Christopher Frost a écrit : > There are times when it is easier to create a new painting, with a clean > canvas, from the old palette.
Obviously, but it would be good to establish clearly first why the original painting was not good enough. The OSS movements in general are very fond of starting new paintings, but most of the time, for bad reasons (ie, the old painter retired, and the new one didn't care to learn its style and preferred to impose its own instead). I'd like to avoid that, because the time I can give to OS.o is limited, and frankly, I do not cherish the idea of relearning it without a compelling reason. > I believe using the .com to create a friendly user interface for the > amateur > or novice would be a great benefit to our community. No groups *have* to > move, no one has to forfit abilities. Start small. It sounds like the main > goal for the .com project is to answer the questions of a first timer with > minimal work. Okay, I agree with that, it was just Eric's statement that there would be only one OS.c and no more OS.o, that bothered me. > Layout - When we first come to see the opensolaris project, what > questions > are we asking? Answer the questions easily, and direct users to where they > can find more information. "If you'd like to contribute, click here." or "If > you'd like to read more on what we are doing to expand our reach, click here" > etc.. It might seem like complicated questions, but people really just want > simple explanations, and to be given the chance to continue their education > on the subject. Questions like; > What is OpenSolaris? [snip] Those are good questions, but I wonder why the current architecture can't manage them? How come the FAQ don't answer them? Or if they do, why the answer isn't sufficient? > I could probably go on and on.. but the real thing is to make a > presentation > to someone researching OpenSolaris, and obtain future users. The way I see it > no one has to move. I do not see why anyone should have a problem with the > use of the .com extensions. See the wikipedia article if you need a > definition. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com Please, do not shoot Wikipedia at me! :-) They do not even provide very consistent «definitions» across languages: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com And as pointed out there, in many countries, the .com.cc is indeed reserved to commercial use only, so for those, the association is stronger. > If this still poses a problem, it is like me asking "What do you think > when I > say the word 'gun'?" and getting three different answers, "I > think -military-" . "I think -run-". "I think -criminal-." Just because you > think a word means something, does not mean other do. I'm not generalizing. I'm not even saying /I/ think like that. I'm just saying that I know many people who do. > If it bothers you, ask > your employer, "One of the Open-Source organizations I contribute to is > thinking about using a .com domain to create a user-portal, could this > jeopardize my job in anyway?" I think you are probably going to get one of > two answers. "Are you seriously asking me this question?" or "Why should we > care what an open-source organization does?" Okay, I agree. > Remember, opensolaris is not led by Sun, we are led by ourselves. we > have the > ability to walk away at any time, or fork if we very well insist on it. If > anything we should encourage our employers to show support for what we are > doing, and if anything offer them a way to be involved. .org may should > non-profit but that isn't what it means, and certainly opensolaris.org is not > a non-profit either. OpenSolaris.org is just a no-money organization. Quite a > difference. Isn't it a possibility that at some point, OpenSolaris will go for a foundation-style management? Like Mozilla does? Right now, I disagree that it's not led by Sun. Sun is providing everything to run it, they changed the definition of what OpenSolaris means, and you have to go through Sun employees for almost everything. I /know/ it's only starting, I /know/ they have their own opinions, which are not always those of their employer, but still, it's not really much of a difference from outside. Ah, sorry, I'm disgressing, and I really don't want to look like I'm complaining about it. I'm not. Just trying to convey the perception from the outside world. > I encourage this process of using opensolaris.com as a user-portal. It > might > take a lot of guts to admit to ourselves that we need it, yet after that we > will know it will be a worthwhile decision. Let's start with this and work > with small incremental changes. "Live in day type compartments" I think was > the saying. If it's a success and opensolaris.org wants to undergo > reconditioning as well, or you want to move it over to .org later, worry > about it then. The only argument I'm hearing about .com is that it's practical to start something from scratch to explain what OpenSolaris is to people. How changing 3 letters in a domain name is going to achieve that magically, I fail to see so far. Also why it would take guts to change them, in all honesty. Typing .org or .com, what's the difference? > Thank you for listening, Same to you. Laurent -- / Leader de Projet & Communauté | I'm working, but not speaking for \ G11N http://fr.opensolaris.org | Bull Services http://www.bull.com / FOSUG http://guses.org | _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
