On 09/04/2009 09:49 PM, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
This is where I'm having some confusion, and perhaps you can explain it in a bit more detail for me and others who are unclear as well.
Sorry, if it I was not clear. All the emails I have received have been really good. The main concern expessed was that we should have a name for our initiative. Something we could get people to rally around. A possible product being openSUSE LTS/openSLES. There have been a concern expressed, that we really need a name for this initiative that is free of any copyright, trademark, and other legal issues. Having the vote be CIVS, allows us to go down the list of prefered names, and dropping those that do not meet the standard ie (Copyright, Trademark, etc.) Doing this in the open then gives the community a way to choose the name of the initiative and product. The product being one part of the representation of the group.
First of all, the feeling I got from the name voting was that you were seeing to name a product not identifying a group. So I think you need to make that clearer to people.
My intent was naming the initiative.
Second of all, what I'm confused on is the concern for trademark issues and what the real intent of this 'product' is. You've referred to SLES or openSLES, and I see names proposed that are derived from openSUSE. Which are you really basing off of?
The initiative will as one of its goals choose what to base a product and what will be the base of the product. OpenSUSE LTS or openSLES.
There have been a number of us in the past few months who have talked about creating an openSUSE Server edition, much like we have GNOME and KDE LiveCD versions. What would differentiate your proposed product from something that is simply customized for a version type like -server?
I like the server CD idea, but being that it is openSUSE it has only an 18 month life cycle. Many people wait a few months to decide whether or not it is a good idea to go with the release. So you then shrink the 18 months to 15-16. For a server in many places that is too short a time to really be viable. Hence the openSUSE LTS, possibly based on the server CD.
I just feel like when we go the route of a new name/entity then it gives the appearance of forking when I think we could harness the power of community more if we just simply added a new product to the openSUSE Project. People wouldn't wonder if they're favoring one or the other.
I want to avoid the idea of the forking. I want it thought of as our version of CentOS via openSUSE or SLES. But being totally open community driven. But given our resources, what that will be is to be determined. Like I said earlier. I want it as a rallying cry for the initiative. Our take on CentOS from a SUSE perspective.
As for long term support. I think that's a great idea. But again, if we don't have an actual product before us, how can we really truly define how we are able to provide long-term support? What are the issues involved in LTS? What is the infrastructure that has to be implemented to guarantee such LTS?
The product will come from the initiative. It will be the off shoot of our name. The fruit of the initiative if you like.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to this. Just that this seems to leave more questions than answers.
Sorry, I hope I have answered more of them with this and other emails.
I vote for openSLES because it's more original (it is not reminiscent of Ubuntu LTS) and distinguishable. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org