[Users] Re: [Devel] Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 06/14/05 23:30, reticent wrote:

>Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>having multiple options instead of only one proved in many case to be
>>a progress engine. I would rather say that both projects will benefit
>>from this. And most important, the user (don't forget them) will: they
>>will have a larger diversity to choose from.
>>
>>indeed, time (and to be more specific, allocated time for the public
>>SER) was an important factor for deciding to start OpenSER. Also
>>another factor was how to deal with new contributions and how to
>>*help* them to get into the main stream. Placing them in a separate
>>directory I think will not help too much - see the history of the snmp
>>module.
>>
>>and about splitting the time between the two projects - I don't thing
>>will be a problem for us since we are the people who complain the
>>thing are not fast enough ;)
>>
>>bogdan
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Diversity is not necessarily a good thing in every situation, for
>example diversity in a limited resource environment can lead to less
>effective use of those resources and, in the end, may lead to the
>opposite of what you describe (a progress engine).
> 
>Also IMO diversity seems to be a argument against proprietary software
>models, such as "Application X has this features A,B,C and doesn't see
>it as necessary to implement features D and E for whatever reason
>(generally non-technical) so i'll use Application Y because it has
>features D and E (which i really need) however it does not have feature
>B which i can do without"
>An argument against proprietary models and (generally) not OSS
>
OSS proved that some time diversity is a very good solution. Look at the 
number of the linux distributions. All contribute to kernel development 
and other software. They have same roots and backbone, but there are 
differences that make people to choose only one. I chose Debian because 
it is very open for contributions and develops faster. This happened 
after RedHat chose to close its public releases. I could have gone to 
fedora, but I found debian more appropriate for what I need.


Daniel

> because
>(by definition) the latter is open to improvement and modification by
>anyone who wishes to take the time and because of this a community is
>created around that project.  If there is a problem then, as a
>community, we should make every effort to deal with it as such.
>Now i don't particularily want to approach the problems associated with
>self-defensive, impressionistic territorial behaviour that is quite
>common in most OSS projects but it is (IMO) a serious one which is taken
>into consideration by (i believe) many who post requests.  If you have a
>hard getting your point across i can see how it may seem impossible to
>enact any great change without a very large amount of effort in which
>case a simple branch is the easiest solution
>
>I think if you really are serious about branching SER you should first
>consult with the developers and users of SER to find out what they think
>and if there exists a way resolve (or objectively document, for
>reference in the least..)  the issues you are having.  I think that this
>would be a reasonable approach, your sudden declaration of a branch is a
>total surprise to (i'm sure) everyone on these lists and i think it may
>not be the best approach.
>
>tavis
>
>_______________________________________________
>Devel mailing list
>Devel at openser.org
>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>  
>