International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

TOPSIS-Approach in Selection of Open Source with Ideal Solution Optimization

Rahul B. Diwate1, Kavita S. Pokarna2 Assistant Professor1, U.G.Scholar2 J.D.I.E.T., Yavatmal, Amravati University

Abstract-Now a day’s open source software is purpose [1]. Due to code distribution polices of widely market dominating product. There are open source software, now a day’s number of multiple options are available for operating operating system are made available in the system. In this paper we focused on selection of market, But as soon as latest versions are operating system with the applicability of released many options are available and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). confusion occurs. Open source technology is Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has often a smart choice for designers looking to been extensively used in Management Science stay competitive. It provides the means to keep as a tool for evaluating options in decisions down costs while increasing system which involve the achievement of multiple efficiencies. For designers and developers objectives. MCDA is can be applied to the striving to strike a balance between resources selection of operating systems (OPS) in a group and requirements, open source software, while decision environment. A OSSP selection model not always as pretty as its more expensive is proposed to facilitate the group's decision counterparts, is a viable solution. Open source making in the selection of OSSP. For our four software is software that can be freely used, experts participated in our study, who are changed, and shared (in modified or technically competent and experienced. They unmodified form) by anyone. Open source were trained to use MCDA for Selection OSSP software is made by many people, and and then applied this technique.. distributed under licenses that comply with the Keywords- Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Open Source Definition [6].OSI uses The Open (MCDA). Operating system ( Flavor OS), Source Definition to determine whether it Decision making system, Ideal Solution, considers a software license open source. The Negative Ideal Solution. definition was based on the Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted I. Introduction: primarily by Perens[3][4][5]. Perens did not 1. Open source Software base his writing on the "four freedoms" of Free Today, the open source technology is Software from the Free Software Foundation developing at an incredible speed. With the (FSF)[2]. acceleration of the development in the field of operating system, it becomes necessary to take 2. Basic Framework for OSSP decisions more frequently for the update of the The motivation of this work is the demand operating system. Open-source software (OSS) in the open source software market for analysis is computer software with its source code made and comparison of operating system, in a way available with a license in which the copyright that helps users to choose operating system holder provides the rights to study change and based on their needs and limitations. In this distribute the software to anyone and for any work we will study a real world case and define 108 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

the main criteria for operating system selection  Linux is more suited to multi-tasking and problem. Following diagram shows the general security frame work for selection criteria for selection of Linux was designed from the outset as a multi- operating system. user, multi-tasking PC version of the most popular business O/S Unix - which has been around for a long time and is used by most businesses to run their Data Processing departments.  Linux is light on resources Linux is smaller and less resource intensive, allowing it to run on old hardware or low specification PCs. Figure 2.1: A Framework for operating  Linux is Open Source system selection criteria This means that the code is available to anyone. Since the more information available for use in There is an army of Linux developers out there multiple criteria decision making is usually tinkering with the code and producing fixes or uncertain. To obtain less biased judgments we enhancing the code rather than relying on adopt a group decision making approach with programmers from a single vendor company. four experts who are technically competent and As a result, intervals between major Linux experience. We perform comparisons on releases are measured in months not years different flavor of Linux version with their  Linux is portable: different parameters. And calculate Ideal Generally code written on one flavor of Linux solution for selection of operating system. will run on all other versions of Linux or Unix 2.1 Why Linux? with little or no modification Linux is more beneficial option for operating  Linux software is generally free: system but there are many flavors are available In the spirit of Open Source, most Linux in operating system market, like , Linux developers make their downloadable at charge. mint, , puppy Linux, Fedora. How to There is now a very large amount of software choose better operating system? It totally available: software is available for most depends upon the users need or expectation. applications For categorization of software there are some comparative parameters which are included in 3. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis this paper. (MCDA). Linux has a lot of advantages over the "usual Multiple-criteria decision-making or suspects", including the following: multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)  Linux is free! is a sub-discipline of operations research that You can download it off the web: there is also explicitly considers multiple criteria in no licensing cost for installing it to multiple decision-making environments. Whether in our PCs daily lives or in professional settings, there are  Linux is available in lots of different typically multiple conflicting criteria that need “flavors”: to be evaluated in making decisions [9]. If you have a particular use in mind for your Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a PC, then there is probably a tailored version of methodology for supporting decision making Linux out there just for you when multiple objectives have to be achieved 109 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

[10, 11], It has been extensively used to support 4. Important Key Features of Operating a wide variety of complex decision problems System [5]. The AHP first decomposes the decision The main criteria for selection of operating problem into a hierarchy of sub-problems. Then system id depends upon the following related the decision-maker evaluates the relative criteria importance of its various elements by pair wise Performance: Optimizing operating system comparisons. The AHP converts these (OS) environment can improve system evaluations to numerical values (weights or performance and capacity by helping you to priorities), which are used to calculate a score quickly identify areas of concern. You can use for each alternative. A consistency index the information to evaluate performance, measures the extent to which the decision- identify potential issues, and perform tuning. maker has been consistent in her responses. The following are some of the details gathered on the performance and capacity of a specific 3.2 Alternative & Criteria: - Selection of the operating system or zone [14]: best, from a set of alternatives, each of which is Real time network details, Real time IO details, evaluated against multiple criteria. Real time and historical process details, Real These will impact the selection of alternatives. time and historical memory details Example: (for Operating system selection Reusability: Reusability of various components problem) version, kernel, booting time, of operating system. Memory space Flexibility: Flexibility in a operating system is enhanced through the modular and Completeness: It is important to ensure that all characteristics of the OS, and by providing a of the important criteria are included. richer set of higher-level services. Redundancy: In principle, criteria that have Maintainability: A characteristic of design and been judged relatively unimportant or to be installation, expressed as the probability that an duplicates should be removed at a very early item will be retained in or restored to a stage. specified condition within a given period of time, when the maintenance is performed in Operationally: It is important that each accordance with prescribed procedures and alternative can be judged against each criterion. resources. Some problem solving techniques are: General Criteria: Selection Criteria for • SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) operating system selection process is also • TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference depend on the general criteria. by Similarity to the Ideal Solution) Technical architecture: Technical • ELECTRE (Elimination et Choice requirements, including integration with Translating Reality) existing systems • AHP (The Analytical Hierarchy Process) Cost:-Both for implementation, maintenance • SMART (The Simple Multi Attribute and further adaptation / extension Rating Technique ) Version: - Current version of operating system, • ANP (Analytic network process) Service and support: - It levels provided by From above solving techniques we consider the vendor TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Functionality:-The coverage of functional Similarity to the Ideal Solution) method for requirements, selection of operating system. 110 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

Software Features (A5): An operating system must provide application software in large quantities and good quality to satisfy user requests

Programming Interface (A6): Programming Interface provides several ways for developers to access to system resources such as kernel objects, I/O devices and etc [18]. Distributed structure (A7): A distributed system is a collection of processors that do not share memory or a clock. Instead, each processor has its own local memory [18], and Figure4.1: Selection Criteria for operating the processors communicate with one another system selection process through communication lines such as local area Alternative for Operating System Selection or wide area networks. Process Memory Management (A1): It is used to improve both the utilization of the CPU and the speed of its response to users, the computer must keep several processes in memory: Main Memory & Virtual Memory. Storage Management (A2): The term storage management encompasses the technologies and processes organizations use to maximize or improve the performance of their data storage resources [16]. Process Management (A3): The OS must allocate resources to processes, enable processes to share and exchange information Figure4.2: Alternative Selection Criteria for [15], protect the resources of each process from operating system selection process other processes and enable synchronization among processes. 5. Method overview on TOPSIS with Protection & security (A4): Protection deal OSSP with protecting files and other resources from Linux comes in many different guises. The accidental misuse by cooperating users sharing basic system is the same, but the look and feel a system, generally using the computer for and the subsystems around it are different. Each normal purposes [17]. And Security deals with version is produced by a different organization protecting systems from deliberate attacks, with it’s own ethos and aims. The result is a either internal or external, from individuals unique version of Linux which is aimed at a intentionally attempting to steal information, slightly different set of users. damage information, or otherwise deliberately Following Table shows the different versions of wreak havoc in some manner. Linux and their aims [19].

111 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

Linux Aims of Operating System version Ubuntu Currently the most popular version, Canonical's user friendly slick desktop GUI driven Linux, based on the Debian core. Ubuntu's philosophy is to hide the complexity of the underlying O/S from the user and to provide maximum reliability. The most user- friendly version for Linux newbie’s. Fedora The next most popular version is Red Hat's free version that includes a powerful desktop GUI based on Gnome 3 but there are also various spins of it that use different desktops - such as KDE instead. It is often amongst the first to include new technology and is strong on security. Linux Currently in third place is another user friendly version of Linux, based on an Ubuntu Mint core and sometimes described as "an improved Ubuntu". Mint adds various tools on top of the standard Ubuntu. Puppy Small footprint (100Mb once installed) Linux, suitable for old hardware or low Linux specification machines. Can run easily from a USB memory stick or Live CD/DVD. Includes a full desktop GUI, browser, general purpose tools and minimal applications. Great for old / low specification hardware Table 5 (A):Linux flavor with aims

For consideration of operating system selection Weights – These estimates relative importance we select four operating system of Linux of criteria. Now following table is shows the Flavor. Important term is related to TOPSIS is relation of criteria with weight

Sr.No Criteria Weight as per Highest Priority Rating Scale

1 Memory Management 4 10 High-1 Low

2 Storage Management 5 10 Hign-1 Low

3 Process Management 8 10 High-1 Low

4 Protection& Security 10 10 High-1 Low

5 Software Features 9 10 High-1 Low

6 Programming interface 7 10 High-1 Low

7 Distributed structure 6 10 High-1 Low

Table 5.1 Relation of Criteria with Weight as per Highest Priority

The first Basic step to take weight for each decision about making selection from a range linux flavor and calculate Attribute weight. A of options. Ubuntu Following table that is used to objectively make 112 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

Sr. Criteria Decision Maker for Ubuntu Attribute Total No Weight Reference Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 1 A1 7 6 8 7 (7+6+8+7)/4 7 2 A2 7 8 7 8 (7+8+7+8)/4 7.5 3 A3 6 7 6 7 (6+7+6+7)/4 6.5 4 A4 8 8 8 8 (8+8+8+8)/4 8 5 A5 7 7 7 7 (7+7+7+7)/4 7 6 A6 10 9 10 8 (10+9+10+9)/4 9.25 7 A7 7 6 5 6 (7+6+5+6)/4 6 Table 5.1.1 Decision Maker for Ubuntu The total of Criteria is calculated by the A Following table that is used to objectively average of all experts weight. make decision about making selection from a S(U)=U(E) ……………………..(1) range of options. Fedora [U(E)= ∑ (E1+E2+E3+E4)/4]

Sr. No Criteria Decision Maker for Fedora Attribute Weight Total Reference Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert4 1 A1 7 6 7 7 (7+6+7+7)/4 6.75 2 A2 7 8 8 8 (7+8+8+8)/4 7.75 3 A3 7 6 8 7 (7+6+8+7)/4 7 4 A4 9 8 8 8 (9+8+8+8)/4 8.25 5 A5 8 7 8 7 (8+7+8+7)/4 7.5 6 A6 9 9 9 8 (9+9+9+8)/4 8.75 7 A7 7 6 8 6 (7+6+8+6)/4 6.75 Table 5.1.2 Decision Maker for Fedora S(F)=F(E)…………………………..(2) make decision about making selection from a A Following table that is used to objectively range of options. Sr. No Criteria Decision Maker for Linux Mint Attribute Total Weight Reference Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 1 A1 7 6 6 5 (7+6+6+5)/4 6 2 A2 7 8 8 6 (7+8+8+6)/4 7.25 3 A3 6 6 8 7 (6+6+8+7)/4 6.75 4 A4 9 8 9 8 (9+8+9+8)/4 8.5 5 A5 7 6 7 7 (7+6+7+7)/4 6.75 6 A6 9 6 9 8 (9+6+9+8)/4 8 7 A7 7 8 7 6 (7+8+7+6)/4 7 Table 5.1.3 Decision Maker for Linux Mint S(LM)=LM(E)…………………………..(3)A decision about making selection from a range Following table that is used to objectively make of options. Puppy Linux

113 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

Sr. No Criteria Decision Maker for Puppy Linux Attribute Total Weight Reference Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 1 A1 7 7 6 8 (7+7+6+8)/4 7 2 A2 6 6 7 7 (6+6+7+7)/4 6.5 3 A3 8 8 5 8 (8+8+5+8)/4 7.25 4 A4 7 6 6 7 (7+6+6+7)/4 6.5 5 A5 6 7 7 8 (6+7+7+8)/4 7 6 A6 8 6 5 6 (8+6+5+6)/4 6.25 7 A7 7 6 8 8 (7+6+8+8)/4 7.25 Table 5.1.4 Decision Maker for Puppy Linux S(PL)=PL(E)……………………..(4) negative ideal solution. The following Steps Technique for Order Preference by involved Similarity to Ideal Solution Step 1 – standardize the decision matrix. In this method two artificial alternatives are This step transforms various attribute hypothesized: dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, Ideal alternative: One which has the best which allows comparisons across criteria.For attributes values (i.e. max. benefit attributes and standardizing, each column of decision matrix, min. cost attributes) is divided by root of sum of square of Negative ideal alternative: One which has the respective columns. From the above equation worst attributes values. (i.e. min. benefit 1,2,3,4 attributes and max. cost attributes) Total Attribute is calculated by the square root 6. Result of all decision Matrix TOPSIS selects the alternative that is the Total Attribute Weight (TAW)= closest to the ideal solution and farthest from √S(U)2+S(F)2+S(LM)2+S(PL)2………..(5)

Sr. Criteria Decision Matrix Attribute Weight Total No Reference Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux TAW S(u) S(F) S(LM) S(PL) 1 A1 7 6.75 6 7 √72+6.752+62+72 13.40 2 A2 7.5 7.75 7.25 6.5 √7.52+7.752+7.252 14.53 +6.52 3 A3 6.5 7 6.75 7.25 √6.52+72+6.252+7. 13.76 252 4 A4 8 8.25 8.5 6.5 √82+8.252+8.52+6. 15.70 52 5 A5 7 7.5 6.75 7 √72+7.52+6.752+72 14.14 6 A6 9.25 8.75 8 6.25 √9.252+8.752+82+ 16.28 6.252 7 A7 6 6.75 7 7.25 √62+6.752+72+252 13.53 Table 6.1.1 (A) decision matrix with TAW 114 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

The standardized decision matrix is & S(LM)/TAW & calculated by SDM=S(U)/TAW & S(F)/TAW S(PL)/TAW…………………………(6) Sr.No Criteria Decision Matrix TAW

Reference Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux 1 A1 7/13.40 6.75/13.40 6/13.40 7/13.40 13.40 2 A2 7.5/14.53 7.75/14.53 7.25/14.53 6.5/14.53 14.53 3 A3 6.5/13.76 7/13.76 6.75/13.76 7.25/13.76 13.76 4 A4 8/15.70 8.25/15.70 8.5/15.70 6.5/15.70 15.70 5 A5 7/14.14 7.5/14.14 6.75/14.14 7/14.14 14.14 6 A6 9.25/16.28 8.75/16.28 8/16.28 6.25/16.28 16.28 7 A7 6/13.53 6.75/13.53 7/13.53 7.25/13.53 13.53 Table 6.1.1 (B) standardize the decision matrix From table 6.1.1(B) values are Sr.No Criteria Standardized Decision Matrix Reference Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux 1 A1 0.52 0.50 0.45 0.52 2 A2 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.45 3 A3 0.47 0.51 0.49 0.53 4 A4 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.41 5 A5 0.50 0.53 0.48 0.50 6 A6 0.57 0.54 0.49 0.38 7 A7 0.44 0.50 0.52 0.54 Table 6.1.1 (C) standardize the decision matrix Value Step 2 - Construct weighted standardized weight to each rating. From table 5.1 & decision matrix by multiplying attributes 6.1.1(c) Sr. Criteria Attribute Standardized Decision Matrix No Weight Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux 1 A1 4 0.52 0.50 0.45 0.52 2 A2 5 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.45 3 A3 8 0.47 0.51 0.49 0.53 4 A4 10 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.41 5 A5 9 0.50 0.53 0.48 0.50 6 A6 7 0.57 0.54 0.49 0.38 7 A7 6 0.44 0.50 0.52 0.54 Table 6.1.2 standardize the decision matrix 115 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

From table 6.1.2 Weighted Standardized Where AW-Attribute weight; SDM- decision matrix is calculated Standardized Decision Matrix WSDM=AW*SDM ……………….(7) Step 3 – Determine ideal solution and negative ideal solution Sr. Criteria Weighted Standardized Decision Matrix Max Min Value No Value for for Negative Ideal Ideal Solution Solution Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux WSDC(U) WSDC(F) WSDC(LM) WSDC(PL) 1 A1 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.2 2 A2 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 3 A3 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.8 4 A4 5.1 5.3 5.4 4.1 5.4 4.1 5 A5 4.5 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.3 6 A6 4.0 3.8 3.4 2.7 4.0 2.7 7 A7 2.6 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.6 Table 6.1.3 Weighted standardize the decision matrix A set of maximum values for each criteria is Step 4 – Determine separation from ideal Ideal solution. solution. Si* and Si’ Idle solution={2.1,2.7,4.2,5.4,4.8,4.0,3.2} Si*= ∑ WSDC(U) & ∑ WSDC(F) ∑ A set of minimum values for each criteria is WSDC(LM) & ∑ WSDC(PL)………..(8) Negative Ideal solution NegativeIdle Solution={0.2,2.3,3.8,4.3,2.7,2.6} Si’= ∑ WSDC(U) & ∑ WSDC(F) ∑ WSDC(LM) & ∑ WSDC(PL)…………(9) Sr Criteria Ideal Solution Si* Criteria Negative Ideal solution Si’ No Ubuntu Fedora Linux Puppy Ubuntu Fedora Linux Puppy Mint Linux Mint Linux 1 A1 0 1.8 1.9 1.9 A1 1.9 0.1 0 0 2 A2 0.1 0 0.2 0.4 A2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0 3 A3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0 A3 0 0.3 0.1 0.4 4 A4 0.3 0.1 0 1.3 A4 1 1.2 1.3 0 5 A5 0.3 0 0.5 0.3 A5 0.2 0.5 0 0.2 6 A6 0 0.2 0.6 1.3 A6 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.8 7 A7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 A7 0 0.4 0.5 0.6 Si* 1.30 1.55 1.90 2.28 Si’ 2.28 2.24 1.92 1.73 Table 6.1.4 Ideal solution & Negative Ideal Solution Step 6 – Determine relative closeness to ideal solution.

116 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

SrNo Criteria Relative Closeness to Ideal Solution

Ubuntu Fedora Linux Mint Puppy Linux

1 Si* 1.30 1.55 1.90 2.28 2 Si’ 2.28 2.24 1.92 1.73

3 Si*+Si’ 17.3 17.55 17.9 18.28

4 Si’ /(Si*+Si’ ) 0.1318 0.1276 0.1073 0.0946 Table 6.1.5 Relative Closeness to Ideal Solution

Best is Ubuntu because the maximum relative Future Scope closeness to ideal solution is 0.1318 TOPSIS may vary result if number of Expert is involved in experiments. This study can be Conclusion further extended. We used AHP methodology As per Experiment, TOPSIS method gives the because of its simplicity and applicability to the Best solution 0.1318 for Ubuntu operating problem. AHP and other multiple attribute system. So a person goes through Ubuntu. decision making methodologies can also be Institutes and individuals nowadays need to used in this problem to reduce the have an Operating system with better approximation Values. More detailed criteria functionality. If common person wants to select and sub criteria can be introduced and the operating system for individual /social purpose interactions among the criteria and sub can be so TOPSIS helps for selecting operating encompassed in the model. system. Abbreviations Sr.No Long Form Abbreviations 1 Memory Management A1 2 Storage Management A2 3 Process Management A3 4 Protection& Security A4 5 Software Features A5 6 Programming interface A6 7 Distributed structure A7 8 Ubuntu S(U) 9 Fedora S(F) 10 Linux Mint S(LM) 11 Puppy Linux S(PL) 12 Expert 1 E1 13 Expert 2 E2 14 Expert 3 E3 15 Expert 4 E4 117 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2 Issue 4 April 2015

16 Total Attribute Weight TAW 17 Attribute Weight AW 18 Decision Matrix DM 19 Standardized Decision Matrix SDM 20 Weighted Standardized Decision Matrix WSDM 21 Total Expert E=E1+E2+E3+E4 22 Expert related weight U(E),F(E),LM(E),PL(E)

Reference [11]. Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, Decisions [1] St. Laurent, Andrew M. (2008). with Multiple Objectives: preferences and Understanding Open Source and Free value trade-offs. 2nd ed. 1993, Cambridge, Software Licensing. O'Reilly Media. p. 4. MA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780596553951. [12] Roy, B., Multi-criteria Methodology for [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open- Decision Aiding. 1996, Dordrecht: Kluwer source_software [13] L. Alberto Franco, Gilberto Montibeller,” [3] Perens, Bruce. Open Sources: Voices from Problem Structuring for Multi-Criteria the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Decision Analysis Interventions”, Working Media. 1999. paper, ISSN 2041-4668 (Online) [4]The Open Source Definition by Bruce [14] Oracle® Enterprise Manager Ops Center, Perens. January 1999. ISBN 1-56592-582- Understanding Operating System 3. Performance and Capacity,12c Release 1 [5]"The Open Source Definition"., The Open (12.1.2.0.0),E27339-01,November 2012 Source Definition according to the Open [15] http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ Process_ Source Initiative management_ %28computing%29 [6] http://opensource.org/ [16] http://www.webopedia.com /TERM /S [7] Kerim Göztepe,”A Study on OS Selection /storage_management.html Using ANP Based Choquet Integral in [17] http://www.cs.uic.edu /~jbell/CourseNotes Terms of Cyber /OperatingSystems/15_Security.html Threats,”INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL [18] Serkan Ballı and Serdar Korukoğlu,” OF INFORMATION SECURITY OPERATING SYSTEM SELECTION SCIENCE Kerim GÖZTEPE, Vol.1, No.2. USING FUZZY AHP AND TOPSIS [8] Vincent S. Laia,*, Robert P. Truebloodb, METHODS”,”Mathematical and Bo K. Wongc” Software selection: a case Computational Applications, Association study of the application of the analytical for Scientific Research Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. hierarchical process to the selection of a 119-130, 2009.” multimedia authoring system”, Elsevier [19] www.linuceum.com /Distros/ osLinux Science B.V Distros.php [9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple- criteria_ decision_ analysis [10] Belton, V. and T.J. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An integrated approach. 2002, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

118 Mr. Rahul B. Diwate1,Miss. Kavita S. Pokarna2