On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 04:22:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
> > How about this:
> > "Meets ICSA guidelines.*"
> > "<fineprint>* == Not ICSA certified</fineprint>"
>
> ICSA might get upset - but in any case, my
That's how I figure it anyway. :)
> understanding is that the Linux 2.2 kernels
> would not be able to make it since the
> firewalling is not state-ful.
I bet 2.2 can be back-patched to use 2.4's netfilter;
would that make it stateful?
> > Okay, here it is:
> > Why is it that we feel this need to target that demographic?
> > Why do we even talk about targetting _any_ demographic?
> >
> > We need to investigate out motives thoroughly, IMO. The point of
> > opensource projects is _not_ supposed to be to target a demographic
> > or put out a better 'product' than somebody else; rather, what makes
> > the opensource world go around is the pursuit of excellence. A good,
> > successful opensource project's goal is to make it's work better
> > than it already is. Is that what we're going after, or are we going
> > after popularity?
>
> What's the difference between excellence and
> putting out a product which is better?
I should have been more clear about my intent, above; what I
wanted to know is why we're going after popularity, instead
of creating what we see as the best? Would something designed
specifically for the unwashed masses, the consumer, be what
you would say is the best _firewall_, or the best _product_,
or neither or both, or something else entirely?
As I said, let's examine our motives; why do we do it at all,
regardless of what it is we're actually doing..
> To me, what is lacking in lots of Open Source
> projects is the idea of answering to the users,
> finding out what the users need, and other
> similar ideas.
I agree.
> I would suggest the following ideas as part of
> any Open Source product:
>
> * What is your target audience? (a/k/a targeted
> demographic)
Not only that, but why are you targetting that
demographic?
> * How can you make your product better (or more
> appealing) than others in the market?
Better != more appealing...hence why people
continue to use Windows 95/98/ME for desktops
and NT/2k for servers.
Do you want to create something better, or do
you want to create something more appealing?
Opensource has traditionally been about being
better, forsaking appealing for better. However,
they are no longer mutually exclusive goals. We
can do both. Do we want to? Yes. In order to do
that as well as we'd like, I say that it's most
likely important to investigate our moties, WHY
we want to do that; that's just as important as
investigating our target demographic.
Difference is, it's quite easy to investigate
the target demographic.
> * How can you modify your product for your
> target audience to make them prefer your product
> over someone else's?
>
> For me, many Open Source projects enter into
> areas where there is already an established base
> for a product, and offer no enhancement to the
> original - and thus do not go anywhere at all.
Want to give some examples? I tend to agree, but
it's important to scrutinize such failures, and
the only way to do that is to look at examples.
> If you offer a replacement to fetchmail, you
> better be ready to tell me why I should use your
> product instead of fetchmail.... What benefits
> do I get? What differentiates your product from
> fetchmail? And other such like questions.
Now, I know this isn't what you meant, but there's
a point -- you have to TELL why, not just make it
better but explain what's better about it.
> If no one uses the product, then the Open Source
> project is basically a waste of one's time.
Not necesarily. An opensource project that goes
unused can be a learning experience, a stepping
stone, or even a basis for a more successful
project. An example would be LRP 2.9.4; it went
largely unused, although certainly not completely;
then Matthew Grant came in and built off of that
work something that was used a whole lot more.
Then Charles built off of Matt Grant's work something
taht was used even more than that.
So, an unused opensource 'product' is not useless,
nor a waste.
> As I work on Oxygen, I continue to think about
> the answers to questions like these:
>
> * How do I modify the system to create as few
> problems for new users as possible?
>
> * How do I make it easier to use?
So far, you're targetting the 'consumer' demographic.
> * How do I make as similar to the UNIX
> environment some experts are familiar with?
Now you're targetting a totally different demographic.
If you can make somehting that's _very_good_ for _both_,
then you've done a _great_ job.
> * Who is going to use it? How do I make easier
> for THEM?
This should be the first question. The questions
before this depend on the output of this one.
> * How do I create a product that someone will
> want to use over EigerStein or LRP (both very
> fine products with long histories)?
>
> Having mentioned the competition (noun and
> verb!) let me say that I still believe in
> sharing - competition just gets keener :-)
-=-=-
Keep in mind that I'm not saying anything is
bad or good, but rather, trying to get some
thought going, rather than thoughtless pursuit
of making it easier or better or whatever. I
hope I'm doing a good job, but I even more hope
that it will be proven to me that it's a job
that does not need doing at all.
> --
> David Douthitt
> UNIX Systems Administrator
> HP-UX, Linux, Unixware
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
rick -- A mind is like a parachute... it only works when it's open.
ICQ# 1590117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
Help with LRP: http://lrp.c0wz.com Home page: http://www.c0wz.com
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
