See below.
On 03/09/2015 11:37 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
Sean,
I think you're coming from the predisposition that somehow I am reflecting my
current employer's competitive stance with either of the companies in
question. Let met tell you - nothing can be farther from the truth. The
company I am working for right now doesn't compete with any of the commercial
vendors in the business of the packaging and distributing Apache Hadoop stack.
Far from it - the company is _completely_ vendor agnostic.
Another presumption you made is that I can be easily forced or manipulated to
express or approve of something that isn't of my own opinion or deduction.
Absolutely not true! You can easily figure out that exactly these expectations
made me to part the ways with the very employer you're affiliated with right
now.
But enough about me - this isn't a thread to discuss high moral grounds of
course. As we have the factual conversation now let me clarify the background:
0/ Wasn't factually wrong, but had an unfortunate choice of words. Here's why:
HDP2.2 has stopped providing standard Linux service handles, hence one can
not rely on traditional Linux mechanisms to server services life-cycle.
Same is true and in the higher extent with Cloudera's parcels. That last
qualifier hasn't been expressed clear enough, but now it is.
1/ the links to the tweet is incorrect, so I have hard time put it in the
context
2/ Ah, it seems that #1 above is a part of #2 here. What the tweet is
conveying is that _none_ of the commercial vendors that are consuming Bigtop
aren't making an effort to have Bigtop as an open integration point for the
distro works. While it is fine from ASL legal stance, it might be considered
of a questionable practice and put off new contributors. But I guess
commercials are commercials - they have the right to lock-out their
competitors, so we really can not do anything about it.
I guess that put the matter at rest as the technical ground of the tweets has
been clarified. I think it'd be more clear if the discussions on 'public
expressions principle' and 'facts-based' are separated. So I will share my
stance on the actual topic of this in a separate email.
With regards,
Cos
Hi Cos,
Unfortunately this is still not clear to me.
These explanations are way too far fetched.
I am more interested driving consensus on them being bad form and using
them as an example of what not do than blaming people.
So let's agree that these tweets were mistakes, that we will all make
sure this does not happen again and then move on :)
Thanks,
Bruno
