The Free Software Engineering Survey

Totals

• Number of requests sent out: 1102
• Number of registered projects: 975 (88.5% of sent)
• Number of projects which completed surveys: 586  (60.1% of registered)
• Number of projects with invalid surveys: 22 (2.3% of registered)
• Number of responses that covered distributions or metaprojects: 31 (3.2% of registered)
• Total number of projects regarded in global counts: 519 (53.2% of registered)

  ---

• Number of completed surveys with valid tarballs: 521 (53.4% of registered)
• Number of completed surveys with valid tarballs and LOC count: 521 (53.4% of registered)

Project Counts by Site

(Yeah, add up sf.net and sourceforge.net)

• other: 608,
• sourceforge.net: 99,
• sf.net: 42,
• gnu.org: 15,
• .<a href=\"http: 13,
• technorati.com: 10,
• Plaxis Ent. All about Plaxis <a href=\"http: 8,
• deforum.org: 8,
• archive.org: 8,
• msn.com: 7,
• gnome.org: 7,
• com.br: 7,
• co.uk: 7,
• com.au: 6,
• bettertransit.com: 6,
• kde.org: 6,
• ypxoiea.com: 5,
• free.fr: 5,
• games2web.com: 4,
• opxaiey.com: 4,
• newbreedsoftware.com: 4,
• freshmeat.net: 4,
• greatwallclimbing.com: 4,
• linux911.org: 4,

Project Counts by Internet Area

(46 different domains in survey)

com: 136, org: 119, net: 83, de: 42, edu: 24, fr: 15, uk: 14, au: 11, se: 10, nl: 9, it: 8, br: 6, ch: 5, ca: 5, fi: 4, ar: 3, il: 3, nu: 3, hu: 3, at: 3, es: 3, no: 3, pl: 3, ru: 3, ie: 2, cz: 2, jp: 2, us: 2, be: 2, dk: 2, za: 1, CA: 1, ee: 1, : 1, li: 1, tw: 1, NET: 1, mx: 1, COM: 1, sk: 1, tr: 1, am: 1, cx: 1, nz: 1, gr: 1, ro: 1,

Project Counts by Domain

• Personal Messenging and Peer to Peer Systems: 25
  
• Basic System and Unix Software, Printing, Backup: 52
  
• Mechanical, Civil and Electrical Engineering: 3
  
• Electronic Mail and News: 34
  
• Networking and Security: 78
  
• Graphics, Animation and Imaging: 25
  
• Browsers, Viewers, Editors and Office Applications: 50
  
• Software Engineering, Development and Middleware: 106
  
• Miscellaneous: 28
  
• Window Systems and supporting applications: 23
  
• Emulation: 8
  
• Databases and supporting applications: 16
  
• Business, Finance and E-Commerce: 8
  
• Scientific Applications: 12
  
• Games: 26
  
• Audio, Video and Media Recording: 54
  

Average Scores

Warning: pg_exec() [function.pg-exec]: Query failed: ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "projects" LINE 1: SELECT answers from surveys WHERE projects.id = surveys.proj... ^ in /home/kiko/www/fsp/data.inc on line 99

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/kiko/www/fsp/scores.inc on line 215

Summary of project sourcecode data

• Average size of project tarball: 1717.873 KBytes
• Average time since last public release: 2796 days
• Average number of languages per project: 3.188 languages
• Average of total LOC per project: 60.206 KSLOC

Survey answers

1.1: Motivations Multiple choices possible
a. The project was started primarily for personal reasons (had desire to learn, found technology interesting, etc).	369 (71.1%)
b. The project was started primarily to produce software to support another Open Source/Free Software project	80 (15.4%)
c. The project was started (or sponsored) by a company or organization.	69 (13.3%)
d. The project was started as part of academic (university) work or research.	62 (11.9%)
e. The project's intention from the beginning was to produce at least part of its software as Open Source/Free Software.	304 (58.6%)
f. The project began based on pre-existing Open Source/Free Software (code fork, etc.).	113 (21.8%)
g. The project began based on pre-existing proprietary/closed source software.	31 (6.0%)
h. Other	59 (11.4%)
(Did not choose any)	5 (1.0%)
1.2: User Base Multiple choices possible
a. Yourself.	390 (75.1%)
b. The project team	214 (41.2%)
c. Users that are not computer-proficient or non-technical.	194 (37.4%)
d. Users in specific fields of expertise (e.g. amateur radio enthusiasts, mathematicians, engineers, software developers). Please specify which in the comment box below.	221 (42.6%)
e. Users in a particular company, site or organization	75 (14.5%)
f. One or more specific commercial customers (sponsors/paying).	66 (12.7%)
g. The Free Software/Open Source community.	323 (62.2%)
h. The computing community.	216 (41.6%)
i. Other	62 (11.9%)
(Did not choose any)	2 (0.4%)
1.3: Project age Single choice
d. 2-5 years	208 (40.1%)
c. 1-2 years	127 (24.5%)
e. Over 5 years	109 (21.0%)
b. 6 months to a year	45 (8.7%)
a. Less than 6 months	27 (5.2%)
Other	3 (0.6%)
1.4: Pre-existing standard Single choice
b. No.	319 (61.5%)
a. Yes.	167 (32.2%)
Other	27 (5.2%)
(Left unanswered)	6 (1.2%)
2.1: Team size Single choice
d. 16-25	16 (3.1%)
c. 6-15	97 (18.7%)
e. 26-50	10 (1.9%)
b. 2-5	220 (42.4%)
a. 1	164 (31.6%)
f. More than 50	11 (2.1%)
Other	1 (0.2%)
2.2: Leadership model Single choice
d. There is no effective leadership structure.	13 (2.5%)
c. The project is led by a core group or committee of people that is responsible for making decisions; there is no single leader.	87 (16.8%)
e. This is a single-person project.	182 (35.1%)
b. The project has a single leader, which delegates responsibility occasionally to others.	120 (23.1%)
a. The project has a single leader and a number of people that are formally responsible for parts of it.	90 (17.3%)
Other	27 (5.2%)
2.3: General team aspects Multiple choices possible
a. Most people in the team know each other only through the Internet, and have never met physically/personally.	323 (62.2%)
b. Most people in the team work physically close, and meet personally with some frequency.	57 (11.0%)
c. The team includes people that have more than 5 years experience in serious software development.	290 (55.9%)
d. The project provides a high barrier of entry to new participants, even to those that are skilled in software development.	104 (20.0%)
e. A contributor to the project will often participate in more than one project activity: functionality definition, architectural design, designing user interfaces , coding, testing, project management, etc.	208 (40.1%)
f. Code contributors tend to work only on one specific language or technology used in the project (the one which they are most familiar with).	117 (22.5%)
g. Other	46 (8.9%)
(Did not choose any)	35 (6.7%)
3.1: Defining Functionality Multiple choices possible
a. The project's software explicitly mimics (or is significantly based upon) the functionality or behavior of an existing (proprietary or Free Software/Open Source) software package. If so, please specify which?	185 (35.6%)
b. A significant amount of effort is spent defining what the software functionality and behavior (the requirements) should be.	222 (42.8%)
c. This project has no end-users apart from the project team.	7 (1.3%)
d. There have been meetings or discussions with end-users to define significant parts of the software functionality or behavior.	195 (37.6%)
e. These meetings/discussions occur frequently, and can be considered an important part of defining the project's software.	97 (18.7%)
f. The software functionality is implemented according to what the team thinks is correct, without significant external end-user input.	209 (40.3%)
g. I believe much of the expected functionality and behavior is not completely known or understood by the project team as a whole.	50 (9.6%)
h. Other	62 (11.9%)
(Did not choose any)	7 (1.3%)
3.2: Usability Multiple choices possible
a. The user interfaces for the project are designed (or prototyped) and refined before actually being implemented.	144 (27.7%)
b. We have conducted serious usability tests and studies on the project's user interfaces.	34 (6.6%)
c. Developers are not allowed to implement or change the user interfaces before the implementation/change has been reviewed and approved.	61 (11.8%)
d. A part of the team is specifically in charge of UI design.	41 (7.9%)
e. We would like to invest more in usability, but we are hampered by lack of documentation and/or team knowledge on the subject.	59 (11.4%)
f. This project doesn't have any significant user interface.	156 (30.1%)
g. Other	117 (22.5%)
(Did not choose any)	50 (9.6%)
3.3: Documentation Multiple choices possible
a. We have produced documents that describe at least some of the expected functionality and behavior (requirements) of our software.	361 (69.6%)
b. The project produces and maintains documents for developers that describe how the code is organized (architecture), and/or how parts of it work.	156 (30.1%)
c. There is a reasonably complete coding standards guide that is actively followed by the team.	124 (23.9%)
d. There is documentation for the end-user available for the project's software (consider also third-party documents available).	403 (77.6%)
e. End-user documentation is provided to a large extent by people or groups external to the project team.	61 (11.8%)
f. A significant part of the available documentation is frequently updated and revised to be up to date.	284 (54.7%)
g. Other	39 (7.5%)
(Did not choose any)	12 (2.3%)
3.4: Quality Assurance Multiple choices possible
a. There is an [automated] test suite for the project's software, that is used to validate it.	141 (27.2%)
b. There is a test plan (a written document describing tests) for the project's software, that is used by the project team.	51 (9.8%)
c. Periodic (i.e. nightly, weekly) snapshots of the project's code (or binaries) are distributed and used as an significant means of testing the software.	140 (27.0%)
d. There is an active code review process, where code is read by other members of the team.	119 (22.9%)
e. The project team members have formal rules for integrating code changes into the main codebase, and review is a strict requirement.	78 (15.0%)
f. Usually, an unexpected amount of bugs are discovered after a version has been publically released (this includes public release candidates).	107 (20.6%)
g. There is a tendency (or policy) to release a public version only when it has been extensively tested by the team.	289 (55.7%)
h. Other	72 (13.9%)
(Did not choose any)	42 (8.1%)
3.5: Tools Multiple choices possible
a. A project hosting site such as Sourceforge.net, Savannah or Collab.net (mark all others applicable as well)	296 (57.0%)
b. One or more Web sites	348 (67.1%)
c. A WikiWikiWeb site (SWiki, TWiki, PHPWiki, ZWiki, etc.)	32 (6.2%)
d. A Frequently Asked Questions document	194 (37.4%)
e. A version control tool such as CVS, RCS, Subversion or Bitkeeper	380 (73.2%)
f. A bug database such as GNATS or Bugzilla	175 (33.7%)
g. One or more mailing lists	347 (66.9%)
h. Network news (NNTP)	36 (6.9%)
i. User forums/BBS	67 (12.9%)
j. IRC	116 (22.4%)
k. An instant messaging system like ICQ, Jabber or AIM	46 (8.9%)
l. Other	50 (9.6%)
(Did not choose any)	2 (0.4%)

Note: for multiple-choice answers, the totals for the different percentages may surpass 100%. This is by design, since a single project can have more than one option selected.