Hi Olaf, > >Keep in mind that we're not planning on deleting the CA code. Just > >removing the install scripts and explicit support for various > >hardware bits. There's nothing keeping adopters from using it, the > >hardware support will still be there. We just won't be testing > >against any hardware. > > Also, I wonder whether you would consider Galicaster a solution that > still allows us to claim that soup-to-nuts approach. The software is > OS (ignoring the licence issue here for a moment), Teltek supporting > its further development and it's not bound to HW Teltek is selling, > at least I think I remember Stuart saying he's running it on his own > cobbled device.
What Greg has written, "...removing the install scripts and explicit support for various hardware bits..." is very different from what I perceived in the #proposal from "...bit we will not really maintain the code in the future so that it will be outdated in the near future..." Regardless though, I don't support the notion that Matterhorn should not have capture agent software and should rely on other systems alone. To me, the benefit of Matterhorn was getting rid of the home built systems we had individually, and coming together to build an open, community-maintained product that could scale. I think involving other systems, like vendor products, is important to creating a viable piece of software, but I don't think relying on a vendor for a specific portion of the tool chain is good. Also, I don't know anything about the Galicaster system except what I've read on the website and on this mailing list. Undoubtedly it is an excellent product, but to throw away robust community-developed code and instead tell adopters to go to this vendor for the solution is not something I'm comfortable with. > Yes, that was my impression too. I think we've seen what a closer > alignment with certain vendors can lead to when their support isn't > there and the price policy is erratic, but I think if one could run > Galicaster SW on your own device, wouldn't that be agnostic enough? Why don't we just drop our player and core and instead point people towards the Kaltura community release (it's open source)? Open source software isn't just a set of widgets we can replace, it's about a community that people can participate in. How many different higher education institutions have commit access to Galicaster code? How can I contribute back new developments we make to the broader community, and get their contributions in return? How can I contribute patches to bugs, and fix problems when they arise instead of buying a support contract? The answer is you can't -- it's not a community source project. This doesn't have to detract from all the wonderful things that Galicaster is (free, open source, well supported, python, great testimonials, etc.). But changing the docs to say "Go download Galicaster" is cutting away a portion of our product and saying we're not interested as a community in lecture capture, just media processing and playback. And I don't think that's true, and I don't see why that is necessary. Chris -- Christopher Brooks, PhD ARIES Laboratory, University of Saskatchewan Web: http://www.cs.usask.ca/~cab938 Phone: 1.306.966.1442 Mail: Advanced Research in Intelligent Educational Systems Laboratory Department of Computer Science University of Saskatchewan 176 Thorvaldson Building 110 Science Place Saskatoon, SK S7N 5C9 _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list Matterhorn@opencastproject.org http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org _______________________________________________
