|
Woah, first I want to make clean that I don't work for VA, it's Horms that
works for VA :-) I'm sorry if I worded things that made it sound as if I
was working for VA (heh, that would be cool though) but I was referring to
Horms.
The only comment I can really make is that as far as I know, Ultra Monkey
does not require that the GTK base config tool be installed and I would
critisize their decisions in forcing this upon people and I don't believe
that do. Personally in my installs I like things as stripped as
possible. Gtk would not be installed period on my LVS machine and neither
would a webserver.
Trust me, I'm not trying to start fights. Horms obviously feels that he
can do something better or not even better but different then
Piranha. Although I'm sure he's more then capable of contributing to
Piranha, why would someone contribute to something they don't necessaryly
agree with in its overall focus.
Different strokes for different folks.
I'm personally very excited about what's planned for Piranha. Perhaps you
could post a todo list.
Overall I think that we've needed these things about a year ago and so
much talk is drummed up about what's going to happen, that we really need
something that will happen now.
-jeremy
> Jeremy Hansen wrote:
>
> First, thanks for your response. I enjoy hearing differing views.
> However I think we are at odds, and I think some of discussion is
> is not making sense to me. For example; you say you don't want to start
> http to have a GUI, but VA's GUI requires X -- which is larger and far
> less useful on a server than http. Granted no GUI is most efficient
> (but not necessarily easiest) of all.
>
> I always like to improve piranha, and I believe GPL clustering solutions
> are the best way to go. As far as I can tell, none of the
> differences you list are very significant. You are certainly entitled
> to "like it better", but that's not something I can relate to a customer
> need and code. I always hate to see a Linux vendor produce a package
> just for the sake of claiming that they have one of their own rather
> than there being actual inovention. I don't like to see this even if
> Red Hat was the culprit.
>
> When I worked for DEC, one of the practices they had would be to sometimes
> have 2 groups create the same product and put them in competition with
> each other to see who wins. I always though this was a hugh waste of
> resources, especially for the group that lost.
>
> > I understand what you're saying somewhat but I still don't see why it is
> > wrong for someone to develop the same thing but from a different angle.
>
> It's not, I agree. I just don't see a significant angle to merit yet
> another package rather than improve or add-on to piranha. I view the
> competition as Microsoft rather than other Linux companies. How can
> I view other Linux companies as development competition when the efforts
> involve the community, including their employees? I sat right next to
> Ted T'so, who works for VA, in a community clustering meeting being run
> by Red Hat.
>
> > I realize that Red Hat is in a position in the market where they must
> > develop tools for the "IT manager". It seems to be their focus and
> > honestly (and I'm probably wrong here but I might as go ahead with it and
> > take the abuse) I think Red Hat is trying to somewhat secure themselves on
> > their efforts in the whole "Enterprise", "High Availability" effort and
> > probably doesn't like the competition in this area, especially from people
> > at VA Linux.
>
> I don't agree here. I personally critise Red Hat when I think they deserve it.
> First; I did not know you worked for VA, so it was never a factor in my
> position.
> Red Hat's focus is the open-source movement and the user (ever listen to Bob
> Young speak?). Competition is at the support, services, stability, and
> packaging levels, not really at the engr level (unless you are breaking
> the spirit of free software and releasing binary-only stuff). How can I
> compete if I can simply take 100% of your code and make it mine? The only
> winner in GPL competition is the user.
>
> > I mean what you're saying certainly doesn't make sense for the "open
> > source community". Both project are GPL as far as I know. There are
> > 3,010,599 irc clients for Linux that have somewhat different approaches to
> > the same goal. Why is there about 50 distro's available all based off of
> > RPM but with slightly different approaches and different installs
> > available.
>
> I agree, but I'd also say that the value of 3 million irc client
> choices is questionable. Everything in moderation. Ever try to pick a
> stable email client? It would be nice if there were a "top 10" list
> in each category :-)
>
> I assume we aren't going to agree, which is ok too. :-)
>
>
--
http://www.xxedgexx.com | jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------
|
