My Two pence: Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands for Open Source.
Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too. Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <[email protected]>: >I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The >previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in >many other ways. > >The split seems logical: users vs dev. > >There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project >that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source >project for a decade or two already! > >The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually >make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the >main site. > >--emi > >Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <[email protected]> a >scris: > >> Dear all, >> >> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no >technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org. >> >> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is >also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans. >Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that >NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache >rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this >leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same >"closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for >the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its >development. >> >> I added the following to >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938 >: >> >> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links >perfectly working by using redirection. >> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is >open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also >"cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate >model". >> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split. >> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name >of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo >is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate >in its development. >> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided >to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for >the project and no split. >> >> Best regards, >> Ognyan Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards, Michael Müller Brühl, Germany blog.mueller-bruehl.de it-rezension.de @muellermi Read my books "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861 "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
