On 09/10/2014 10:29 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
early LBaaS packages)
b. A project which has lost its initial steam and further
investment is not foreseen
c. A reliable project where there has not been a significant need
to change recently but is a good long term bet
This pops up often and to me it looks like a software procurement issue,
something that the 'buyer' needs to be able to sort out either with the
help of their vendors (distributions or system integrators), or if they
go DIY, with other instruments to check code quality, level of support
by the community, professional support etc (there are a few EU funded
researches and tools, like http://qualipso.icmc.usp.br/OMM/).
Why do you think any open source project should be in the business of
providing such assurances? Isn't that a role more suitable for the
I reject soundly and fundamentally the idea that Open Source projects
NEED a commercial ecosystem to provide solid quality software. That is a
description of a thing called "Open Core" and every time it has come up
in the context of OpenStack I and others have been quite successful in
OpenStack is NOT Open Core
bind has been running DNS for the world for 20 years and does it quite
admirably without someone needing to buy "Commercial Bind"
Apache has been the dominant web server for forever, and if there is any
human who has ever purchased "Commerical Apache" they are an absolute moron.
There is no such thing as "Commercial Python"
Open Source software has been running the entire internet, at scale,
since before the Internet was wide spread, and since well before the
term Open Source existed. In fact, Open Source software drove the world
of computing before the idea of Commercial Software was invented.
Does this mean that our commercial vendors are bad? No. Absolutely not.
I love each and every one of them and want all of them to make tons of
money. But if the thing I produce isn't good in the first place, I
expect them to show up and help me fix it. Here. In the Open Source
project. Otherwise, they are a leech and should be mocked.
So, no, I do not believe that it should be the purview of the commercial
ecosystem to provide quality assurances about the Open Source software
that I work on. And I'm highly offended that as a community manager for
an Open Source project, that you seem to think that the output of our
project should not be world class all by itself.
OpenStack-dev mailing list