On Mit, 2015-04-01 at 13:07 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:> Am 01.04.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: > > IMHO the larger the corporation is, the less are the chances for > > *long-term* benefits of the OSS/free software (mainly because: usually > > commercial success is driven and defined from marketing to sales[1] sown > > to the techies which are forced into "features" and "delivery dates" to > > achieve some "company defined goal" - and that is usually not "bug > > free", "safe", or the like. Free software/OSS just happens that *at > > least* half of it should come from the "working level" and that is - at > > least - much more - ahemm - "inconvenient" for sales people)FWIW the context were large "old-school" corps (like Novell or Oracle) taking over free software companies.> that is simple not true - if it would be true linux distributions wouldDefine "true Linux distribution".> not include half baken and aplha quality sofwtare again and again in > stable releases because "the market out there"That's everywhere in the commercial world the problem with "delivery vs quality/known problems" and someone's decision to ship or not to ship - based in whatever feels appropriate. BTW typical Linux distributions package some else's software and (almost) everyone knows that (and do not blame the distro for shipping buggy software - is there actually any bug-free software?;-). And it depends on - the package (core package like kernel, gcc, perl, apache-http, ...) vs some exotic application (the n+1.th text editor, MUA, ...). - the bug in question - is that stuff unusable or happens the bug only if you do crazy creative stuff on files with 6+GB size or 1000k lines? And usually distros run bug tracking and (try to) get bugs fixed - in house or upstream.> the *possible* long-term benefits are more time to invest because a > fixed incomeIf the free software is the core business, it is not a problem (and these are not the companies in the discussion). Kind regards, BErnd -- "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong." - Linus Torvalds
Am 01.04.2015 um 14:33 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch:> On Mit, 2015-04-01 at 13:07 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 01.04.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: >>> IMHO the larger the corporation is, the less are the chances for >>> *long-term* benefits of the OSS/free software (mainly because: usually >>> commercial success is driven and defined from marketing to sales[1] sown >>> to the techies which are forced into "features" and "delivery dates" to >>> achieve some "company defined goal" - and that is usually not "bug >>> free", "safe", or the like. Free software/OSS just happens that *at >>> least* half of it should come from the "working level" and that is - at >>> least - much more - ahemm - "inconvenient" for sales people) > > FWIW the context were large "old-school" corps (like Novell or Oracle) > taking over free software companies. > >> that is simple not true - if it would be true linux distributions would > > Define "true Linux distribution".who the fuck was talking abiut "true Linux distribution"?>> not include half baken and aplha quality sofwtare again and again in >> stable releases because "the market out there" > > That's everywhere in the commercial world the problem with "delivery vs > quality/known problems" and someone's decision to ship or not to ship - > based in whatever feels appropriate.and in the opensource world too - so shwat> BTW typical Linux distributions package some else's software and > (almost) everyone knows that (and do not blame the distro for shipping > buggy software - is there actually any bug-free software?;-). > > And it depends on > - the package (core package like kernel, gcc, perl, apache-http, ...) > vs some exotic application (the n+1.th text editor, MUA, ...). > - the bug in question - is that stuff unusable or happens the bug only > if you do crazy creative stuff on files with 6+GB size or 1000k lines? > And usually distros run bug tracking and (try to) get bugs fixed - in > house or upstream.no it don't - it depends in a braindead race include new software generations in alpha quality state instead wait until it become mature and *because* this happens with pure OSS too your statement above is wrong>> the *possible* long-term benefits are more time to invest because a >> fixed income > > If the free software is the core business, it is not a problem (and > these are not the companies in the discussion)and even if it is *not* the core business it is not a problem as long as you get what you have now maintained for free - if there is a new killer feature and you are a commercial mail hoster and don't want to spent a small amount of money your talking about opensource is hypocrisy because the only thing you care about is get anything for free -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20150401/c239014a/attachment.sig>
On Mit, 2015-04-01 at 14:42 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:> Am 01.04.2015 um 14:33 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: > > On Mit, 2015-04-01 at 13:07 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Am 01.04.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: > >>> IMHO the larger the corporation is, the less are the chances for > >>> *long-term* benefits of the OSS/free software (mainly because: usually > >>> commercial success is driven and defined from marketing to sales[1] sown > >>> to the techies which are forced into "features" and "delivery dates" to > >>> achieve some "company defined goal" - and that is usually not "bug > >>> free", "safe", or the like. Free software/OSS just happens that *at > >>> least* half of it should come from the "working level" and that is - at > >>> least - much more - ahemm - "inconvenient" for sales people) > > > > FWIW the context were large "old-school" corps (like Novell or Oracle) > > taking over free software companies. > > > >> that is simple not true - if it would be true linux distributions would > > > > Define "true Linux distribution". > > who the fuck was talking abiut "true Linux distribution"?Ooops, sry, misread that ("," could help ....). Actually, the whole area/discussion IMHO too versatile to invalidate (or validate) anything with just one example - not everything is white or black ... One had to look at each situation and the circumstances/conditions/... (and there is no excuse for companies to fix a bugs paid by their customers and "forget" to send them upstream - if only to get a confirmation on the quality).> >> not include half baken and aplha quality sofwtare again and again in > >> stable releases because "the market out there" > > > > That's everywhere in the commercial world the problem with "delivery vs > > quality/known problems" and someone's decision to ship or not to ship - > > based in whatever feels appropriate. > > and in the opensource world too - so shwatUsually a maintainer has no direct pressure on "shipping"/releasing. And sometimes one actually ships known bugs if only to motivate the ones who should fix the bugs and one doesn't want to become hostage of some lazy contributors;-) [...] Kind regards, Bernd -- "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong." - Linus Torvalds
On 4/1/15, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > > Am 01.04.2015 um 14:33 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: >> On Mit, 2015-04-01 at 13:07 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 01.04.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch: >>>> IMHO the larger the corporation is, the less are the chances for >>>> *long-term* benefits of the OSS/free software (mainly because: usually >>>> commercial success is driven and defined from marketing to sales[1] >>>> sown >>>> to the techies which are forced into "features" and "delivery dates" to >>>> achieve some "company defined goal" - and that is usually not "bug >>>> free", "safe", or the like. Free software/OSS just happens that *at >>>> least* half of it should come from the "working level" and that is - at >>>> least - much more - ahemm - "inconvenient" for sales people) >> >> FWIW the context were large "old-school" corps (like Novell or Oracle) >> taking over free software companies. >> >>> that is simple not true - if it would be true linux distributions would >> >> Define "true Linux distribution". > > who the fuck was talking abiut "true Linux distribution"?you were cockhead, not taking your drugs again reindl eh or may be you are taking too much of the illegal ones and none of the ones the doctors prescribed you