On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:23:34 +0200, Martin Schlander wrote:
Lørdag den 23. april 2011 19:41:40 skrev Jim Henderson:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:34:36 +0200, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
By the way, openSUSE is more an upstream project. With the start of SUSE Studio we (and Novell) allowed the vast majority to easy clone openSUSE´s and Novell´s techonology. Remember: I came to the openSUSE project as I create my own openSUSE-clone and felt like " I have to give back something as a "thank you"".
That's an interesting point, Kim. Thinking back on the strategy discussions, one of the proposed strategies was that openSUSE become a base for derivatives.
But it was not a popular proposal by any means.
Who wants to contribute to a piece of junk that is only intended to be diamond in the rough for others to polish and take advantage of.
And the whole idea builds on the assumption that derivative makers will contribute back - which is highly doubtful. And we're already seing that. Derivative makers are making a lot of effort to differentiate from openSUSE, rather than help making openSUSE better.
And yet we have SUSE Studio, which makes it easy to build derivatives. It *sounds* like the intention with Balsam is to contribute back to openSUSE. If that's what happens, then I'll wish them luck with it. But perhaps prejudging something that hasn't actually been available until recently is not the best idea. Certainly prejudging based on what others have done isn't. There's nothing that says that if openSUSE is a 'base for derivatives' that it has to be a piece of junk. In fact, I think quite the opposite is true, if it's going to be the basis for other distributions (ala Debian), it necessarily has to be *good*, or poor quality will run downhill. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org