[Zope] Plone Conference Earlybird rate ends in 9 days
Hi All, Just to give any of those who are thinking of going a poke, the 8th International Plone Conference is happening here in Bristol, UK at the end of October. The bargain earlybird rate of £250+VAT for the 3-day conference ends at the end of the month just 9 days time! So go register your tickets now: http://www.ploneconf2010.org/ We are expecting over 400 delegates from around 30 countries to be attending, with over 50 talks, plus training, sprints, and an un-conference day. We will be putting a call out for speakers and training sessions shortly. As a slight aside... if you want to see how quick it is to get Plone 4 up and running, here is a screencast I just did at Europython yesterday in which I go from nothing but python installed to fully installed and running Plone instance in under 3 minutes: http://is.gd/dAqs1 -Matt - Matt Hamilton ma...@netsight.co.uk Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development and Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation?
Hadar Pedhazur wrote: We have had _numerous_ discussions (all in email) with two members of ZEA. We came to an agreement and all seemed perfectly on target, which is why we began all of the other ZF documents and committee meetings, etc. Unfortunately, ZEA never delivered a single draft of the proposed transfer documents, even though they said that the documents already existed for the Plone trademark transfer. ...snip... Hadar, These are serious claims. I talked to Paul who looked into it and gave me the following information. Note that, since the negotiations are finished and the terms are agreed to, we can talk about this with whomever is interested. Some quick points: 1) ZEA emailed ZC on Aug 29, twice on Aug 30, Sep 5, and Sep 15. 2) The Sep 15 note reminded ZC of two points: a. We don't have the paperwork yet. We can't transfer something we don't have. (Contrary to public statements, the Plone paperwork hasn't arrived either.) b. We can't finish the transfer until ZC provides foreign address information for certain countries. This was discussed in the mails cited above. 3) ZEA has well over a hundred manhours over the last 18 months on this trademark. We are getting no compensation for past, present, or future work. Yet, ZEA continues to help the process, as the emails will attest. 4) ZEA gave the contact info for the trademark attorney to ZC, encouraged ZC to contact her (hasn't happened), and instructed her to help. These points might not be 100% right, ZEA might have made mistakes, we're not perfect, the trademark attorney could respond faster, we could email ZC twice per day, etc. On a personal note, ZEA is working for free to help ZC improve the value of a sharelholder asset. ZC might have legitimate complaints about ZEA's performance. However, public mudslinging does not incent our pro bono help on the transfer process. As ZEA has stated, ZC can go directly to the trademark lawyer. Instead, public mudslinging and constantly threatening the Zope Foundation could have a dire effect. We are one reporter away from a "Zope: The Next Mambo?" story[1][2]. We should immediately stop using the mailing lists and the Zope Foundation as negotiation tools for ZC property. ZEA might have mishandled things, or you might simply believe ZEA isn't acting in good faith. Let's find an alternate outlet for this. For example, add someone from ZEA to the advisory board that you mentioned. If you feel that ZEA isn't acting right, take it to the advisory board. ZEA gets a chance to respond. If the advisory board votes against ZEA, ZEA gets publicly thrown off the advisory board. ZEA has agreed (from the beginning) to hand over the marks at no financial gain. Once ZC provides the missing information and ZEA gets the papers, we're probably a few weeks away from wrapping this up. Any niggles in this are just niggles. The deal is done and there are no disagreements on the terms. The transfer process, although complicated, is in progress. Given this, the risk of being "The Next Mambo" outweighs the perceived benefit from mudslinging. -Matt [1] http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1850298,00.asp [2] http://www.mamboserver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=115&Itemid=104 -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] zserver blocking behavior with a slow request
Jim, What platform is this on? and is it a uni or multi-processor system. I did a bit of studying a long time ago into performance of Solaris with python: http://www.zope.org/Members/glpb/solaris not sure how relevant it is now, but if you are running on an old solaris box there might be some hints there. -Matt Jim Abramson wrote: On a production Zope (2.7.6) running behind apache and connected to an Oracle database, I'm finding that once a user requests a page which runs a particularly slow sql (say up to 5 minutes), any other subsequent requests seem to take the hit as well, and return very slowly. I have 8 zserver threads and a ZODB pool size of 10. I'm fairly certain I'm not maxing these out. So is this blocking effect just expected behavior for zope? One point of note is that the requests passed from apache all bear the remote ip of 127.0.0.1. Could zserver be throttling the incoming requests due to their identical REMOTE_IP (or some other apache configuration detail)? Is there anything else I should investigate? -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
OpenBSD Python whitespace oddness (was Re: [Zope] Memory Errors)
Tim Peters wrote:
(" " in HTML). It's surprising to me to see \x89-\x8d there,
though. It could be your system is set to use "an unusual" locale, or
it could be a bug in the platform C libraries. Try writing a little C
program to see what isspace() returns.
Bingo! Thanks for the hints.
You were correct, it was down to a mis-interpretation of the C99 and ISO
8859 standards. Looks like OpenBSD interprets it differently to
everything else ;)
The policy was changed 8 days ago:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/gen/ctype_.c
"Correct ctype classifications of chars >= 0x80 wrt C99/POSIX and our
man page. ok espie@ deraadt@"
-Matt
--
Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet
http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901
Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
___
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
he code is contributed by people other than ZC. I agree that Rob's suggestion was a good one, and the fact that I agreed to it shows that we are more than willing to work with the community to find _reasonable_ ways to solve problems. Yes, it is reasonable and it is a start of dialogue. This is a distinct improvement over last week's approach of 'We are not negotiating anything. Hand it over or we set our lawyers on you'. When I *specifically* asked Lois if something like this was possible she re-iterated that you would not be willing to enter any further discussion. Perhaps European law is different that US law, but Rob stated clearly that the contract would name ZC's successors and assigns, which makes it legally binding on anyone who purchases ZC as well. In the US, that contract would survive the sale of ZC. I see no reason to be paranoid about that eventuality, as long as you would trust the initial contract between ZC and the ZF. OK, in which case, that makes sense to me. Combined with Rob's idea of letting the board of the ZF make the decisions on licensing issues I think I personally am happy. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Re: Memory Errors
I'd like to try and set up Zope in another login-class. It seems correct, as there are soft limits on memory usage in the default class. How would I go about this? Do you use a custom zopectl or run it straight off inetd? I'm not too experienced in OpenBSD-specifics yet, so any advise is appreciated. You need to have a zope user (adduser) and put that in the deamon class when it asks you. If you already has the user then you can change the class with 'chpass zopeuser'. Then you need to edit /etc/login.conf to raise the limits of deamon if you need to, and run cap_mkdb if you use databse versions of the login.conf file. Zopectl doesn't need to change. Just remember to set the effective-user to zopeuser in zope.conf -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Re: Memory Errors
Malthe Borch wrote: Theo might be listening --- I'd rather not. OpenBSD is a great platform, and if there's music to be faced, OpenBSD will surely face it. But if these errors persist, I might have too. I've found OpenBSD/AMD64 and Zope to be an excellent platform. As I say I just need to track down this bug in python that has just become apparent (we have been running for almost a year without hitting it, so not too serious). The Opteron 244 (1.8Ghz) is about 20% or so faster on pystone than a 3Ghz Xeon, not very scientific test or relevent to real life, but a good guide). Especially interesting considering you can buy 2.8Ghz Opterons right now. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Memory Errors
According to 'top', the total load is: * Memory: 80M/131M act/tot Free: 366M Swap: 0K/1028M used/tot, where Zope itself is using practically all of it. Well the question is, should Zope be using all that memory? how big is the site, what are you doing, how big are your caches etc? Our zope processes normally run about 500 - 750MB so maybe you just don't have enough memory. But odd that no swap is being used in your case. I would check your per-process memory limits maybe they need to be higher. Our 'zope' account is in login class 'daemon' which has higher default memory limits than 'standard'. And even then we bumped the limits up even higher. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Memory Errors
Malthe Borch wrote: MemoryError What is going wrong here? I'm running an OpenBSD-system with the latest Python 2.3.5 and 512 MB of RAM. The stack size is 0x10, as opposed to 0x2 that previous *BSD-distributions of Python had as default. Malthe, What architecture are you running OpenBSD on? We have been running Zope on OpenBSD/AMD64 3.6 for about a year now and it works pretty well. I have however recently discovered a python bug that I am trying to track down. I am unsure of the exact problem, but it affects the re and string libs: zeo1# uname -a OpenBSD zeo1.netsight.co.uk 3.6 conf#0 amd64 zeo1# python Python 2.3.4 (#1, Nov 16 2004, 08:26:06) [GCC 3.3.2 (propolice)] on openbsd3 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import string >>> string.whitespace '\t\n\x0b\x0c\r \x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\xa0' on all other platforms I've tried string.whitespace stops after '\r'... the trailing chars cause problems in weird and wonderful places. I upgraded to python 2.3.5 and get the same result. Not tried on python 2.4 yet. Other than that, we've not had any memory issues. On OpenBSD a single process cannot grow over 1GB of process memory (it can get more than that via anon-mmap, but python doesn't support that). On OpenBSD 3.5 we notice that if we hit the 1GB barrier hard it would panic the kernel, but that was fixed in 3.6. How much memory is python using when you get the memory errors? Has it truely used up all the memory on the system? There are soft limits that are set via login.conf and ulimit/limits which may be too low for you. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Tino Wildenhain wrote: The statement of ZC indicates they want to transfer their trademark to ZF and now find the european trademark in other hands. OTOH, why not just transfer/licence what they have (the .us trademark) and just agree to ZEA transfer/licence the european trademark to ZF too? No, just the opposite. ZC do *not* want to transfer the marks to the ZF. I do find this position strange. Whilst they are willing to transfer all the IP, for which yes we are grateful. The issue being that many companies around the world are investing marketing money and time in developing and promoting the 'zope brand'. The problem is that this brand now (since ZC renamed from DC) also co-incides with Zope Corporation. The value of this brand is increasing and needs to be protected, hence why the marks have been trademarked in the other companies in which ZC did not register. I am guessing that ZC registered the marks in the countries that are most commercially valuable to them -- an understandable move as it was their bucks paying for it. However the *zope community* extends beyond these countries and needs protection too. The main conflict arises because: * The zope community and Zope Corporation use the same word 'zope' to identify themselves. * ZC don't want to let go of their trademarked name as that is a major asset to their business. * Many people in the zope community feel uneasy that a corporation which can be bought and sold owns the name of the software that they are developing. All these points are perfectly valid and understandable, but what we need to work out is a way in which we can try and combine and merge these conflicting points in a sane way. I personally (remember, these views are all mine) welcome Rob's ideas on how to ensure that ZC's potential successors or assigns use the Zope trademark in a fair way. The problem being, I don't see how that can happen if the trademarks are owned by ZC as if the company were bought it would be up to the new owned what would happen with its own property. Yes we could put a contract in place between ZF and ZC to say that ZF can be the arbiter of any disputes, but I don't see how that can remain in place if ZC changes hands. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Pre-amble: I post this as a principal in a decently-sized Zope-focused business in the UK. Our company is also partnering with ZEA for some work. I will try to correct some of Rob's factual errors, and set the record straight for some of the issues discussed here. I am not an official spokesperson of ZEA, though - so bear in mind that what I'm saying here reflects what *I* (and my company) think about the situation, and not what ZEA thinks. I know a bit about why the decision to register the trademarks in Europe was made, why the managing partners of ZEA authorised it, and what's going on on the other side of the fence. I am reasonably neutral, though - and care more about what happens to Zope the *community* than anything else. - Matt Hamilton, Netsight On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:07:25 +0200, Rob Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are sorely disappointed that > ZEA is unwilling to transfer the marks quickly and > quietly so that we can proceed swiftly toward the > formation of the Zope Foundation. This is wrong. ZEA offered you to transfer the trademarks if you covered the expenses involved in the registration (including the salary of the trademark professionals involved in the registration process), no strings attached - but Zope Corporation declined, and was more interested in sending threatening letters about trademark abuse, even though ZEA is the rightful owner of these marks in Europe at the moment. They were more interested in having the matter resolved *their* way than to cover the actual costs involved in registering the trademarks from ZEA's side. > We have offered to reimburse the registration fees paid > by the ZEA to the WIPO (World Intellectual Property > Organization) in order to facilitate the transfer. We > have further offered to preserve their license to use > the Zope mark in the conduct of their business as an > association of Zope companies. Aidan McGuire of Blue Fountain (another UK zope company), Xavier Heymans (of ZEA) and myself had a conference call with Lois Snitkoff from ZC on the 12th of July in which we offered to transfer the trademark if ZC contribute to the fees of the registration and, in the unwillingness to transfer the trademark to the ZF, at least agree to some form of 'social contract' that states the uses and rights of the mark. After consulting with others within ZC Lois' reply stated: "Just to let you know quickly, we will not be paying any of the costs incurred when you registered our trademark. I have checked with management and they reiterate what our position has been consistently." Which directly contradicts what is said above. > In the three weeks since learning of ZEA's illegitimate > registration of our marks we have tried diligently (but > unsuccessfully) to get ZEA to unconditionally transfer > the rights of the registration. The registrations were not illegitimate, the Zope trademark was not registered anywhere but in the US at this point, so it was done as a defensive move to make sure the trademark was in friendly hands. In Europe you have companies/trademarks like ZOPEN that could have been problematic for the registration and approval, so a decision was made early on to secure the trademark for the Zope *community*. The companies that constitute ZEA make up a large part of the professional Zope companies in Europe, and they have a lot to lose by the brand being insecure in Europe. And in what way does not accepting ZEA's offer, to transfer the trademark to you by covering the costs involved in the registration, constitute "try diligently"? > ZEA's registration represents an abuse of registration > and management of international trademarks and the > misappropriation of a mark that is clearly the property > of Zope Corporation. So why is Zope Foundation being used as a pawn in the corporate strategies of Zope Corporation? I find this unclear intent pretty disconcerting. > We know that the establishment of a fair trademark > license for the entire Zope community is an _essential_ > component of the Zope Foundation. It is possible that > we will come to a conclusion with the ZEA prior to the > conclusion of a trademark dispute process. So why are you unwilling to put the Zope trademark under the ownership of Zope *Foundation*? Again, Zope Foundation is being used as a pawn in the company strategies of Zope Corporation. > As an aside, the ZEA has also registered the Plone logo > as a trademark. It is not our business, but came as a > surprise to us, that the Plone Foundation is not the > owner of the Plone trademark. Not true. ZEA's trademark experts helped Plone Foundation register the Plone trademark initially, and promptly transferred the ownership of the trademarks to the Plone Foundation, just as they are willing to do the same for Zope Foundation. Perso
