On lör, 2007-09-08 at 01:48 +0300, Tsantilas Christos wrote: > I am watching closely squid at least the last 2 years and I had see > how difficult is for squid to get funds for its developments. I think it > is easier for the squid project to get money from people/companies which > creating/sell solutions based on squid than from the end users (Adrian > try hard every day in squid-users mailing list but ...).
I'd like to adjust that picture a little. It's not that there has been zero funding after the NLANR grants. Over the years there has been quite noticeable directed funding for developing new features. This generally comes from just that group of people you mention above: People selling solutions where Squid is one component, or people selling an online service where they use Squid in the delivery of that service. But what the project is missing is funding for the day to day activities of fixing bugs etc. And secondly to enable significant steps in the development, but I suspect that's at large a marketing problem. We know pretty well where we want to take Squid and what it requires, but very poor at marketing those projects or how interested parties can contribute with money, time or knowledge. More over being a such loosely connected group of people that we are the answer is likely to differ significantly depending on who in the developer group gets the question adding to the confusion.. Squid-2 has worked reasonably well over the years with a reasonable amount of inflow in directed projects, both in funding and contributed code. This despite the paralyzing caused by the way overdue Squid-3 for which there for a long time was not even a project plan but which still froze all other development. Luckily this has changed with Squid-3 getting some of the same attention, and we now have a reasonably clear path forward even if it's likely to be somewhat of a bumpy road for the next year or so while the transition is being made.. Regards Henrik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
