SCOS at WorldComp’08

1) Mature source codes: The vast majority of the source codes studied received the highest rating on the “Maturity” criterion with an average of 5 points out of 6. Implicitly, the same holds for their stability. Finally, no code has had a tumultuous history, or has crossed a significant crisis. That in itself is a sign of quality.

2) Communities and Open Source: Information from users are often unavailable if they actually exist. Few discussion forums have been created to foster a community spirit. When they exist, they are rarely referenced and therefore little used, even if some codes are listed on the most popular search engines (freshmeat or Source Forge, for example). Google, one of the most popular search engine on the Internet, is often of little help due to the low referencing of tools related to scientific computing. Consequently, finding a known code becomes a difficult task that does not helping promoting the usage of the software looked for. Most open source software mentions this issue and complains of a too small community to ensure their survival over time. A better communication and developing a “community spirit” (for developers and users) should therefore constitute a priority to work upon.

3) Services: French source codes exhibit a significant delay in terms of services (training, advise, support) compared their proprietary and international counterparts. The lack of facilities often prevents researchers to meet users’ expectations. But on the positive side, French codes are well documented and kept up-to-date. This represents a strength that should be promoted.

4) An ongoing activity but often hidden: Most software activity is related to their development. A code evolves, mutes, improves and becomes more efficient or falls into oblivion. The history of software is kept track of in its ”releases”. They are often referred to but little information is available on which develops what and especially when. Similarly, the road maps are rarely published. When they are available, they are rarely dated, although this information is important in a community management. To conclude, projects management often lacks clarity and readability over time.