>>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2005 at 1:39 am, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday, September 02, 2005 at 15:13:45, Daniel Radetic wrote: > >> > On the other hand all you want to do is adding another repository. That >> > does not help in any way. If you read the sentence from the roadmap >> > again you will see that openSUSE plans to bring packagers together. That >> > is what we need not another one of your forks.... >> >> Well yes, but opening to public usually does result in prodcut fork >> weather you like it or not. > > Sure. These people then have to live with me opposing then. Thats the deal > :)
Oh Henne! Who is talking about a fork? You are. We were talking about how to keep things open and growing fast with a low entry point to packagers, yet at the same time find ways to control - QA the output for the packages to be usable. We were, if you read our emails, Henne, actually talking about how to bring Packagers together, with what structure on what basis. I can see Daniel's point, that opening to the public could result in a fork, but only if the public has the feeling that the opening has not really occurred and their ideas are not considered or stopped at onset. When that happens you will find people screaming. So why don't we start talking about how to create a really democratic and open non elitist distribution-contribution structure, as such a structure will completely destroy any need for a fork, since all ideas people have are actually integrated in some way. > >> Some users will even think of this "let's get together" type of hippy >> philosophy to be aggresivly assertive and dogmatic, and will try to >> present the product in a different light ( better by their standards >> and design "vorsprung durch technik !!!" ). > Amen to that. Individualism is what counts and valuing individuals contribution, regardless of how one personally thinks about it. A hippy philosophy cannot integrate individualism as it is based on the concept of natural altruism, but as we all know lots of technicians/people have a big ego and certainly cannot be called altruistic ( would include myself in that group) ... and those are the ones we will loose and scare off with a dogmatic, we "have already thought of it and made internal decisions" approach. The more we integrate individualism, the more maintainers from other distro's will we attract. This is ultimately my goal here to create an open, very fast paced contribution structure, that allows for all sorts of ideas to be integrated without breaking anyone's system. Such a structure, IMHO needs to have a web based face (this day and age) and allow very experimental stuff to happen, but a user should be protected from those experiments, unless he/she wants to actually try it out. A web based software ware house, where each of us "geeks" in a bazaar style model can present our wares to the market. The build servers our roadmap mentions are just the backend of something that has to have a front and a structure. A normal packager should not even get to see the backend. Packages are compiled by the autobuild system I assume. If you want to lay the internal structure on top of this project you will end up with a cathedral and not with a bazaar. Now just please for a second try to imagine how such an open structure would impact other distro's as it would make them intrinsically obsolete. This could create the unifying force Linux needs. When you basically formalize such forking and take the actual physical fork out of the picture (meaning the I am leaving and create my own), you not only prevented a real fork to ever happen, since you actually cater for the needs of such a very ego driven individual, but you also create a new need: The need of maintainers of other distro's to see for themselves how well their own ideas are integrated into a real bazaar distro as opposed to a dogmatic cathedral style maintainer saying: This is allowed and this not. Such individuals will come to us sooner or later. In our boxed set, software has to be official, tested and trialed many times. But another option of the warehouse, would be able to give the best and most tested packages to the user without having to increase the amount of CD's to 20. Ultimately we should have 10000+ packages one day, but not that many iso's,right. So how do you solve that if not in a similar way as I explained? well I am sure you have ideas .. so let us hear them. My ideas are just that and I would love to have an open discussion where people actually do not get slammed for doing it, especially since this is what our message at Novell is to be an open distribution and have internal people contribute openly and honestly with external people on an equal footing. To summarize: If Individualism get's harnessed into a real bazaar model (the one we all really know by heart), then a packager system for an open distro like openSUSE will attract the cream de la cream of other distro's maintainers as the good ones will automatically feel the need to find a place where their ideas are valued and where they can actually implement them, without fear of retribution or without being told the whole time, if they wanna fork then they should leave. No .. if they wanna fork, they should stay and contribute their deviant package and it will be presented in a webinterface to the user to install if the user chooses to. And if the idea is good (bazaar model) it will survive. Let's formalise forking into a web based easy to use system and that could be the basis for a great thing. And please let's all try to think of new innovative ways instead of trying to preach the same old distro structure, that has created the need for thousands of distro's. Let's analyze why there are so many and remove the need and we will see that the trend can be reversed. From my own experience, if I would have felt that my distro of choice listened to what I said should be done on the desktop, then I would not have done Yoper in first place. A fork would never have happened. And now 4 years later to my decision in my baseement all major Linux desktops are going into the same direction (fully integrated easy to set up, fast and looking good) ..... well I wish they would have listened as it would have saved me nearly 4 years of sleepless nights and debts. I could have easily lived happily without all that. But as a good geek I had to do it. I could not just sit back and say: Oh let's wait until the others wake up and smell the coffee. I just start brewing the coffee and make them wake up. A one man distro from New Zealand certainly has only had so much impact, granted and I am certainly the first to say the influcen was minimal, but that is beside the point. The point is that I could have easily spend my 4 years on another distro, not creating Yoper, if I would have felt that my distro would have catered for my need/critisizm. Bua ll I saw is a dogmatic, arrogant, cathedral style approach. OSS is proud to have brought the bazaar model into the software development landscape. Why don't distro's follow that model then? So why not stop talking about "fork" and start talking about how to create a packager structure, that prevents a fork ever to happen, since the motivator for a fork is removed and integrated. I do think I am making sense, but of course if you have a different opinion, please let me hear it as I am always open to see another view and adapt mine to that. Good night to Europe ;) Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
