opencd-devel

Re: [Opencd-devel] Source

[Paul S. <ps...@ni...>]

I believe we should do Option 3, or at least Option 2 in making source
available for the programs that we distribute on the CD. I am not
referring to the latest version of the source, but the source for
the application that we distribute.

Problems this solves:
1. The original source becomes unavailable for whatever reason (including
that the source is out of date and the developers only keep a certain
number of previous versions available).  We will have the original source.

2. People looking for the latest and greatest won't come to us, we won't
have it (and we should advertise that fact).

Problems this creates:
We have an ongoing commitment to keeping copies of the source for any CD's
that we distribute because we did not distribute the source with the
binaries.  Option 3 may alleviate this obligation somewhat as we could
retire iso sets together.

Paul Snow
ps...@ni...

>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 02:51:45 +0200
>To: "opencd-devel-lists.sourceforge.net" <ope...@li...>
>From: Robert Ian Smit <ro...@wa...>
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Opencd-devel] Source
>
>
>>
>>Ok, I think we're nearing agreement on this point.
>>
>>We seem to agree that the source should _not_ be on the main CD for
>>several good reasons.  The remaining disagrement is a minor one.  I see
>>3 options:
>>
>>1)  We simply link places where the source can be obtained, from the CD
>>and from our web page
>>
>>2)  We store the source at our own web site in individual zip files, one
>>for each app, and link to these.
>>
>>3)  We can do 1., 2. and make an ISO with these source files, so that
>>people can burn it and distribute it easily.
>>
>>All of these meet the Licence requirements (I think), but if we chose
>>only #1, we might be seen as not pulling our weight, by telling people
>>to use the bandwith of the devel teams to get the source.
>>
>>- Henrik
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>This is my first message. I will introduce my self in a separate message to 
>this list.
>
>I think we should go for option 1. And make sure the links to the source 
>are well hidden from a casual user. Anyone looking for the source will 
>probably know where to find it. Source, instructions for compilation and a 
>lot of  the developer websites will scare people off. They don't care about 
>the +0.001(a-z) upgrade of a given application. They don't want to know 
>about the source of all evil (pun intended). They don't care that new 
>features are included in a nightly build. If there is a good reason for 
>power users to daily/weekly install a new build, the application is not 
>ready for prime time. I personally only install the milestone releases of 
>Mozilla. I waited for OpenOffice to hit 1.0 etc.
>
>Storing sources on the website will make maintaining it a bitch. It only 
>has real value if the sources are up to date (latest releases included, not 
>only the ones which currently carry our seal of approval). This takes a lot 
>of effort for instance in the case of Mozilla. Maybe with a lot of hard 
>work we can have a good repository of source. But think about it. What 
>happens if the site gets listed on Slashdot the first day an Openoffice or 
>Mozilla milestone sees the light of day. How many potential users from our 
>target audience will get a Host Not Reachable on that day and go to 
>download.com and go for demo-, free- or shareware or just stick to what 
>they already have.
>
>We should of course pay respect to the opensource initiative and the 
>developers. I think we should include some well-worded advocacy pieces. It 
>shouldn't get in the way of users who are not interested. And most 
>importantly it should not bash Microsoft, AOL or anything else or try to 
>prove superiority. But this is another discussion.
>
>The source-ISO has some benefits for the bandwidth-impaired. However trying 
>to tackle that issue is aiming to high. We should be focused on one thing 
>and one thing only. Change the world one step at a time and so on.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>

[Opencd-devel] Start simple: plan for "flavors", but work them out later, and other comments

[David W. <dwh...@id...>]

I think it's best to start simple, then add things later.
Start with the 2-5 things that people really want, then add
the other things later.   I believe the "short list"
is Open Office and Mozilla... so let's get those on.

I think it's appropriate to start by using each of their
installers; if they're too hard to use, then work to either
(1) make theirs better or (2) create a generic installer,
and then try to convince the other projects to use it.
Otherwise, you'll have a lot of work interfering with
each other.

Flavors are a _great_ idea, but since there isn't even
_one_ CD yet, I think it's time to create one CD now
and add the others later.  I think it _is_ important to agree
that other Flavors will come; that way, people won't be worried
that gcc or the source code aren't on the initial CD... instead,
they'll know that it'll go on a yet-to-be-released CD.
When those other CDs are added, they
need to have simple names, preferably telling you
what's on them.  E.G. "Software Development",
"Games", "Servers", "Education", "Desktop" (or "Office Desktop").
A "source code" CD makes sense, too, to support those who
don't have good bandwidth.

Ideally the infrastructure should be more media-independent, but
CDs are the most universal format right now.  Older machines
won't have DVD readers, and we want users with older machines
to be able to use this.


--- David A. Wheeler

Re: [Opencd-devel] Source

[Toby I. <to...@go...>]

On Mon, 6 May 2002 00:17:46 -0500 (CDT)
Paul Snow <ps...@ni...> wrote:

PS> I believe we should do Option 3, or at least Option 2 in making source
PS> available for the programs that we distribute on the CD. I am not
PS> referring to the latest version of the source, but the source for
PS> the application that we distribute.

I think the best plan is this.

 * On the CD, mention that the source is available from our website.
   Explain what the source is, why people might want it and why they
   might not.

 * From our website, link to the source tarballs on the projects' 
   websites -- we don't host the source ourselves.

 * Keep backups of the source to the versions on the disc. Just keep
   these backups on our own computers. If some project disappears or
   removes the old versions of their software from their site, we can
   pop up with the source code.

Note, we only have to hold on to the source code for 3 years after the release of each CD.

-- 
          Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
              mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
  jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink

On the box of a clockwork toy made in Hong Kong: Guaranteed to work
throughout its useful life.

Re: [Opencd-devel] Source

[Steve M. <st...@op...>]

> I think the best plan is this.
>
>  * On the CD, mention that the source is available from our website.
>    Explain what the source is, why people might want it and why they
>    might not.
>
>  * From our website, link to the source tarballs on the projects'
>    websites -- we don't host the source ourselves.

We aren't seriously going to try to swamp the author's server/website/wallet 
are we?  If this project proves worth doing we will get help somewhere.   I 
would call that "bad form".  My $.02

>  * Keep backups of the source to the versions on the disc. Just keep
>    these backups on our own computers. If some project disappears or
>    removes the old versions of their software from their site, we can
>    pop up with the source code.
>
> Note, we only have to hold on to the source code for 3 years after the
> release of each CD.

-- 
Steve Mallett | http://OSDir.org - Just Stable, Open Source Apps
st...@op... | web...@op...
http://open5ource.net <personal>

"To use Linux without criticizing it is to betray it."
				-Clay Shirky

Re: [Opencd-devel] Source

[Martin S. <bud...@bu...>]

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:55:21PM -0300, Steve Mallett wrote:
> > I think the best plan is this.
> >
> >  * On the CD, mention that the source is available from our website.
> >    Explain what the source is, why people might want it and why they
> >    might not.
> >
> >  * From our website, link to the source tarballs on the projects'
> >    websites -- we don't host the source ourselves.
> 
> We aren't seriously going to try to swamp the author's server/website/wallet 
> are we?  If this project proves worth doing we will get help somewhere.   I 
> would call that "bad form".  My $.02

I think that the fact that we are creating a CD with the software on it
would save the authors bandwidth,

i.e.

I download the software then say distrobute 10 cd's that means only 
one download from the authors site instead of 10. 

Sounds like a good deal to me.

And users that want the source will invaribly end up testing/debugging
stuff for the developers so everyone wins.

Or is that in my perfect world.

Just my 0.2 groats

> 
- 
Budgester Technologies Ltd
Office : 01992 718568
Mobile : 07815 982380
mailto:ma...@bu...
http://www.budgester.com