams recommending solutions + a small legal aspect). In the Société Général Bank, there is no split, it’s handled as commercial products. Safran has on his side a more formal legal approach on FLOSS.

Michel-Marie mentioned a methodology that has been developed to help CIOs. Around 10 weeks of assessment (20 architects of Air France e.g. were met and interviewed) to summarize needs, what worked, what didin’t and which FLOSS Solutions could be involved. Recommandations from other customers are shared and expected. Second step is to benchmark per vertical, size of company, usage models (simple user or OEM providers such as ALU). Third step is to build the governance (technology program, policy doc, solution reference architectures). Bouygues Telecom has positioned Oracle for critical DBs, and FLOSS ones (PostgreSQL) for non-critical ones. Then there is a need to measure, during time, FLOSS adoption. They recommend to put in place a FLOSS Center of Expertise (ALU has 150 persons for that).

Commercial SW vendors do the evangelization by meeting refgularly with customers to present new versions, evolutions, … in the FLOSS area, enterprise sneed to put in place a specific team to monitor the FLOSS ecosystem, create reference architecture and also to support themselves (or not) and deal with it. Véronique presents that CIOs hope to give the support to a single actor, and also fear the lack of an editor behind the Software.

Smile teamed up with OpenLogic to solve the support aspects for enterprises (L1-2,5 done by Smile and L3 by OpenLogic – having commiters in a large set of communities).
Patrice also mentioned the importance of the inventory with tools (such as Black Duck, FOSSology), and new models of FLOSS development (mutualized development with FLOSS such as GENIVI or OPEES)

Michel-Marie precised that they specify reference architectures with customers, creating a base of a large number of components and work on the support as a single point of contact (Note that HP and Linagora have partnered in France to use this model for customers). Re-insurance and patch reversion to the communities/editors is then handled by that actor in charge of support. Currently OSSA offering from Linagora is used by 50 customers. Air France created a “Blue Hat” base.

Véronique has around 10 customers for support, and some other more specific contracts. Patrice mentioned 10 customers as well with a starting offering.
Véronique also insisted on industrialization of FLOSS, with their experience around PHP. Voyage-SNCF is one of the customers benefiting from their work in that area.

Patrice mentioned that this is an area (customer developing Software) where governance on FLOSS is key. There are legal constraints, licenses and IP to respect, training to be performed up to the developer.
Michel-Marie explained that there is a need to guide developers with Software Engineering frameworks, e.g. pointing to the right versions of libraries, forcing a ticket for evolution.
Véronique thought that there is a lack of knowledge of FLOSS usage in the enterprise. They miss “geeks” and legal background.

Guillaume Rousseau (Antelink) made a testimony of what leaded INRIA to identify IP rights on their SW base (660000 bricks). What is the tooling to put in place to manage hundreds of thousands of components ? Patrice indicated that putting in place a central repository is a goal of the governance process, but it creates frustration at developer level by controling them tightly (pre-dev control), or pass tools that control a posteriori (afterwards) the conformity to rules (in a continuous build chain). Véronique mentions that another approach is to integrate developers to the governance program, in order to gain adoption.

Michel-Marie mentioned they have a much smaller base (300) that they are monitoring, but consider they have the one really used by their customers. Only a small part of customers embed FLOSS in their products and need more fine control. Others are users of bricks, more well-known and less risky.

Question from the audience on how to Open Source an internally developed SW. Recommandations from Patrice are that there is a need to be pro-active on the topic (Case of EDF). Véronique had requests from ISVs, more on a marketing aspect. They can help around the development aspects, quality aspects, licensing aspects.

Then some conferences where made:

Open Source Cartouche by Philippe-Arnaud Haranger (Atos Origin – Team Pascal Pujo)

Study made around an Aerospatial customer.
9 years of devs, and strong willingness to use FLOSS components.
Study showed incompatible licenses. Copy/Paste of code in 2000+ bricks.
Quote: “My God ! What have been done ?”

Licensing wasn’t a priority (they already didn’t document)
Code contamination is made on purpose, because they need it, and is due to local teams, outsourcing, and external application maintenance.
Consequences: licenses not respected, proprietary code tainted (PI loss)
Open Source was favoured, but in reality they created risks.

Solutons: Strong governance (creates too many constraints in general) or Tooling (cost, but efficient) or Manual Audit (cost, complex, impact) or take risk (costs and impact) or open source the SW (anyway conformity required, but impact as irreversible).
The earlier it’s done the less it costs.

Solution is Open Source Cartouche (what is around the Pharaon) – derived from QSOS.
Identify licenses and the recursivity of components integrated
It’s a structural approach beforehands, instead of scan afterwards (even if this is also required)
Put more trust in the FLOSS, Avoid contamination and protect community works.
Presenter asked the possibility of using this formalism in FOSSology ?

Some Remarks on my side:
I asked the question: What is the position vs SPDX ? I think they are probably in competition, and that they forget to consider it before launching something on their side. What is important is to have a standard adopted. The answer was that there is a fear of Blackduck that may create problems for communities. Their standard proposal is simpler than SPDX so more pragmatic, and thus propably easier to adopt by FLOSS projects. And the team is open to make required adaptations. However, it won’t work as a franco-french stuff !! I think we need an SPDX lite if we aim at being adopted by FLOSS projects, as the current status of the project is just only understandable by lawyers. I’ll try to generate some discussions around that on the SPDX ML.

Thinking about all this I think it would be valuable as well to lauch a new initiative to create the CERT/CVE base of licenses violations, working on the same model (disclosure after problem is solved).

Governance deployment return of experience by Guillaume Degroisse (Consulting Lead Linagora)

Goal Today: being independant from MISO.
Quality and Interoperability are considered before price.
Problems of adoption: Using standards of the market. Lack of performant FLOSS solution on some specific areas.

Bouygues has 150 own persons developing using Agile methods with lots of FLOSS components (not outsourced, and localized in France)
CIOs have to consider organisation, competence management, purchasing, legal and providers aspects. All these topics ar part of the FLOSS governance plan he has to put in place.
Guillaume also detailed what was covered during the round table around LInagora’s approach (Assessment, OSSA, CoE)

FOSSOlogy by … Bruno Cornec (HP)
25′ around the reasons of its creation/open sourcing, features and focus on upcoming 1.4.0

Return of experience on mutualization by David Duquenne (OpenWide Technology)

Enterprise have to deal with apps modernization.
Presentation focused on value creation at apps dev.

From innovation to industrialization: Technology assessment, R&D, Architecture and Integration, method and tools for industrialization. These leads to a framework definition
The goal is to share that Java Framework (Improve Foundations) across enterprises (having an Open Source base and community driven, and specificities intergated as components in this framework).
He insisted on the lack of java competencies. They deliver some Cobol to java trainings, espeically in-house.

Alliance Informatique has developed 100+ apps using Improve Foundation.
RSI wanted to fusion different IT systems.
Renault looked at homogeneize hundreds of projects (International). More interested to contribute. Renault will help Open Wide to develop the framework at international level
Atos Origin is also using it for 3000 screnn migrations

Gains: integration of non-java devs. and mobility of resources is key.

Passed the rest of the day discussing with various people. Had in particular a long and very interesting discussion with Erwan Velu who work at Zodiac, where they are developing a SIT (Seat Integrated Technology) all based on FLOSS (Linux/Debian, vlc, webkit, ELF, …) and have done an impressive job at making a nice looking, very responsive interface. I just hope that most companies I’m traveling with will adopt it soon ! And good news: they’re hiring :-) So if you want to work in a interesting area, way to go !

And they’re not the only one trying to recruit. I know that Wallix and Linagora at least are looking for good profile. All good news for our sector, which show indirectly the wealth of FLOSS !

The GENIVI project

2011/04/05

I attended a Meeting the 9th March 2011 organised by the Syntec Numérique on the GENIVI project in Paris, and I’d like to share with you a summary of this presentation. Thanks to Fabien and Philippe for proof-reading this summary, all the remaining mistakes being mine.

The GENIVI project

Presenters: Fabien Hernandez (Software Architect) PSA and Philippe Colliot (Technical Lead) PSA.

Context

GENIVI (http://genivi.org) is a non-profit industry alliance committed to driving the broad adoption of an In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) reference platform. GENIVI will accomplish this by aligning requirements, delivering reference implementations, offering certification programs and fostering a vibrant open source IVI community.

It is based on features, code and certification program. It is driven by car manufacturers. It has been setup due to increased customer demand.
GENIVI aims to provide a common middleware developed by all project members. (costs and bugs reduction).

Car manufacturer need to differentiate as well. Basic features are shared (such as video player), and they concentrate for differentiation on GUI and additional apps. Each manufacturer alone doesn’t have critical mass, but sharing these common bricks will allow each of them to reduce costs. Especially on the non-visible parts.

GENIVI should support multiple HW platforms (based on Intel, ARM, MIPS processors) and 15% of GENIVI members are chip manufacturers.
The solution is developped in layers (module oriented). The middleware is packaged to satisfy all profiles (entry, 2D navigation, high end 3D …)
Car life cycle: 3/4 years. Consumers world: 6/12 monthes.

History of GENIVI

Car Infotainment was historically achieved using black boxes.Now the move to Open Source is due to evolution of features, costs, develpment life cycles, competitive landscape and customer requests and thus motivated the GENIVI project creation. For example: For car navigation, systems used to cost more than 2kEUR. Tom-tom put it down a lot. Also PSA was managing multiple different closed source platforms up to now, from various providers (QNX, Windows, VxWorks, …) blocking them in their evolution (as solutions are sized at minimum).

Intel and BMW started to work on Linux with WindRiver. First PoCs occured in 2007. Following that the AUTOSAR consortium was created in 2007 (standardization body). A Split happened and BMW worked then with Magneti Marelli for another PoC. In April 2009, first announce was made in Geneva (the GEN of GENIVI :-)) of the GENIVI alliance, including BMW, Intel, Wind River, Magneti, GM, Delphi, PSA and Visteorrn. Goal is to have 6 monthes releases. End of 2010, the alliance released the Apollo release based on Meego. In May 2011, new version will be delivered (Borg in Dublin), with more compliance. Could be based on Meego or Ubuntu or something else. Adoption of Qt-Core as a brick, but it was not in compliance standard at start.

Since that more members including manufacturers (Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover but some less active), First Tiers (Alpine, Bosch, Clarion, Mitsubishi, Pioneer) and Silicon manufacturer (Ti, freescale, Nvidia, ST, Samsung, ….) + lots of other !! (132 incl. Altran, Cisco, Accenture, Garmin, LG,
Nokia, Tata, Valeo, … but not HP yet !!!)

These members are mainly located in EMEA (80% activity) + AMS. Lots of M2M modules.
Some discussions have started with Google for the Android Consortium, and with the CE4A for the Terminal Mode (communication with external devices such as phones). Not ready yet to use standard devices for car control. Also there is a willingness to keep control on what runs in the the car, by the car manufacturers, even if they are open to allow additional application execution on the GENIVI platform.

Software development

GENIVI is organized with Expert groups. A PMO coordinates it. Solution Archhitects perform the Architecture Coordination.
From the design made, it goes to Execution Teams for coding (could be: feature addition to existing FLOSS bricks, or code creation if nothing is ready), and Maintenance teams for maintenance tasks.

The platform consists of 80% of existing FLOSS components (without modification), 15% of modules to be adapted (conman e.g.), 5% of specific code to be developed. But 100% of FLOSS code at the end.
It’s up to the point to allow car drivers to add/modify apps in the car (re-using the Meego concept).

The Baseline Integ. Team provides a GENIVI environement (a la distribution) to allow other teams to work.
The alliance has categorized 3 levels of licenses (Apache and GPLv2 are green). For code creation either L/GPL or Apache or BSD is used, depending on interfaces. Contributions not yet completely controled under the Governance model (case of conman of Meego recently). Intellectual Property is transmitted to the Alliance.

Governance

There is also another IVI module with Meego, which is hosted by the Linux Foundation. So not yet possible for GENIVI to be hosted here as well. The alliance has not considered joinnig an existing foundation (Eclipse, Apache) to benefit from Governance and tooling.

Governance in place on what enters in GENIVI as for now. as well as code scanning.
FOSSology and BlackDuck are among the tools used for validation and are still under evaluation.
I asked whether there are possibilities to share best practices and governance docs in the future. It has not yet been decided, but seems possible.
The Alliance is also looking at conformity around CGL and LSB.

Finance

It costs 5 kUSD to enter in the consortium (minimum fee for an Associate member). Many levels of contributions (and access to deliveries) exist with appropriate power of decision.
The Business model remains to be clarified completely.
The budget is around 800 kEUR yearly. With some permanent members to manage infra mainly.

Life cycle

GENIVI will be a market reality in 2013.

The Life Cycle is 3/4 years for development, but up to 15 years for the car.
I underlined the possibility for the GENIVI alliance to work with OPEES to share long life cycles best practices with the aerautics sector. (Side note: Ericsson joined OPEES recently)

Importance for PSA
Separated developments are not cost effective anymore. So PSA wants to put emphasis on what differentiates them and share what is not.
More requirements are put on providers in fact with the GENIVI offering. As a consequence it activities will evolve around integration capabilities, buying
capabilities, partners management, … At the end the car manufacturer is impacted by errors, where ever they come from. Its image is the one people remember.

Technical Constraints

  • Using networks such as CAN, MOST, Flexray, 1394 Auto, Ethernet AVB
  • Wake up time constraints (< 200ms)
  • Energy management linked to usage conditions (driving, parked, …)
  • HW constraints (# of accesses to flash memory )
  • Temperature constraints
  • Boot time constraints
  • Ergonomy constraints, especially when driving, and accessibility
  • Safety constraint (connection to critical car components, even audio e.g. could be dangerous)
  • Real time treatment required. back drive radar, or camera.
  • Security constraints (virus, openness, …) – ISO 2626-2 standard to be considered.
  • Studies also around Virtualization, micro OS, …

Question: What about car update from Internet during the night ? Answer: these types of studies are ongoing.

The Linux Foundation publishes a Compliance Tools page

2010/12/15

The Linux Foundation has published a very interesting page, as part of its compliance program on Compliance Tools that can help every organization wanting to tool their analysis of FLOSS usage.

Mention of FOSSology is made as well as some other binary analysis tool, and new development managed by the Linux Foundation itself.

Of course, tools are just helpful, but they don’t substitute themselves to a good FLOSS Policy Manual nor correspondent or review board !

If your organization has not looked at it yet, it’s probably time to do it as it’s becoming one of the hot topics of the moment, as well as for communities themselves.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers