Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (930 mails)

[Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday June 10 2010 02:44:14 Trifle Menot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:47:04 +0200, Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday June 9 2010 22:56:55 Trifle Menot wrote:
> > > I don't look at Novell as a problem.  I think you are mistaking my
> > > arguments for an attack.  I want Novell (and its successor) to grow and
> > > thrive.  I want devs to earn nice salaries, so they can support their
> > > families while doing work they enjoy.
> >
> > With all due respect but:
> > 1. You said you wont contribute in any way as long as openSUSE "depends"
> > on Novell in any way.
>
> No, I said I want to see independent opensuse project infrastructure,
> like bugzilla.  I don't care that paid Novell devs can influence the
> project with their opinions and work.  I want Novell to show good faith
> by separating the project infrastructure.  I think that's an important
> step.

Well, what would that be good for if we had an "independent" Bugzilla where it 
were exactly the same thing as it were now?

I certainly wont start to argue with you about the goods and bads of bugzilla 
since those are well known. My point simply is that having an independent bug 
tracker totally doesn't matter since the core of the distro depends on OBS and 
you simply don't have the financial reserves to replace that. Surely you 
aren't the first to say that bugzilla sucks and it should be replaced with 
$superior_solution but all others like e.g. JIRA aren't that better either. So 
I somehow fail to see your point besides "we have to get an independent one" 
just for the sake of it (besides you prolly wont notice  if bugs.opensuse.org 
leads to some Novell hosted site). So ....

> > 2. You are arguing over and over that the patent deal between Novell and
> > "M$" drives others aways.
>
> That's not my focus. You're twisting my words.
>
> > So I guess it is fair to say that you see Novell as a problem.
>
> No, but some people here are too sensitive, and take offense at the
> least thing.

Well, that is the impression you give here, not only to me.

> > > But the reality is, if you're not growing, you're dying.  You must take
> > > risks to compete with market leaders.  If you don't, you will fall so
> > > far behind in terms of market share, that you can never catch up.  And
> > > that will mean the eventual death of opensuse.
> >
> > Well, how do you define "market leader"? In an enterprise field clearly
> > Red Hat and Novell _are_ the "market leaders".
>
> Ubuntu and Red Hat look like leaders to me.

Right, Ubuntu being a leader in the _enterprise_ market? Now you really have 
to be kidding .... Sorry, but that simply can't be taken seriously. (and 
before you got on some rant that Ubuntu has the biggest market share please 
note that I am talking about the _enterprise_ market and not about home users 
since no one figured out yet how to earn money from them.)

> > > Fully separating the opensuse infrastructure from the main sponsor is a
> > > risk.  But I think it's the best way to attract new opensuse users and
> > > grow grassroots support of opensuse.  If it works, the corporate sponsor
> > > will reap the rewards of improved public opinion and increasing market
> > > share.
> >
> > Before you raise claims like that please answer some questions:
> >
> > 1. Who will pay the core devs working on it since the current "community"
> > isn't able to do so?
>
> Novell, or its buyer.

So nothing changes?

> > 2. Who will pay for the basic infrastructure like OBS (since that will be
> > the most costly) so development can go on as it does currently?
>
> Novell, or its buyer.

So nothing changes?

> You are jumping to wrong conclusions about my intent.

I honestly doubt so albeight you make it pretty hard since you didn't answer 
any question asked.

> > Well, while the number of people assigned to work merely on openSUSE might
> > be ridiculously small compared to the whole number of employees (11 if
> > I'm not mistaken) openSUSE still profits from the others working on SLE
> > (which certainly are quite some more).
> >
> > Point being, me personally, I contribute to it because I consider it the
> > best KDE distro available and it - now - gives me the tools to contribute
> > by
> >
> > 1. Trolling IRC a bit.
> > 2. Packaging stuff I find missing and updating others I find outdated
> > (yes, I love OBS)
> > 3. Testing it since that will be what I have to use.
> >
> > Also I honestly don't see a reason why other corporations should be driven
> > away from contributing by said "M$" Novell deal. IOW your whole rant
> > against "get independent of Novell" is as ridiculous as if you would
> > visit the Fedora
>
> Again, you are jumping to wrong conclusions.  I'm talking about opensuse
> project infrastructure.  I'm not asking Novell people to go away.

Well, please provide me with one reason why $mighty_sponsor should sponsor 
this why said sponsor is unwilling to sponsor anything currently cause bad 
Novell has a deal with the devil aka "M$".

IOW: why should they invest the money to create some independent 
infrastructure just to rebuild what we have now? To me this sounds like some 
waste of resources.

> > mailing list and tell them to get independent of Red Hat. It is just a
> > community distro that is the base for a corporate one. You have all the
> > possibilities to enhance it or change its direction _if_ you contribute
> > and have valid arguments but some silly rant while refusing to do
> > anything "cause it is reigned by some evil overlord" is simply
> > ridiculous.
> >
> > Point being, until
> > 1. You can come up with some reasonable idea how to pay core devs to work
> > on it.
> > 2. You tell us how to pay for the necessary infrastructure (e.g OBS).
> > 3. _You_ start contributing instead of telling others what they should do.
> > 4. You enlighten us how the relationship between Fedora and RHEL is
> > different to openSUSE and SLE.
> > 5. You provide some _proof_ of someone that got driven away by that "M$"
> > deal - and no, some random joe sitting in his cellar doesn't count but we
> > are talking about "corporate" sponsors who would be willing to invest
> > more than just some 3-5 digits sum.
> >
> > So, either surprise me or please simply cut it since that thread has run
> > its course quite some time ago.
> >
> > For sure you had valid arguments about the independence of Novell in case
> > they were sold but that ongoing rant about some evil "M$" plots leads
> > nowhere - or at least makes you look like something you prolly wont want.
>
> I am not ranting about MS/Novell.  Again you are twisting my words.
> You're not paying attention to what I say, you're listening to your own
> imagination.

I'm not twisting anything but I'm seriously looking forward to get an answer 
to the question I asked you. So, since you apparently refuse to answer most of 
them lets just boil it down once more:

How is openSUSE vs. SLE different to Fedora vs. RHEL? As in both are community 
distributions that are the base for respective corporate efforts. And I dare 
to say neither of them is able to survive without backing of their main 
sponsors (Novell or Red Hat).

Did you already try to ask the Fedora folks on their mailing list to get rid 
of Red Hat? If so, please provide the URL of that thread so we can all have a 
laugh.

Before you go on arguing please be so kind to answer the two questions stated 
in the last two paragraphs. Just so you don't miss them let me repeat it for 
you:

1. How is openSUSE vs. SLE different to Fedora vs. RHEL?
2. Did you already try to ask the Fedora folks to get rid of Red Hat?

I'm looking forward to your answers.

regards,
Stephan
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx