No, I was not talking about wrappers of ASF projects. I was referring to non-ASF Open Source projects all together (e.g., GitHub, SourceForge, Google code etc.).
Oleg On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: > quote: "Obviously in the second there is a vested interested by such > individual or company to promote the product therefore things like > documentation tend to be much crispier then its ASF counterparts." -- I'm not > so sure about that; in cases where companies provide commercial wraps of > products but pool their resources with other companies in maintaining the > open-souce product they're wrapping, their financial incentive would be in > keeping their commercial wrap documentation top-notch to lure people to their > wraps but less so the Apache website documentation. > > I think the original poster just needs to help out with the documentation, > check it out from SVN and submit patches to improve it (or at least submit a > JIRA as Mohammad mentioned). I cleaned up much of the Hadoop Wiki as I was > learning from it. > > Glen > > On 01/08/2013 07:13 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky wrote: >> Just a little clarification >> This is NOT "how open source works" by any means as there are many Open >> Source projects with well written and maintained documentation. >> It all comes down to the 2 Open Source models >> 1. ASF Open Source - which is a pure democracy or may be even anarchy >> without any governing (individual or corporate) other then the ASF >> procedures/guidelines themselves >> 2. Stewardship-based Open Source - controlled and managed by an individual >> or company >> >> Obviously in the second there is a vested interested by such individual or >> company to promote the product therefore things like documentation tend to >> be much crispier then its ASF counterparts. However the Stewardship-based >> Open Source model is much tighter with regard to control of what goes in, >> quality of code etc., then its ASF counterpart which allows a greater flow >> to free ideas from the community, so both are valid both are open source and >> both needs to exist and we developers just need to deal with it. After all >> its Open Source and the code is always a good source of documentation >> >> Cheers >> Oleg >> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Mohammad Tariq <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello there, >>> >>> Thank you for the comments. But, just to let you know, >>> it's a community work and no one in particular can be held >>> responsible for these kind of small things. This is how open >>> source works. Guys who are working on Hadoop have a lot >>> of things to do. In spite of that, they are giving their best. In >>> the process sometimes these kinda things might happen. >>> >>> I really appreciate your effort. But rather than this you can >>> raise a JIRA if you find something wrong somewhere and >>> fix it or let somebody else fix it. >>> >>> Many thanks. >>> >>> >>> P.S. : Don't take it otherwise. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Tariq >>> +91-9741563634 >>> https://mtariq.jux.com/ >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM, javaLee <[email protected]> wrote: >>> For example,look at the documents about HDFS shell guide: >>> >>> In 0.17, the prefix of HDFS shell is hadoop dfs: >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r0.17.2/hdfs_shell.html >>> >>> In 0.19, the prefix of HDFS shell is hadoop fs: >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r0.19.1/hdfs_shell.html#lsr >>> >>> In 1.0.4,the prefix of HDFS shell is hdfs dfs: >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.0.4/file_system_shell.html#ls >>> >>> >>> Reading official Hadoop ducuments is such a suffering. >>> As a end user, I am confused... >>> >> > > > -- > Glen Mazza > Talend Community Coders - coders.talend.com > blog: www.jroller.com/gmazza
