[Serdev] usrloc loading

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

HI Greger,

Greger V. Teigre wrote:

> Well, what I feared happened. :-(
>
> I did not approve of Bogdan's post because I saw it as out-of-topic 
> (who ser should be for was the topic, not openser), as well as not 
> welcome because of the not-so-friendly relationship between the two 
> developer groups and because I interpreted the post as yet another 
> stupid ser vs openser discussion.

that is strange that my email got into bounces as I'm a serdev 
subscriber - Pavel Kasparek (one of the admins) just confirmed this on a 
private email.....whatever...

>
> That being said and harm already done, Martin answered on topic and 
> Bogdan's reply was the same, and also balanced and polite.
>
> However, for the other posts..., escalating this with sarcastic 
> replies make people from the ser-camp no better. I hoped for better, 
> but feared it.
>
> I'll try to learn from it and will from now on not reply or 
> participate in threads that do not follow basic guidelines of: treat 
> the other as a human, stay on topic, and don't create a ser vs openser 
> discussion.
>
> To Bogdan: If you in the future feel that I have misrepresented 
> openser in same way, due to ignorance or otherwise, feel free to drop 
> me a private note, and I will promise that I will listen and if not 
> automatically correct my statements on the lists, at least learn and 
> adjust my perspectives.
>
> It is still my opinion that the fork was the responsibility of both 
> camps, that it should not have happened, and that both projects will 
> benefit from cooperating. ser/openser have powerful competitors and 
> both projects may very well end up as a parenthesis in the SIP history 
> unless attitudes are changed.

no harm done, Greger - I just wanted to get more info and correct a 
possible wrong opinion about OpenSER...

regards,
bogdan

>
> Greger
>
> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>
>> Hi Bogdan,
>> This was an element in a discussion about ser, not openser. I'm not 
>> interested in having a discussion about openser on serdev beyond 
>> comparisons that may set ser in some perspective, and I find your 
>> interruption quite tedious and self-centered. However, if you have 
>> opinions about ser that are relevant to the discussion, you are 
>> welcome to join.
>>
>> If you reread my post, you will see that my argument is that both ser 
>> and openser make it too easy too create ser.cfgs that break the RFC. 
>> Quite far from how you read it.
>>
>> Previous openser/ser discussions on serusers and serdev have not been 
>> very fruitful, ex. the performance discussions. If you want a dialog 
>> for the benefit of users or joint development work, feel free to make 
>> a proposal, but please refrain from self-righteous posts on serusers 
>> and serdev. You should allow SER users and developers to discuss ser 
>> from all sorts of perspectives without disturbing with your agenda. 
>> This is a privilege I believe the openser community enjoys on the 
>> openser lists.
>>
>> Considering that your historical default response in discussions is 
>> to state your opinion and then be silent, I assume this discussion is 
>> dead.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greger
>>
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Greger,
>>>
>>> OpenSER does not "pretend" to be everything to everybody, but tries 
>>> as much as possible to respond to the user's feedback (reports, 
>>> needs, etc).
>>>
>>> I know it is your HO, but can you be more specific (just list one or 
>>> two cases maybe) where you think OpenSER breaks RFCs?? I always 
>>> though that backing up with facts puts more strength in words.
>>>
>>> actually being RFC-compliant is one of the top requirements we have 
>>> as project and a lot of effort was put in this direction (RFC3261 - 
>>> correct via building, RFC3263 - complete algh implementation for 
>>> server discovery, etc)
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> bogdan
>>>
>>> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>>>
>>>> :-) In fact, to me, OpenSER seems to pretend that it is all things 
>>>> to all people. That may work for a while (and in fact, maybe we 
>>>> should send some people to OpenSER...) IMHO, it seems that OpenSER 
>>>> is going in the opposite direction of SER by introducing all sorts 
>>>> of "special case" functionality that confuses people and allows 
>>>> them to break more parts of the RFCs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serdev mailing list
>> Serdev at lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
>>
>>
>