Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>
> From: Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Or not, if every other distributor that actually cares to distribute
> > FreeBSD has dried up and blown away because WRS has been handing out
> > exclusive access to the "official" FreeBSD ISO images.
>
> We already discussed this during the FreeBSD developer's summit at
> USENIX
Again, sadly, pointing out the limitations of meetings that not everyone
can attend. This can only get worse as the developer community grows.
Having any minutes of this meeting been posted?
> I've wanted since almost the very beginning to release all the ISO
> bits since the work which went into creating them often came
> significantly from the FreeBSD.org community (people like Steve Price
> and the ports team, thanks guys!) and it's only natural that I'd want
> all of that to go back. Unfortunately, I was also beholden to folks
> like Walnut Creek CDROM and BSDi since they were also paying my salary
> and that of several other FreeBSD folks who were doing much of the
> other work involved with publishing CDs. They could lay fair claim to
> at least some of the release engineering work I and others there did,
> though on the plus side there was also a pretty good relationship
> between Walnut Creek CDROM and the FreeBSD Project which was clearly
> of mutual benefit in many ways.
I think the entire community agrees the relationship between FreeBSD and
Walnut Creek CDROM was symbiotic. I certainly appreciate the many great
things Bob Bruce did for us, and am glad FreeBSD helped him grow his
business in return.
> Times have clearly changed, however, and Walnut Creek CDROM is long
> and sadly gone. Whether what's taken its place turns out to be a good
> match for the FreeBSD project or not still remains very much to be
> seen, but perhaps that's simply a clear indication that now's as good
> a time as any to re-evaluate the way we deal with external
> relationships like this and not simply take continuity for granted.
I think the entire community has been concerned about this since the
announcement of the WRS purchase. I have not been one of the nay-
sayers in this, having been a long-time customer of WRS and perhaps
somewhat more able to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses than
someone who doesn't know them. FreeBSD actually could fit relatively
well into their software tools production, should they choose to do
that, but it doesn't look like that is the way their relationship
with FreeBSD is moving.
> We, for example, need to ask ourselves if there even should be an
> "official" CD distribution of FreeBSD and, if so, what the selection
> criteria for such officiality should be.
Yes, that is partly what I am concerned about. I'll elaborate below.
> FreeBSD has always been a meritocracy and I see no reason why CDROM
> vendors should not be selected the same way - put the bits up for
> grabs and may the vendor with the best customer service and charming
> bedside manner win.
Precisely as it should be. It is in the best interest of the FreeBSD
Project to "spread the wealth" among distributors, to try to get the
maximum eyeball count looking at FreeBSD as an option. Some may call
me a heretic for saying so, but imagine the coverage we could get
from a RedHat, Mandrake, or SuSE FreeBSD distribution.
> That's assuming, of course, that the changing
> internet economy and proliferation of high speed access leaves room
> for anyone to make a business out of selling "straight media" without
> any significant value-add. All the more reason to take a wait-and-see
> attitude and simply not endorse any distribution until the sands stop
> shifting around and we see who's left standing and in what condition.
Yes. There are any number of businesses who produce CD-ROM products,
and no reason the FreeBSD Project or any related institutions should
gamble their limited funds on disc production. Leave the business
risks to the businessmen who profit from them.
> Now that I'm also back to doing release engineering purely on my own
> time (not that Apple would have any publishing interest in the
> resulting product in any case), I'm free of any conflict-of-interest
> constraints and can simply make the whole ball of wax available for
> FTP. Why would anyone want a ball of wax? I have no idea. It's a
> figure of speach.
>
> Anyway, the following is what we initially came up with at USENIX for
> FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE. Nothing is frozen in stone here and it's all
> subject to user feedback, so let me know what you guys think of this:
>
> o FTP release, as usual
>
> o 1 "Mini ISO" containing just the ftp release bits and XFree86.
> Intended audience is just those folks who want a [relatively] small
> and convenient boot image without any packages or "extras" other
> than X.
>
> o 4 "release ISOs" containing the usual base bits + packages. No
> Walnut Creek CDROM copyrighted material will be used, of course,
> though I've been gradually pruning that off over the last few
> releases anyway since it was largely all old and outdated DOS helper
> cruft (like view.exe) and I rather doubt that anyone has even
> noticed its absence.
>
> o A full collection of packages and distfiles, not broken up in any
> way but at least syncronized with the release bits (again, pretty
> much what we already do today). This is intended for DVD media
> folks like FreeBSD Services Ltd to come and package up in their own
> way given the rather different constraints they have on media
> sizing.
I like this idea a lot. I'd even like to see a "request" for funding
the project in some way from vendors who make use of these ISOs.
Perhaps we could create an "official FreeBSD" logo they would be
allowed to apply to the media in return for a $1 payment for the
mini ISO or $2 payment for either of the other distributions. Vendors
would be free to use the ISOs sans payment, but not to affix the
"official FreeBSD" logo. I'm unsure where the payments might be
directed, other than to the FreeBSD Foundation, which would be the
logical trademark holder as well.
In one of my other roles, I recently discussed with a product manager
the idea of creating custom FreeBSD workstation distributions, pre-
configured for KDE or Gnome installations. We would be happy to base
them on the mini-ISO, and to fork over a dollar to make it an "offical"
FreeBSD release, too. We would produce these in relatively small runs,
lowering our exposure to market failures (and our profits), but would
be able to offer this as the value-add you wrote about.
> Also, when Wes said the following:
>
> > Specifically, we need a Product Manager who can shepherd FreeBSD through
> > the release process, and coordinate with CD-ROM distributor(s) who are
>
> I think he perhaps wasn't clear on the fact that I'll still be
> "shepherding FreeBSD through the release process" and working with
> many of the very same FreeBSD volunteers to organize the bits,
Thank you! I was not sure that your new job would leave you the time to
continue this service. I am sure I speak for the entire FreeBSD community
in thanking you for your ongoing efforts.
> there just won't be any "official tie" to any one distributor.
Phew!
> Given
> WindRiver's recent redirection of orders to BSD Central which started
> all this fuss, it's not even clear to us that they want to stay in the
> CDROM business anyway, but if they or anyone else (like the DVD folks)
> want to "coordinate" with us then they can do so simply by sending us,
> the volunteer release engineering and QA team, email with their
> requirements. We'll do as much to oblige them as the project has
> always done for any FreeBSD customer who's approached it with a
> reasonable request for increasing FreeBSD's mindshare or ease of use.
I think the creation of the above standard distribution tools and a
clarification of what "official" status might mean is adequate to start
with.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
