On 14 Nov 2002, at 12:12, P Witte wrote: > 4 - Documentation (including design specs and structures) > 5 - Support functions (eg the project web)
Yes, though I would not insist too much on 5... > Both modes of distribution could exist in parallel. There should be no need > for immediate access to the latest sources for those who only have a casual > interest, whilst for an active developer this is quite essential. That doesn't reply to my point, but I do know that you, and others think thisis vital. > > Moreover, one of the disadvantages of the website will, of course, > > be that some control is removed from me (at least that is a > > disadvantage in my eyes :-)). > > No. You would be in control of all relevant UPloads to the site. Will that be such a good idea? I can already see people protesting that I have too much control over what is happening on the website. > They will anyway. Will they? > But with a central, open site at least we'll all have the > chance to see what the results of those discussions are as soon as the > outcomes have been agreed. > > > NOT saying that this is a bad thing but it will mean that > > development will be made on a more ad hoc basis. As the software > > registrar, with a mission to try to keep unified versions where > > possible (and thus, trying to steer the thing a bit), that must leave > > me with fixed feelings, of course since my power to influence > > things will be diminished (if it ever existed). But again, if this serves > > the community, I have no problems with it > > I think the best you can ever hope for is to have some control over the > integrity of the sources. Which I won,'t if you can exchange them that easily. Again, I'm not saying this because I want absolute control over the sources, butif I don't have any, we can all forget the registrar... > What facilities and improvements will be developed > will be entirely up to the interests and abilities of the people involved. True - but then again, if I'm thje central hub, I *might* be able to push development more in one (common) direction. > At present there is virtually no control over who legal users are. If a > reseller went down, or if there was a corrupt reseller (God forbid!) there > is currently no way of knowing. So? I mean, tough luck. > My proposal is that each user license > would come with its own serial number that the customer could use to > register with the database to allow free upgrade downloads or support > entitlement. NO! I want to keep the commercial side and the development side TOTALLY separate. I may be responsible as software registrar to get the binaries to the resellers - but the relation between them and the users is NONE of my concern, and it shouldn't be. Support must be handled by the people who sold you your SMSQ/E. Of cxourse, if a bug is discovered, I think veryone will try to correct it, but there is a difference between that and the support supplied by the resellers! > Registration on the project web by users would, of course, > be entirely voluntary. There is no privacy issue involved here, as the > serial number only pertains to the user license. Obviously, if someone > tried to register an invalid serial number, or one that is already in use, > that would need to be investigated. That would mean nmuch too much work for something which doesn't even concern us. > Absolutely. This is your domain ;) Yes, and I try - but,as just about everyone will tell you, testing must be done by more than one person! (...) Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
