Flesh out arguments for FOSS for PMs.

Signed-off-by: Sarah Sharp <sarah@thesharps.us>

1 files changed, 64 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open-source-101-pms.txt b/open-source-101-pms.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..64da5c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open-source-101-pms.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+1. FOSS quality
+
+1a. Security Myths:
+
+Anyone can see open source code, so it's easier to create security exploits.
+
+CVE data shows Microsoft products have more critical venerabilities than Linux
+products:
+
+http://www.cvedetails.com/cvss-score-charts.php?fromform=1&vendor_id=33&product_id=&startdate=2011-04-04&enddate=2016-04-04
+http://www.cvedetails.com/cvss-score-charts.php?fromform=1&vendor_id=26&product_id=&startdate=2011-04-04&enddate=2016-04-04
+
+Hiding code does not make a product safer.
+
+
+1a. Maintainability
+
+Car manufacturers get most of their software stack from third-party vendors who
+put all the security liability on the manufacturers. There is no incentive to
+update or keep their software secure. Since, car manufacturers have such a long
+ramp-up time for safety approval and they have to maintain the car software
+stack for 7-10 years, they are turning to open source.
+
+http://embedded-computing.com/articles/the-car-its-about-integration/
+
+"What's not so obvious is that as complexity grows, the ability to innovate
+shrinks. Why? Because if more and more of your development time and resources
+are spent managing development options, associated requirements, and integration
+testing, less time, money, expertise, and creative energy are available for
+invention."
+
+"Open source maintainership is for life."
+
+
+
+5. Cost of technical debt
+Talk dollars
+
+Android devices vs kernel versions and dates (as of March 31, 2016)
+
+Android Version    |API Level  |Linux Kernel in AOSP |% of Android devices |Kernel release date |Latest stable version |# of patches to port
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1.5   Cupcake      |3          |2.6.27               |                     |                    |                      |
+1.6   Donut        |4          |2.6.29               |                     |                    |                      |
+2.0/1 Eclair       |5-7        |2.6.29               |                     |                    |                      |
+2.2.x Froyo        |8          |2.6.32               |                     |                    |                      |
+2.3.x Gingerbread  |9, 10      |2.6.35               |                     |                    |                      |
+3.x.x Honeycomb    |11-13      |2.6.36               |                     |                    |                      |
+4.0.x Ice Cream San|14, 15     |3.0.1                |                     |                    |                      |
+4.1.x Jelly Bean   |16         |3.0.31               |  8.1%               |2012                |                      |
+4.2.x Jelly Bean   |17         |3.4.0                | 11.0%               |2012                |                      |
+4.3   Jelly Bean   |18         |3.4.39               |  3.2%               |2013                |                      |
+4.4   Kit Kat      |19, 20     |3.10                 | 34.3%               |2013                |                      |
+5.x   Lollipop     |21, 22     |3.16.1               | 36.1%               |2014                |                      |
+6.0   Marshmallow  |23         |3.18.10              |  2.3%               |2015                |                      |
+
+sources:
+http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/51651/which-android-runs-which-linux-kernel
+http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
+
+QUESTION: Do phone manufacturers choose to use an older version of AOSP so they
+can run on cheaper hardware? Or is the above chart just showing the aging of
+older phones?
+