On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
> wrote:
>
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
>>> but
>>> > splitting the project and community with
On Thu, 05 May 2016 17:44:43 +0200, Daniel Petre
wrote:
On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this ven
On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
but
> splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very
much not
> welcome.
Let'
I'm an outsider, have nothing to do with OpenWrt developement but
still work on few projects which depend on OpenWrt as awesome project
that enables us to do our projects (wifi mesh networking) but also do
professional jobs for clients using OpenWrt as embedded os for lots of
different applications
On 6 May 2016 at 03:53, Luka Perkov wrote:
>>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
toxic quickly and le
You may be right that OpenWRT is doomed, but we have seen time and time again
that OpenSource software is not a zero-sum game.
Yes, if OpenWRT does nothing, it will struggle, but that's unlikely to be the
case.
For that matter, even with no new manpower, OpenWRT could just copy everything
th
I like to take decisions based more on "Realpolitik" than on
ideology/feelings. I have no side and no feelings for any of people
involved. I just want to have a good router distribution.
What is a OSS project? It is the sum of work of people. So, the future of a
project lies on how much people wil
>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
mbm schrieb am 05.05.2016 um 21:22:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> S
On 16-05-05 03:22 PM, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> Set
Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds
infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental
problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people
who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes
because he/they has
On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
Setting up the LEDE project was our way of cre
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fac
Hi Daniel,
I already merged lynxis series now that I see your comment.
If you feel like it, it'd be nice if you point out the remaining
places where the name needs to be replaced and submit (a) patch(es).
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:03:43PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> If you'r
On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson
>>> wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wro
On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> [snip]
>>> When I say broken I me
On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>> [snip]
[snip]
>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
>> all that
On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork i
I confess I am one of those people who has benefited much more than I
have contributed to the OpenWRT development group. I run a small company
in which I am the chief developer, administrator, customer support dude,
marketer, and salesguy. I would LOVE to be able to contribute more to
the OpenW
On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
>> > welcome.
>>
>> Let's just
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> > welcome.
>
> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't be
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM Daniel Dickinson <
open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote:
> On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
> > guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> > leadership privat
On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
> guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> leadership privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise
The problem is that LEDE is pretty much
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede guys
should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt leadership
privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise announcement
must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu, brute?" and all
that.
On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this venture.
If i read correctly the feedback from the LEDE guys (
On 16-05-05 11:24 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
>> addresses somewhat undermines this
>>
>> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
>
> @openwrt.org actually
On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
> addresses somewhat undermines this
>
> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
@openwrt.org actually
> addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking Ope
>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
addresses somewhat undermines this
Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously?
How did you not think that wasn't going to go well
On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
Dear OpenWrt community,
> [snip]
>>
>> One simple question:
>> If LEDE team members are the ones who
On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>>
[snip]
>
> One simple question:
> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
> non-democratic decisions, why didn't
Hi Mike,
thank you for reaching out to us and for your interest in addressing
these issues.
On 2016-05-04 21:01, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
>
> It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
> about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote:
>
> But as someone who is following, using, building upon and sometimes
> contributing to OpenWRT since ~10 years I can only say that the only
> developers who have been visible, reacting and committing stuff have
> left. I still wonder why, of
On 05/05/16 13:48, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> I would not call "all active OpenWrt core developers" have left the
> boat. Take a look at this [1] page - some of them are active, some of
> them are not, but calling an end to the project is an overstatement at
> least. Also, refer to the mail Mike sent o
Hi,
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Bruno Randolf wrote:
On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
of the critical resources and then re-org
I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fact, I see it as
a good thing because it means t
On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
>> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
>> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
>> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
>> O
On 5 May 2016 at 13:16, John Clark wrote:
>>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
> existing project?
>
> The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me
> wonder if a "fo
>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
existing project?
The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me
wonder if a "follow the money" approach will yield more plausible an
On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
>> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
>> vague and misleading and the LEDE p
On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
>
> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
> nature. The LEDE a
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
> OpenWrt Project.
> But as the fork has already h
Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
OpenWrt Project.
But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.
Regards,
Fernando
On
On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the
> new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes
> inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the
> LEDE Project ideas ?
I don't
Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the new
project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes inside
OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the LEDE
Project ideas ?
The LEDE ideas are great and the the long time and outstanding
On 16-05-04 07:21 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who do contribute are
> small open-source minded companies, and that's a fair
On 16-05-04 07:32 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
> Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
> It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
> to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
> industry members to better "see" that p
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
> On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
>> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
>> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the
On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>>> being as concrete examples of companies
On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back to
>> openwrt, rather than just be
Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back to
> openwrt, rather than just benefiting from it?
Every commit from me. We're a t
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 21:19 +0100, tapper wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
> >
> > Dear OpenWrt community,
> >
> > It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we
> > read
> > about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was
> > no
> > prior announcement
El 04/05/2016 a las 23:40, Daniel Dickinson escribió:
On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion
On 4 May 2016 at 23:19, tapper wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
>>
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>> It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
>> about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
>> prior announcement nor clues this would happe
On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
Dear OpenWrt community,
It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
prior announcement nor clues this would happen.
While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffe
Dear OpenWrt community,
It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
prior announcement nor clues this would happen.
While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a number of
issues ou
Hei hei,
On 04.05.2016 20:57, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> Well, like you said yourself, why they didn't start discussing the
> problems (and possible solutions) in open space then?
I can not speak for OpenWRT or LEDE developers, but let me give an
example on one topic I watched the last weeks, which
It's not unusual for developers who disagree with project management issues to
fork a project.
I am also interested in who is left in OpenWRT and what their viewpoint is.
Have the developers who are founding LEDE given up their commit privileges in
OpenWRT? or are they going to be workting a b
On 4 May 2016 at 21:35, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> It is really strange that the decision to create a new project was so opaque
> when it was motivated to be a more "transparent project".
> They could've started to be more transparent already with the decision to
> create a new project.
>
It is really strange that the decision to create a new project was so
opaque when it was motivated to be a more "transparent project".
They could've started to be more transparent already with the decision to
create a new project.
Maybe the answer for the need of an external reboot might be not in
On 4 May 2016 at 19:25, Kathy Giori wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> .
>>
>> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
>> many of the same goals.
>
> While I
Bruno Randolf wrote:
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias S
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> .
>
> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
> many of the same goals.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot
Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
On a purely logistical note, is there any purpose in sending
patches/pulls/bugs to _openwrt-devel_ any more? It sounds like
there's effectively no-one left to read them.
What about procd, fstools, l
ayo de 2016 04:01 a.m.
To: Roman Yeryomin; Roman Yeryomin
Cc: Bruno Randolf; OpenWrt Development List; Bruno Randolf; OpenWrt Development
List
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project
The only thing that seems to improve from my perspective is normal git pull
requests instead of
>From times to times, a complete Refresh is needed to purge old habits.
Let's face it. The name OpenWRT reflects the initial idea, an Open Wireless
Router. I don't know about the main uses, but I have a router using OpenWRT
which doesn't even has a wireless interface.
I also have seen cases where
The only thing that seems to improve from my perspective is normal git pull
requests instead of antiquated email patches. The name change and that 90's
style website will only confuse the users.
> Am 04.05.2016 um 00:50 schrieb Roman Yeryomin :
>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
On 4 May 2016 at 10:31, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 09:13, Reinoud Koornstra wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin
>>> wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> On 03/05
On 4 May 2016 at 09:13, Reinoud Koornstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
>>> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> >> we'd like to int
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
>> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> >> ...
>>
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin
wrote:
> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> >> ...
> >> Jo-Philipp Wich,
> >> John Crispin,
> >> Daniel Golle,
> >> Felix
On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf wrote:
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias Schiffer,
>> Steve
Hello,
2016-05-03 22:19 GMT+02:00 Bruno Randolf :
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias Schiffer,
>>
On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> ...
> Jo-Philipp Wich,
> John Crispin,
> Daniel Golle,
> Felix Fietkau,
> Hauke Mehrtens
> John Crispin
> Matthias Schiffer,
> Steven Barth
While a fresh start and a more open process is g
Hi,
we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
.
The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
many of the same goals.
We are building an embedded Linux distribution that makes it easy for
developers, system administrators or other Linux enthusiasts
76 matches
Mail list logo
