On Thursday 03 February 2011 10:55:01 Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 3. Februar 2011, 01:31:24 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 22:57:02 Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2011, 22:31:18 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:
Just my 2cent on this:
- I think when using the just the term "OBS" more strictly and avoiding
full name, the problem would reduce a lot.
Well, ppl always want to know what it means - and "open (or openSUSE) build service" is a good start of an explanation. So I don't think this will really solve the issue.
- A rename should always consider the available DNS domains ;)
hehehe yes, that is true... But doesn't openbuildservice.org already redirect to build.opensuse.org? Seems like we could go for that name then... Yes?
This particular one is indeed owned by me (privately). But there are also others, some of them pointing also to build.o.o, but they still want to hand it over only under some conditions (money or others). That is something what I don't even want to start about.
Well, depending on the amount and conditions, I might actually be willing to pay for this - if it's like $50 or so.. It would make sense from a marketing perspective and that's what my budget is for... I know, it's ethically not great, but we have to think from a practical pov.
One aspect, which should not be forgotten is that OBS is developed still by 99% from SUSE employees. We have meanwhile a core team of 3 people and that size is only existing, because is OBS is used also for SUSE Linux Enterprise and a variete of further SUSE and Novell products and services.
This is of course another good reason to rename it away from "openSUSE", but SUSE/Novell as company is the main developer (and openSUSE is just a user in first place so far regarding the efforts), so we need to sync with our buisiness folks here.
Sure. But I would hope to be able to convince them that from a marketing pov something like open build service is better ;-)
Besides, we WANT to change the "99% from SUSE employees", right? That means we need to put in some effort, also in this area. As well as things like code cleanup, mentoring, code documentation etc etc etc - the usual riff-raff ;-)
One of them (Kurt Garloff) made actually a suggestion some month ago to rename it to "OBS Build Service". This is in the tradition of the Gnu tools and also rpm (RedHat Package Manager -> rpm package manager) is a good example. It also strength the "OBS" term itself IMHO.
I personally like this suggestion and would slightly prefer it to open-build- service (but I have no strong opinion here). But you may want to discuss it on FOSDEM.
Hmmm, it does indeed fit in the Unux tradition. Then again, that tradition is a bit outdated these days - pretty much nobody does use recursive acronyms anymore. But you're right, it's an option.
Btw, when we have finally decided about a new name, I would use the new DNS name to present OBS as technology and of course link to some real life instances. But it would be not the same as build.o.o, which is the openSUSE instance.
- OBS as term itself is actually less import for the end users. They
just see the result. A reason why the "PPA" term from ubuntu is so intrusive.
True, for end-users the whole thing is very different. But this was mostly prompted by the issue with explaining this to packagers and other more technical people...
But the idea behind this is to get users first and convert some of them to packagers afterwards ;)
Well, that depends on what definition of users you and I are using here. I meant users as in users of the openSUSE distribution; if you're talking to users as in users of OBS you're entirely right of course. Our distribution users are in the longer term of course also a source of new contributors but a bit more distant than those already using OBS...
And every packager is anyway a user, so he will have first contact with this. Esp. when comming from a non-SUSE distro and gets surprised via some web page that software.opensuse.org also offers for his distro stuff ;)