Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 17:34 -0500, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd > suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar > "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. > > ISD would solve the problem equally well. I like ISD. Thanks for the suggestion :) Federico ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
Vincent Untz wrote: [I removed all the cc] On dim, 2005-11-27 at 13:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote: Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. [Sort of like URL vs URI...] Erm, what's wrong with "developer" or "software developer"? If I wanted your attention I wouldn't start addressing you by some new unrecognizable name. I think Murray is right. Do we really need a new abbreviation? If we don't want to use ISV anymore, why not use "developer" or a similar expression? A previous email in this thread explained why, I believe. 'Developer' fails to make the point that the developers referred to are not (necessarily) the developers creating Gnome, i.e. not "Gnome developers" in that sense. I DO think there are contexts in which this distinction is important, i.e. the contexts where we now use "ISV". Bill Vincent ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
[I removed all the cc] On dim, 2005-11-27 at 13:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote: > > Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd > > suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar > > "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. > > [Sort of like URL vs URI...] > > Erm, what's wrong with "developer" or "software developer"? If I wanted > your attention I wouldn't start addressing you by some new > unrecognizable name. I think Murray is right. Do we really need a new abbreviation? If we don't want to use ISV anymore, why not use "developer" or a similar expression? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
En/na Davyd Madeley ha escrit: > That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant > software VENDORS to our platform. Agreed. But this doesn't invalidate the Independent Software Developers (ISD) proposal. Please note that by recommending Independent Software Developers we are not ruling out the vendors. ISV is included in the concept of ISD, but viceversa doesn't work. If you develop you are developer, and ISD is not constrained to free or non-free software development. I don't think we are talking about pure vendors here, who only sell/vend but don't develop. These would be the only ones being excluded from the ISD concept. -- Quim Gil - http://desdeamericaconamor.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:23:44PM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Not necessarily. There's no reason why a vendor developing tax > software cannot release their software as Free Software. They > still can sell their software, the same way Red Hat can sell its > software. And they have the benefit of having hundreds pairs of > eyes reviewing their software for them. Nothing really > different here. High-end tax software, as used by accountants is actually a good example of software that is less likely to go open in the foreseeable future. It would still be nice to have this sort of software available on the GNOME desktop, not because people can use it at home, but because there are a lot of accountants in the world who need to use this sort of software. This type of tax software contains lots of communication with tax department style code which is unlikely to be allowed out into the open. This sort of software does not lend itself to the 1 million eyes approach, as it filled with lots of rules specific to tax law, and thus needs to have certification from specific bodies before it is worth two bob. There exists a lot of this highly vertical software that contains too much of other people's IP to be released freely, does not fit into the company's traditional business model, or is simply too complex and require too much specialist knowledge to be much use as open source software, that it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it is not open. It would however, be really nice if we can give them a free and open, yet stable, platform for their software so that perhaps one day they will be able to free up and open at least some parts of their technology (ala VMWare). --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Davyd Madeley wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:48:31PM -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > > > > Businesses require more than an email client and a web browser, they > > > require the highly vertical applications that enable them to carry > > > out their business. These may be as simple as inventory control or > > > as complex as an Australian law enabled, multi-client tax ledger. > > > > > > In the forseeable future, open-source developers are not going to > > > write these applications, because they do not have the expertise or > > > resources to develop applications of this magnitude. Thus, we need > > > to encourage traditional vendors onto our platform. So you are saying that in fact the "vendor" word has been used with the purpose of directing vendors only. Others have been saying otherwise. > > Not at all! We need to encourage traditional vendors to > > become open-source developers. > > This is step 2. This comes right after vendors have learnt about the > Freedom and started offering their product on the platform. > > First we must walk, gain market share, become relevant and be > validated. Then we establish a new world order. Not necessarily. There's no reason why a vendor developing tax software cannot release their software as Free Software. They still can sell their software, the same way Red Hat can sell its software. And they have the benefit of having hundreds pairs of eyes reviewing their software for them. Nothing really different here. > --d --behdad http://behdad.org/ "Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill" -- Dan Bern, "New American Language" ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:48:31PM -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > > Businesses require more than an email client and a web browser, they > > require the highly vertical applications that enable them to carry > > out their business. These may be as simple as inventory control or > > as complex as an Australian law enabled, multi-client tax ledger. > > > > In the forseeable future, open-source developers are not going to > > write these applications, because they do not have the expertise or > > resources to develop applications of this magnitude. Thus, we need > > to encourage traditional vendors onto our platform. > > Not at all! We need to encourage traditional vendors to become > open-source developers. This is step 2. This comes right after vendors have learnt about the Freedom and started offering their product on the platform. First we must walk, gain market share, become relevant and be validated. Then we establish a new world order. --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Mon, 2005-28-11 at 09:42 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Quim Gil wrote: > > > In GNOME we donpt talk usually about first-party and second-party > > developers AFAIK (I have only heard of beer-parties). But we talsk about > > GNOME developers and GNOME hackers, in this context I find more > > appropriate Independent Software Developer and the acronym ISD (I agree > > that the proximity with the currently used ISV is a +1). > > In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party > developers or independant software developers, I think people have > missed the important point. > > That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant > software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a > way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our > platform without licensing costs (unlike QT). > > Businesses require more than an email client and a web browser, they > require the highly vertical applications that enable them to carry > out their business. These may be as simple as inventory control or > as complex as an Australian law enabled, multi-client tax ledger. > > In the forseeable future, open-source developers are not going to > write these applications, because they do not have the expertise or > resources to develop applications of this magnitude. Thus, we need > to encourage traditional vendors onto our platform. Not at all! We need to encourage traditional vendors to become open-source developers. Andreas > > Once we have highly vertical applications available on our platform, > the rate of adoption of the desktop will increase. Perhaps this > doesn't fit into some people's utopian view of how the software > industry will be overhauled, but it is a much more realisitic and > achievable goal. > > --d > -- Andreas J. Guelzow Taliesin Software, Shelties, Pyr Sheps and Shetland Sheep signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Quim Gil wrote: > In GNOME we donpt talk usually about first-party and second-party > developers AFAIK (I have only heard of beer-parties). But we talsk about > GNOME developers and GNOME hackers, in this context I find more > appropriate Independent Software Developer and the acronym ISD (I agree > that the proximity with the currently used ISV is a +1). In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party developers or independant software developers, I think people have missed the important point. That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our platform without licensing costs (unlike QT). Businesses require more than an email client and a web browser, they require the highly vertical applications that enable them to carry out their business. These may be as simple as inventory control or as complex as an Australian law enabled, multi-client tax ledger. In the forseeable future, open-source developers are not going to write these applications, because they do not have the expertise or resources to develop applications of this magnitude. Thus, we need to encourage traditional vendors onto our platform. Once we have highly vertical applications available on our platform, the rate of adoption of the desktop will increase. Perhaps this doesn't fit into some people's utopian view of how the software industry will be overhauled, but it is a much more realisitic and achievable goal. --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. ISD would solve the problem equally well. Erm, what's wrong with "developer" or "software developer"? When there is no need to emphasize that the developer is not part of GNOME development, those are fine. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 14:55 +, Alan Horkan wrote: > > >We can't solve the problem by denying it. > > No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are > distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear > information and heading off patent threats). Actually, the patent threats were carefully woven into carefully written sentences that hid their true meaning in the (defunct) European directive proposal on software patents. Linguistics are hardly distracting, they're the form with which our politicians were being fooled into believing they're doing good while their actions risked dragging the EU into the new dark ages of software development. Now there's IPRED2 that allows someone to be labeled a criminal because he heard someone explain how you can play CSS encumbered DVDs on GNU/Linux and didn't point him out to the police, thus abetting* his crime of attempting* to incite* and aid* people to act in what the EUCD brought to define as infringement. * ==> words from Article 3, Offences of com2005_0276en01.pdf This is scandalous! Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
I agree it's worth the effort of taking out 'vendor' of our vocabulary. Between Independent Software Developer or Third-party Developer I would go for the first option, because it is more self-explanatory. You understand what a third-party developer is if you first understand what first-party and second-party developers are. In GNOME we donpt talk usually about first-party and second-party developers AFAIK (I have only heard of beer-parties). But we talsk about GNOME developers and GNOME hackers, in this context I find more appropriate Independent Software Developer and the acronym ISD (I agree that the proximity with the currently used ISV is a +1). -- Quim Gil - http://desdeamericaconamor.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Bill Haneman wrote: > Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:48:09 + > From: Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > foundation-list@gnome.org > Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to > answer] > > Richard M. Stallman wrote: > > >Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third > >Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-) [a10n == abbreviation presumably.] > >We can't solve the problem by denying it. No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear information and heading off patent threats). > >We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and > > have made > >that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox > > also fit > >into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. > > > >The term "third party developers" has no problems--so I think that is > >a good solution. > Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. > I do think it's worth making this change, as you say, rather than > denying the issue. Would it really kill people to write out "Third Party Developer" and avoid the confusion entirely? You wouldn't obfuscate your code with indescipherable acronyms, so please do not add to the perceived elitism with even more exclusive jargon. - Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote: > Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd > suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar > "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. > [Sort of like URL vs URI...] Erm, what's wrong with "developer" or "software developer"? If I wanted your attention I wouldn't start addressing you by some new unrecognizable name. Murray ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
> And as an individual, I think that choice of word did fail. > Whenever I saw/read ISV in any context in GNOME, I thought of it > as issues concerning businesses only, not myself as a *user* of > the GNOME libraries, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only one. No indeed you were not. Count me in :) > So the concern is real IMO. I second that. The "third party developer" term is a good choice like Jeff and Richard suggested. Marc ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
Richard M. Stallman wrote: Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-) We can't solve the problem by denying it. We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox also fit into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. The term "third party developers" has no problems--so I think that is a good solution. If we abbreviate it "TPD", that problem will be gone. It's a painless change to make. Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd suggest going with "ISD", because of its similarity to the familiar "ISV", at least the reader may clue in by association and context. [Sort of like URL vs URI...] I do think it's worth making this change, as you say, rather than denying the issue. regards Bill ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Alan Horkan wrote: > > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term is > > often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME > > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. > > The important point is the need for clear documentation making it easier > for those who want to work with Gnome including businesses which self > identify under the term ISV. I'm sure the intention was not to exclude > anyone. And as an individual, I think that choice of word did fail. Whenever I saw/read ISV in any context in GNOME, I thought of it as issues concerning businesses only, not myself as a *user* of the GNOME libraries, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only one. So the concern is real IMO. behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
[crossposting removed] Subject changed to reflect the off topic nature of this discussion, and to summarize the point being made in the previous message. On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:22:22 -0500 > From: Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Brian Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > foundation-list@gnome.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Questions to answer > > I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have > been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting > together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's > > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term is > often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. The important point is the need for clear documentation making it easier for those who want to work with Gnome including businesses which self identify under the term ISV. I'm sure the intention was not to exclude anyone. Users do not need to pay to be customers but fortunately in that case we have the term stakeholder which is already widely understood. Similarly vendors strictly need not sell and any software distributor can be called a vendor. > Consider, for instance, the GIMP developers. Another acronym which can cause misunderstanding and embarassment when talking to people who are more familiar with the the term 'gimp' as an offensive description of people with disabilities. I don't doubt the importance of the words we use. My point is acronyms are ambiguous, confusing, and exclusionary. (Another minor downside of acronyms is it annoying both to type and read things in UPPERCASE and failing to properly punctuate acronyms like G.N.O.M.E. looks odd to non-programmers.) > Their program works with GNOME, but project is not a vendor. GNU Emacs > now has GTK+ support, but we Emacs developers are not a vendor. > Every time a standard describes the projects that develop or > distribute software as "vendors", that has the effect of denying the > existence of volunteer projects. Interesting assertion but entirely the important issue at hand was encouraging more people to use Gtk and Gnome and Free Software (which I really wish could have been was unambiguously called "Freedom Software" and saved us all a lot of grief, it is not too late you know). > So please, let's use a different term for GNOME application developers > in general, one which fits all of them, and particularly fits our own > community. Perhaps we could refer to them as GNOME Application > Developers (GADs), or more generally, Independent Software Developers > (ISDs). Is replacing one acronymn with another really an improvement? In this context we could just as easily describe third party developers as "Partners" or possibly some other succint one or two word phrase and emphasizes cooperation and collaboration and avoids the ambiguity of yet another acronym. I don't doubt the importance of the words we use, which is why I try and discourage people from using unneccessary confusing words and acronyms which exclude otherwise intelligent people who just happen to be unfamiliar with computer or other scientific jargon. (Don't you appreciate when doctors explain things to you in terms you can understand?) It doesn't help that acronyms make English even more opaque and confusing for those who do not know the language well. All this is terribly off topic and an awful distraction from the point being made about the need for a clear specifiction to help encourage the use of Free Software and Gnome. Best of luck to the candidates and thanks to them for taking the time and effort to answer all the questions. Sincerely Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
