Puppet users - Oct 2012 - The free software tarballs are now difficult to find

Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website which 
result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and download.

Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-free 
"Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an option.

Personally, I''d like to see the site reverted so users have the option.

FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:

http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet

Best,
Adam Kosmin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/yhKmTct8lmcJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund
wrote:
>
> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website 
> which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and 
> download.
>
> Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-free 
> "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an option.
>
> Personally, I''d like to see the site reverted so users have the
option.
>
> FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:
>
> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet
>
> Best,
> Adam Kosmin
>
I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to collect 
information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall 
(personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem to 
be in the spirit of free software[1].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/ELcaL9l4VwkJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>
>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website 
>> which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate
and
>> download.
>>
>> Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-free 
>> "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an
option.
>>
>> Personally, I''d like to see the site reverted so users have
the option.
>>
>> FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:
>>
>> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet
>>
>> Best,
>> Adam Kosmin
>>
>
> I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to collect 
> information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall 
> (personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem to 
> be in the spirit of free software[1].
>
There are lots of ways people get open source Puppet, and not many people 
actually grab them in tarball form from the website from the stats we have.

Apart from being in the distributions, most of you seem to be getting 
software from the apt/yum repos, which don''t require a paywall:

http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html

If you''re hitting the main page, yes, the "Download" link
goes to PE by
default, with a link to the OSS download page at the bottom.

The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page takes
you here:

http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/

where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs 
directly from us.

The reasoning has generally been that if you want to use Puppet, the best 
way of consuming it is via packages, and if you want to get the source, the 
best way of consuming it is via Git.

That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is 
simpler for developers.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/3333vo711VUJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On 15 Oct 2012, at 01:26, Nigel Kersten <nigel@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>> 
>>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs
website which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and
download.
>>> 
>>> Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the
non-free "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an
option.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I''d like to see the site reverted so users
have the option.
>>> 
>>> FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:
>>> 
>>> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Adam Kosmin
>> 
>> I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to
collect information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall
(personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem to be in
the spirit of free software[1].
> 
> There are lots of ways people get open source Puppet, and not many people
actually grab them in tarball form from the website from the stats we have.
> 
> Apart from being in the distributions, most of you seem to be getting
software from the apt/yum repos, which don''t require a paywall:
> 
> http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html
> 
> If you''re hitting the main page, yes, the "Download"
link goes to PE by default, with a link to the OSS download page at the bottom.

The survey/user info page you get for the open source version used to have a
bypass and go str8 to the downloads link, doesn''t have it anymore.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

>
> That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is 
> simpler for developers.
>
>
>
And yet, I haven''t heard a single user say anything to the affect of 
"please make us jump through additional hoops in order to download the Free
Software releases. In fact, this thread exists because users are speaking 
out against the change made to the traditional download path. It would be 
nice to see the site reverted back to the previous behavior. Believe me, 
users who want PE will get it without having it pushed on them.

Best,
Adam Kosmin 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/E_yl30VLjCkJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

My view on the matter has always been this.  Most people already know how
to find Puppet (it''s usually in their distribution already).  This
change
might inconvenience people slightly, but it''s not a big deal for the
technically adept.  The folks who aren''t technically adept should use
their
distribution provided version or they ought to be buying PE.

PuppetLabs is a company that makes its money off of Puppet Enterprise.  I
see nothing wrong with them promoting it or making it the easiest download.
 They want new folks to see PE first, get it, love it, and not want to
leave it.  Making the Open Source version more prominently featured on
their site doesn''t help their business model.  I feel that their
business
model is a good one, and good for everyone - companies that want a more
bundled product with support can pay for a product that pays the salaries
of developers who make the Open Source version better.

Jeffrey.

P.S.  I don''t use Puppet Enterprise.


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM, windowsrefund
<windowsrefund@gmail.com>wrote:
> And yet, I haven''t heard a single user say anything to the affect
of
> "please make us jump through additional hoops in order to download the
Free
> Software releases. In fact, this thread exists because users are speaking
> out against the change made to the traditional download path. It would be
> nice to see the site reverted back to the previous behavior. Believe me,
> users who want PE will get it without having it pushed on them.
>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with 
PL''s business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself, the 
software and it''s community is far more important. It was bad enough to
see
the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now 
we''re seeing the free software version treated like a red headed 
step-child. We''ve seen this trend play itself out hundreds of times
over
the years and it''s starting to look like PL is turning out to be a wolf
in
sheep''s clothing. We''ll see...


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/BLanHO2HAnoJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have done
a similar thing and it''s only been good for the community.  Perhaps you
don''t use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many innovations that
were
funded by dollars that came from RHEL subscriptions.

I also think you''re being overly dramatic and exaggerating when you say
that it''s "treated like a red headed step-child".  We
disagree but I think
what''s changed is pretty minor in the big scheme of things.

Jeffrey.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM, windowsrefund
<windowsrefund@gmail.com>wrote:
> This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with
> PL''s business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself,
the
> software and it''s community is far more important. It was bad
enough to see
> the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now
> we''re seeing the free software version treated like a red headed
> step-child. We''ve seen this trend play itself out hundreds of
times over
> the years and it''s starting to look like PL is turning out to be a
wolf in
> sheep''s clothing. We''ll see...
>
>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:39:07 AM UTC-7, windowsrefund
wrote:
>
> This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with 
> PL''s business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself,
the
> software and it''s community is far more important. It was bad
enough to see
> the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now 
> we''re seeing the free software version treated like a red headed 
> step-child. We''ve seen this trend play itself out hundreds of
times over
> the years and it''s starting to look like PL is turning out to be a
wolf in
> sheep''s clothing. We''ll see...
>
We''ve hired and dedicated an experienced community manager for the 
community. 

In the last quarter we''ve released Puppet 3.0, PuppetDB 1.0, Hiera 1.0,
and
multiple MCollective releases, all great open source projects. 

Don''t you think "treated like a red headed step-child" is
rather hyperbolic?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/9bTbPyS8Ds0J.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:02:00 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts
wrote:
>
> I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have 
> done a similar thing and it''s only been good for the community. 
Perhaps
> you don''t use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many
innovations that
> were funded by dollars that came from RHEL subscriptions.


Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread. 
 
>
> I also think you''re being overly dramatic and exaggerating when
you say
> that it''s "treated like a red headed step-child".  We
disagree but I think
> what''s changed is pretty minor in the big scheme of things.
>
I don''t think I''m being dramatic at all. I''m simply
pointing out my
observations when I consider PL''s change of direction lately. Again,
the
move from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license kicked things off. This was 
followed by catering to the Windows crowd and now the front-end is pushing 
PE on the community. Look, if it''s no big deal and such a minor change,
why
hasn''t the download link just been reverted? In other words,
I''m thinking
PL does in fact see this as a big deal.

I''m simply voicing my distaste.

Adam Kosmin 
>
> Jeffrey.
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM, windowsrefund
<window...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with
>> PL''s business model. For a Free Software zealot such as
myself, the
>> software and it''s community is far more important. It was bad
enough to see
>> the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now 
>> we''re seeing the free software version treated like a red
headed
>> step-child. We''ve seen this trend play itself out hundreds of
times over
>> the years and it''s starting to look like PL is turning out to
be a wolf in
>> sheep''s clothing. We''ll see...
>>
>>
>>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/8um4PQQT38oJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund
<windowsrefund@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.
>
Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model.  I think
it''s a
very germane comparison.  Both are commercial companies that sell support
for Open Source programs and also sell proprietary products.  Both
contribute considerably to FOSS.  But apparently you disagree that it''s
a
relevant comparison - though you decline to state why.

> I don''t think I''m being dramatic at all. I''m
simply pointing out my
> observations when I consider PL''s change of direction lately.
Again, the
> move from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license kicked things off. This was
> followed by catering to the Windows crowd and now the front-end is pushing
> PE on the community. Look, if it''s no big deal and such a minor
change, why
> hasn''t the download link just been reverted? In other words,
I''m thinking
> PL does in fact see this as a big deal.
>
> I''m simply voicing my distaste.
>
Well then perhaps I ought to point out that your "distaste" reeks of
drama
and isn''t very constructive.  One thing I learned a long time ago is
that
hyperbole and hostility, while certainly making one feel self-righteous, in
the end is pretty worthless as an instrument of change.

But perhaps somehow, things will be different this time and your efforts
will bear fruit.  Good luck!
Jeffrey.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:38:47 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund
<window...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread. 
>>
>
> Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model.  I think
it''s a
> very germane comparison.  Both are commercial companies that sell support 
> for Open Source programs and also sell proprietary products.  Both 
> contribute considerably to FOSS.  But apparently you disagree that
it''s a
> relevant comparison - though you decline to state why
>
Well for starters, this isn''t a RHEL mailing list and we''re
not talking
about the RHEL solution. If we''re going to just start comparing things
in
order to find justification for any and all actions, why stop there?
Let''s
compare to Apple, Microsoft, the bagel I had for breakfast this morning, 
the outcome of the election and anything else totally irrelevant 
 
>
>> I''m simply voicing my distaste.
>>
>
> Well then perhaps I ought to point out that your "distaste" reeks
of drama
> and isn''t very constructive.  One thing I learned a long time ago
is that
> hyperbole and hostility, while certainly making one feel self-righteous, in
> the end is pretty worthless as an instrument of change.
>
Look, don''t start trying to paint me in a negative light here.
I''m not the
one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software 
community. Let''s get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously made
the
decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to 
obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that 
decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the 
call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?

Best,
Adam Kosmin 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/1RGxWanARmYJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM, windowsrefund
<windowsrefund@gmail.com>wrote:
> Well for starters, this isn''t a RHEL mailing list and
we''re not talking
> about the RHEL solution. If we''re going to just start comparing
things in
> order to find justification for any and all actions, why stop there?
Let''s
> compare to Apple, Microsoft, the bagel I had for breakfast this morning,
> the outcome of the election and anything else totally irrelevant
>
If you''re going to disregard arguments that don''t support your
conclusions
then you''re not interested in a serious discussion.

> Look, don''t start trying to paint me in a negative light here.
I''m not the
> one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software
> community. Let''s get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously
made the
> decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to
> obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that
> decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the
> call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?
>
Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I
complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing.  Your responses have
been disproportionate to the discussion.  Right now it''s my opinion
that
you''re more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet behind a
dubious nom de plume than having a real discussion on this issue.  Please
prove me wrong.

Jeffrey.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

>
> Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I 
> complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing.  Your responses have 
> been disproportionate to the discussion.  Right now it''s my
opinion that
> you''re more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet
behind a
> dubious nom de plume than having a real discussion on this issue.  Please 
> prove me wrong.
>
Jeff,

Not sure if it''s your browser settings but my name is Adam Kosmin. If
you
scroll up and review, you''ll see no nom, no de, and no plume. Also,
I''m not
here to prove anything to you. As you can see, I''ve raised a serious 
discussion and have kept it on track despite your obvious attempts to 
derail the thread into something petty and personal. 

So, if you can answer the outstanding questions (see above), fee free to 
contribute. Otherwise, please find another thread to hijack.

Thanks,
Adam Kosmin  
>
> Jeffrey.
>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/5vI-0--pRw4J.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:07:16 PM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:
>
>
>> Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I
>> complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing.  Your responses
have
>> been disproportionate to the discussion.  Right now it''s my
opinion that
>> you''re more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet
behind a
>> dubious nom de plume than having a real discussion on this issue. 
Please
>> prove me wrong.
>>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Not sure if it''s your browser settings but my name is Adam Kosmin.
If you
> scroll up and review, you''ll see no nom, no de, and no plume.
Also, I''m not
> here to prove anything to you. As you can see, I''ve raised a
serious
> discussion and have kept it on track despite your obvious attempts to 
> derail the thread into something petty and personal. 
>
> So, if you can answer the outstanding questions (see above), fee free to 
> contribute. Otherwise, please find another thread to hijack.
>
Hi.

I am going to have to ask both of you to stay polite, and avoid personal 
attacks, if you want to continue to discuss this as part of the Puppet 
mailing list.

Adam, for better or worse, all your messages show up to me as being from 
"windowsrefund".

Jeffrey, Adam had used his name several times in the body of the messages 
you responded to.


As a company we welcome debate, and disagreement, around how we run our 
business.  They often mirror internal discussions that we have had about 
exactly the same set of topics.

We do require that they remain polite, and impersonal.

Thank you. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/DdyHHY61wzMJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

Daniel,

Thanks for stepping in. Do you have insight into the questions I''ve 
submitted?

All the best,
Adam Kosmin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/cQW9cCJxKwgJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

In regard to: [Puppet Users] Re: The free software tarballs are now...:
> The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page
takes you here:
>
> http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/
>
> where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs
> directly from us.
>
> The reasoning has generally been that if you want to use Puppet, the best
> way of consuming it is via packages, and if you want to get the source, the
> best way of consuming it is via Git.
There are certainly some benefits to GitHub, but my recurring gripe is
that most software that''s hosted on GitHub no longer seems to follow
any notion of "versions" or "releases".  This makes
packaging and local
version tracking a bit more tricky.

I see that you PuppetLabs folks are continuing to do a good job of tagging
release versions, though.  That''s great news, and I certainly hope it
continues.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure                  701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building                             701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:05:41 PM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:
>
>
> Look, don''t start trying to paint me in a negative light here.
I''m not the
> one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software 
> community. Let''s get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously
made the
> decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to 
> obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that
> decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the 
> call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?
>
>
>
Adam

Firstly, we''re not going to revisit the discussions around the change
of
Puppet and Facter''s license. We stated our reasoning at that time (see
this
blog post - http://puppetlabs.com/blog/relicensing-puppet-to-apache-2-0/). 
We accept that some members of the community (a very small number from the 
feedback we''ve received) have an issue with the change but it has been 
largely well received.

Secondly, describing Puppet Lab''s open source software as a
"red-headed
step child" is not only hyperbolic but it''s also incorrect. We
produce far
more open source software than we do commercial software. The flurry of 
releases this year reflect this continued focus on the community and our 
commitment to open source software. 

Thirdly, as stated earlier, very few of our customers acquire the open 
source version of Puppet via the website. They use distribution provided 
packages or our own repositories. We agree we''ve removed the previously
available bypass but we''ve also provided numerous other channels (that 
we''ve certainly not hidden from the community in any way) where you can
get
Puppet. 

Lastly, we freely admit that we''re trying to feature Puppet Enterprise 
because it pays for us to continue to develop Puppet. That''s our
business
model and we''ve been very clear now and in the past about that model
and
how commercial and open source software interact at Puppet Labs. As a 
result of our need to fund Puppet development we''re clearly not going
to
meet the expectations of every member of the community but we''ve chosen
a
path we think, and feedback from the community reflects this, delivers to 
the needs of both the open source community and allows us to maintain a 
viable business.

Kind Regards

James Turnbull

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/UU5x--dJQkIJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

Business logic aside the biggest issue for me is that it is
"difficult" to
find the free software version without knowing any better.

As mentioned in this thread most distributions handle packaging Puppet 
nicely, as does rubygems.  

However a very good example is puppet 3.0 rc.  I had been following the 
release notes for 3.0 for quite some time and was excited that rc7 was 
released and rc8 were released around the time I attended PuppetConf. 
It''s
not so much the fact that the tarball itself is not accessible, it''s
that
it''s difficult to find.

The download page has mention of the open source version at the way bottom 
of the page in minor print compared to the rest of the page.  I feel
we''d
be far better represented with a page that links to PE / OS version 
equally.  I''d even be happy if you wanted to foresake the tarballs, but
at
least make the availability of the open source version more obvious.  (Once 
clicked bring to a page that directs us to github for all I care.)

I''ve referred friends to check out Puppet and most of them say
"Oh, I
downloaded the trial to test it!" without realizing there is an open source
version at the bottom of the page which is more than adequate (and in my 
opinion more efficient to learn on) for their testing needs.

Ultimately I can agree it''s becoming a bit cumbersome to find, but most
importantly it''s becoming more "hidden" from the average new
user to the
site.  

Again I understand from a business logic, but I believe you''d be served
well enough by equally weighting the links on the download page.  You''d
keep both the enterpriser''s happy and the zealots happy. (Relatively.
:)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/5PwwqDLs9dsJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:26:23 PM UTC-5, Nigel Kersten
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
>
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>>
>>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs
website
>>> which result in the free software releases being difficult to
locate and
>>> download.
>>>
>>> Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the
non-free
>>> "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an
option.
>>>
>>> Personally, I''d like to see the site reverted so users
have the option.
>>>
>>> FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:
>>>
>>> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Adam Kosmin
>>>
>>
>> I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to
collect
>> information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall 
>> (personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem
to
>> be in the spirit of free software[1].
>>
>
> There are lots of ways people get open source Puppet, and not many people 
> actually grab them in tarball form from the website from the stats we have.
>
> Apart from being in the distributions, most of you seem to be getting 
> software from the apt/yum repos, which don''t require a paywall:
>
> http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html
>
> If you''re hitting the main page, yes, the "Download"
link goes to PE by
> default, with a link to the OSS download page at the bottom.
>
> The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page
takes you here:
>
> http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/
>
> where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs 
> directly from us.
>
> The reasoning has generally been that if you want to use Puppet, the best 
> way of consuming it is via packages, and if you want to get the source, the
> best way of consuming it is via Git.
>
> That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is 
> simpler for developers.
>
>
For what it''s worth, I always prefer to get source for third-party 
software, and my absolute *least* favorite way to do so is from a 
source-control repository.  I particularly like source RPMs, but tarballs 
generally work just fine for me.  More generally, I want *one file*, 
associated with a specific release of the software and so labeled, and 
accessible via a general purpose network protocol such as HTTP or FTP from 
a location sponsored by the project.

I don''t see any dark conspiracy behind PL''s website changes,
but I am a bit
surprised by some of the responses from PL personnel.  The tone, if not the 
actual content, seems in some cases to say "there''s nothing wrong,
why are
you bothering us with this?"  Clearly something *is* wrong as far as Adam 
is concerned.  PL is certainly not obligated to cater to any individual 
user''s preferences -- or even to the whole community''s
preferences -- but
it is not helpful to anyone to try, as some of the responses seemed to do, 
to deny their validity.

Given a complaint that the source tarballs are hard to find, I would have 
expected a response more along the lines of
> We''re sorry the changes to our web site have inconvenienced you. 
We
> assure you that our intent is not to hide or block access to open-source 
> Puppet.  We will consider whether the site can be changed further to better
> serve both PE and our open-source Puppet users.
>
I might even have expected a suggestion to file a ticket or a solicitation 
for further community comment.


John

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/V7QOTlFLbZUJ.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

On Oct 16, 6:12 am, jcbollinger <John.Bollin...@stJude.org>
wrote:
> For what it''s worth, I always prefer to get source for third-party
> software, and my absolute *least* favorite way to do so is from a
> source-control repository.  I particularly like source RPMs, but tarballs
> generally work just fine for me.  More generally, I want *one file*,
> associated with a specific release of the software and so labeled, and
> accessible via a general purpose network protocol such as HTTP or FTP from
> a location sponsored by the project.
It is available from GitHub, tagged for each release, for example:

https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/zipball/3.0.0

It''s also available via Source RPM from our repos.
> I don''t see any dark conspiracy behind PL''s website
changes, but I am a bit
> surprised by some of the responses from PL personnel.  The tone, if not the
> actual content, seems in some cases to say "there''s nothing
wrong, why are
> you bothering us with this?"  Clearly something *is* wrong as far as
Adam
> is concerned.  PL is certainly not obligated to cater to any individual
> user''s preferences -- or even to the whole community''s
preferences -- but
> it is not helpful to anyone to try, as some of the responses seemed to do,
> to deny their validity.
I''m not denying their validity of the issue. I am questioning what
exactly the issue being raised is and the extent that it''s a key issue
for the community.
>
> Given a complaint that the source tarballs are hard to find, I would have
> expected a response more along the lines of
>
> > We''re sorry the changes to our web site have inconvenienced
you.  We
> > assure you that our intent is not to hide or block access to
open-source
> > Puppet.  We will consider whether the site can be changed further to
better
> > serve both PE and our open-source Puppet users.
>
> I might even have expected a suggestion to file a ticket or a solicitation
> for further community comment.
My analysis of the situation was that this was less about the location
of tarballs or access to software (given the numerous other ways you
can get the software) but rather about the definition of "free". Here
some members of the community and Puppet Labs clearly differ. I
believe, no matter what changes we make to our website, that the only
way they will be satisfied is we return to a GPL-esque license. A
change we''re not going to make for a number of legitimate, documented,
transparent business reasons. That limits our ability to have a
productive conversation about these issues.

That being said we are discussing internally whether to continue with
this approach. We''ve not yet made a decision but I will communicate
that decision either way when it''s made.

Kind Regards

James Turnbull

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.