Some of the resistance to the registry could probably be alleviated if there was a way to download a token from the web interface which could be used to fully register/de-register/activate instances and otherwise view your registry information without having to go through the web interface.
With this token captured in a file, it could be used by the installer scripts as well as the register command. /skaar * Thomas Lotterer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060629 02:34]: > Re Martin! > > >>> On Wednesday, 28. June 2006 at 10:52 pm, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, the OpenPKG registration process is still a big annoyance and hindering > > adoption/usage of OpenPKG a lot. > > > We introduced the registry because we needed some statistics about the OpenPKG > world. Past experience showed that unenforced feedback was close to zero. > Talking not only about technical issues, I underestimated the complexity of > the > overall change and, probably most important, the aversion of our user base. > We > went the enforment route when we were close to a make-or-break decision > regarding the future of OpenPKG. Granted, our mistake was the timing. The > proceeding was too sudden and too complete, giving parts of the community a > feeling of rudeness. > > It is a matter of fact that people are very sensible to any change which makes > their world harder, slower, more expensive or otherwise "worse" from the > point > of their sole egocentric perspective. Some boil that down to the philosophic > message "change is bad". There are good reasons why even in a democracy tax > payers are not asked whether they support a tax increase, culprits are not > asked for their penalty etc. > > Finally, months after the introduction of the registry, OpenPKG still exists > as > an offering free of charge. You have to thank the registry and the people who > use it. > > > E.g. the stupid registration feature requires email validation within a > > short > > period of time (some minutes). This breaks much too often! Think about > > people > > doing something else in the meantime and especially consider the very commin > > smtp greylisting. > > > The period was set to an hour already and if I remember this change has been > made upon your request. Also a bit off topic, I do not accept people > attempting > to make their problems mine. Greylisting is sensitive to all kinds of timing > issues and the people who use it (should) have made their decision to use that > technology based on that design issue. Back to the topic, the registry must > not > assume message transfers happening close to realtime. UUCP still exists in > 2006. The timeout has been extended to some hours now. > > > An additional idiocy is that after the registration timed out the system > > dissallows to start over :-(( > > > It seems a restart has been denied because the registration succeeded. We > should consider improving the (error) messages. > > > This is now the third time that I tried to register and the system is still > > not working reasonably. > > > We constantly receive registrations so the process is feasible. Unfortunately, > we cannot ask the people who failed because we do not know them. Gotcha. > > > In case the fascist(*) registry process does not get relaxed very soon I > > will > > stop recommending OpenPKG as a solution and will move away my systems and > > OSS > > projects from using OpenPKG. > > > I hope you are fully satisfied now and we can count on your evangelism. > > > (*) I consider very tight timing requirements > > > Has been discussed above. > > > and removing of already working > > features (like unrestricted download of > > > Imagine that: before the registry, every piece of OpenPKG was available free > of > change to anonymous users. At this point, any "change is bad" from the > egocentric users point of view (dejavu, eh). Today OpenPKG is available free > of charge to known users. The effort for users is to reveal their identity in > form of a working E-Mail address. > > > old versions > > > Others simply discard old versions. We do, too. You probably should setup a > mirror. You know we still support rsync also it is counterproductive for the > registry idea. > > > and breaking exisiting > > installations and setups as an unfriendly action. > > > I must point out that this statement is unacceptable wrong. The concept > ensures > existing installations and setups do not break - they continue to run as they > did before! It might not be possible to repeat pre-registry steps to create a > new setup, so documentation and/or scripts might be updated. Various kinds of > self created automatisms might fail to download new updates unless modified to > work with the new registry world order. The obmtool being used by the Kolab > community has been modified very shortly after the registry was established. > > It is refreshing for me to learn what users demand from a free offering. > > -- > Thomas > ______________________________________________________________________ > The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org > User Communication List openpkg-users@openpkg.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |\|\ where in the | s_u_b_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_o_n | | >=========== W.A.S.T.E. | genarratologies |/|/ (_) is the wisdom | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org User Communication List openpkg-users@openpkg.org
