On 4/26/06, Michael A. Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:43:07 -0500 (CDT), lazarus.mramirez wrote
> > Lazarus Foundation (pros) advantages and disadvantages
> >
> >
> > Organization.
> >
> > By organization, I mean administration, leadership, control,
> > resources. I see a foundation as a natural evolution of a open
> > source community, examples:
>
> Statements like this always seem to amaze me. Where did you get the idea that
> Lazarus or FPC do not have administration, leadership, control, resources,
> etc.
I undertood him differently. Of course any project needs all of those
things, so, with a foundation (if it gathers sufficient money) we can
have professional people doing it and who like doing it (ideally ;-)
> > There's a lot of things where a legally established foundation can
> > do, that a community may lack.
>
> For me it would only add alot of complexity. The moment you need to
> incorporate or create a legal organization it will get totally complex.
I guess the discussion is more about letting someone who the main
developers trust to work on such thing, not about programmers/hackers
doing annoying-irritative-pita burocratic work ;-)
> > For example, I surprised that Lazarus forums aren't updated as it happens
> > to Borland's groups (Delphi and others) or M$ groups...
>
> I'm not even sure what you mean by this. 'forums aren't updated'. What does
> that mean?
Neither do I.
> > I find the mailing list/wiki very useful for bugs and improvements,
> > but not good for common questions,
> > (like what do I need to install it in certain Linux distribution),
> > which I think it's better in a forum.
>
> And most of those kind of things are in the forum. Aren't they????
>
>
> > In fact, this topic, I think it should be in a working forum ;-)
>
> So why don't you have it in the forums?
Well, if he means something like "freepascal and lazarus
infrastructure needs some work" I agree.
> > I understand also that making a foundation work is not a trivial
> > task, and it needs several things, in order to make it work.
> >
> > Many guys think that the FreePascal project doesn't need a
> > foundation, but the complexity of Lazarus does.
>
> What makes your think Lazarus is any more complex then the FPC compiler that
> it sits on top of????
I guess he's not a CS bachelor student ;-)
(Nor is he very interested in compilers...)
> > Donations.
> >
> > Money is required for several things. Money serves a wildcard for several
> > things like time (hiring developers time), material resources
> > (like cpus, servers, merchandising/publicity)
>
> This is thinking like it is a commercial product. It isn't. As was mentioned
> in another email it is something we do because we enjoy it and it is fun. Also
> fun to be part of it. If no one ever uses the product but us .... so be it.
There are some things that are nice to have that non-commercial
product don't have simply because of the lack of money.
> Merchandising/publicity isn't really important. If people use it great. If
> they don't, also great.
Completely agreed. World would be so much a better place if it was not
for merchandise ;-)
> > Lazarus was a must for me (not in US), since a few years ago,
> > due to the high price of Delphi, lack of localization,
> > and dificulty to port to other OSs like Linux, BSD or mobile,
> > not just for cheaper OSs or money, but for technical reasons.
> >
> > Just check how many post are from people from outside US.
> >
> > A foundation can help on this and more matters.
>
> How? You make this global statement but don't give specifics. How exactly does
> it help?
I hope some of my points help answering this :-)
Cheers,
Flávio
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
