On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 00:29 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
the community is also often miffed if they feel they have been
left out of
Guido Barosio wrote:
quote
Companies often bring fresh prespective, ideas, and testing
infrastucture to a project.
/quote
prespective || perspective ?
Thanks, fixed.
---
g.-
On 12/21/06, Kevin Grittner
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait
accompli, or show any disrespect?
Well depending on the circumstances it could show the poster isn't interested
in the judgement of the existing code authors. It can be hard to tell
OK, based on this feedback and others, I have made a new version of the
article:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
There are no new concepts, just a more balance article with some of the
awkward wording improved. I also added a link to the article from the
Kevin Grittner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after
Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company
dies
too.
This
The paper is a good one, from my perspective. It does address important
issues and maybe we don't all agree on the exact places lines have been
drawn, but I think we probably do agree that these things need to be
said. Now that they have been said, we must allow reasonable time for
the
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after
Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company
dies
too.
This statement seems to ignore
quote
Companies often bring fresh prespective, ideas, and testing
infrastucture to a project.
/quote
prespective || perspective ?
g.-
On 12/21/06, Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 6:13 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember the president of Great Bridge
saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
the company dies,
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
the community is also often miffed if they feel they have been
left out of the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just
Jonah Harris wrote:
We could also mention all the Ingres-based offshoots that were
commercial. Let me think of some other examples... but there may not
be that many seeing as there aren't really that many PostgreSQL-like
communities. I guess I could mention more if I had a clear
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
the community is also often miffed if they feel they have been
left out of the design and testing
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Jonah Harris wrote:
We could also mention all the Ingres-based offshoots that were
commercial. Let me think of some other examples... but there may not
be that many seeing as there aren't really that many PostgreSQL-like
communities. I guess I could mention
The remainder of this email talks about general principles for all
developers, not just for company employees. If we need more text in
this area, it should be added to the developer's FAQ. Feel free to
suggest additions to that.
I am kind of stumped that we have so much text in the
I have written an article about the complexities of companies
contributing to open source projects:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I am going to add a
link to this from the developer's FAQ.
--
Bruce
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have written an article about the complexities of companies
contributing to open source projects:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I am going to add
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have written an article about the complexities of companies
contributing to open source projects:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/company_contributions/
If you have any suggestions, please let
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:38 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have written an article about the complexities of companies
contributing to open source projects:
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, sectioning fixed.
Spelling mistake:
because they have gone though a company process
to
because they have gone *through* a company process
Regards,
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | yahoo
Fixed, thanks.
---
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, sectioning fixed.
Spelling mistake:
because they have gone though a company process
to
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fixed, thanks.
Follwing statement seems to be a bit mangled:
then when company('s?) needs diverge, going *it*(?) alone, then returning to
the community process at some later time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail |
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On 12/20/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fixed, thanks.
Follwing statement seems to be a bit mangled:
then when company('s?) needs diverge, going *it*(?) alone, then returning to
the community process at some later time.
Thanks, clarified.
--
Hi,
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that the
community is also often miffed if they feel they have been left out of
the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just a reflex that is
not always based on technical reasoning. Its just that as you correctly
Hello,
O.k. below are some comments. Your article although well written has a
distinct, from the community perspective ;) and I think there are some
points from the business side that are missed.
---
Employees working in open source communities have two bosses -- the
companies that employ them,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a The community is god perspective and that we must all bend to the
will of said community.
The community could learn a great deal from adopting some of the more
common business practices when it
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a The community is god perspective and that we must all bend to the
will of said community.
I'm not really in a position to judge how a company thinks about
donating
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 09:51 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a The community is god perspective and that we must all bend to the
will of said community.
I'm not
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't give.
I appreciate that, but then Bruce'
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't give.
I have not been following closely. But IMNSHO we should be
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:27 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think my overall thought is the tone seems a bit non-gracious to
companies, when IMO the community should be actively courting companies
to give resources. If companies feel unwelcome, they won't give.
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that the
community is also often miffed if they feel they have been left out of
the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just a reflex that is
not always based on technical reasoning. Its
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 09:51 +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 12/20/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.k. in all Bruce I like your article but I must admit it seems to take
a The community is god perspective and that we must all bend to the
will
The community could learn a great deal from adopting some of the more
common business practices when it comes to development as well.
In short, I guess I think it is important to recognize that both are
partners in the open source world and that to ignore one over the other
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This actually brings up an important distinction. Joshua is saying that
the community is painted as god in the article, and I agree there is a
basis for that, but I don't think you can consider the community and
company as equals either.
Of
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember the president of Great Bridge
saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember the president of Great Bridge
saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
Bridge, without a
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I remember the president of Great Bridge
saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
too.
I 95%
In one fails swoop:
Sorry a beer and email just doesn't mix. The above should be one fell
swoop.
Devrim, Alvaro, Darcy, Heikki, Bruce, Simon, Greg, Dave, Marc and I are
all suddenly looking for employment...
You don't think there would be an issue that could cause some grief to
the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
In one fails swoop:
ITYM fell swoop. see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fel1.htm
cheers
a
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
As this document is supposed to be factual, I'd really like not to get
into a war over lines-of-code development rates vs. bugs, quality (or
lack thereof), etc. The *fact* is, some commercial software companies
could easily churn out more, better quality code, if they
I do think I need to add a more generous outreach to companies in the
article, explaining how valuable they are to the community, so let me
work on that and I will post when I have an update.
Cool, that is what I was really looking for.
Yes, the original was pretty negative,
The article assumes healthy open source communities, not open source
communities that are offshoots or parasites of commercial companies.
The article title, How Companies Can Effectively Contribute To Open
Source Communities itself assumes that because the company is
contributing to the
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
The title of the document, How Companies Can Effectively Contribute
To Open Source Communities doesn't seem to fit the content. I would
consider something more along the lines of, Enterprise Open Source:
Effectively Contributing Commercial Support to Open Source
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
too.
However, in regard to a dying community killing a
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did after Great
Bridge, without a hickup), but if the community dies, the company dies
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I remember the president of Great Bridge
saying that the company needs the community, but not visa-vera --- if
the company dies, the community keeps going (as it did
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
So, I suppose you can give us ten examples of thriving companies based
on private forks of dead open-source projects?
MySQL? (sorry couldn't resist).
Uh, no, because that was never a genuine
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 23:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
So, I suppose you can give us ten examples of thriving companies based
on private forks of dead open-source projects?
MySQL? (sorry couldn't
On 12/19/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingres is opensource again yes. http://www.ingres.com/ .
Yep.
I'm not aware of too many more. Like I said, if you want to establish
this as the typical case, name ten examples.
We could also mention all the Ingres-based offshoots
On 12/19/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The article assumes healthy open source communities, not open source
communities that are offshoots or parasites of commercial companies.
Assumptions are many times incorrect. Similarly, I wouldn't disregard
an open source community just
51 matches
Mail list logo
