On Oct 16, 6:12 am, jcbollinger wrote:
> For what it's worth, I always prefer to get source for third-party
> software, and my absolute *least* favorite way to do so is from a
> source-control repository. I particularly like source RPMs, but tarballs
> generally work just fine for me. More gener
Business logic aside the biggest issue for me is that it is "difficult" to
find the free software version without knowing any better.
As mentioned in this thread most distributions handle packaging Puppet
nicely, as does rubygems.
However a very good example is puppet 3.0 rc. I had been foll
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:26:23 PM UTC-5, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
>
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>>
>>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website
>>> w
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:05:41 PM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:
>
>
> Look, don't start trying to paint me in a negative light here. I'm not the
> one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software
> community. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously made
In regard to: [Puppet Users] Re: The free software tarballs are now...:
The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page takes you here:
http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/
where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs
directly from us.
The reason
Daniel,
Thanks for stepping in. Do you have insight into the questions I've
submitted?
All the best,
Adam Kosmin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:07:16 PM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:
>
>
>> Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I
>> complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing. Your responses have
>> been disproportionate to the discussion. Right now it's my opinion t
>
> Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I
> complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing. Your responses have
> been disproportionate to the discussion. Right now it's my opinion that
> you're more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet beh
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM, windowsrefund wrote:
> Well for starters, this isn't a RHEL mailing list and we're not talking
> about the RHEL solution. If we're going to just start comparing things in
> order to find justification for any and all actions, why stop there? Let's
> compare to Appl
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:38:47 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.
>>
>
> Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model. I think it's a
> very germane c
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund wrote:
>
> Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.
>
Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model. I think it's a
very germane comparison. Both are commercial companies that sell support
for Open Source programs and als
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:02:00 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
>
> I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have
> done a similar thing and it's only been good for the community. Perhaps
> you don't use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many innovations that
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:39:07 AM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:
>
> This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with
> PL's business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself, the
> software and it's community is far more important. It was bad enough to see
>
I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have done
a similar thing and it's only been good for the community. Perhaps you
don't use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many innovations that were
funded by dollars that came from RHEL subscriptions.
I also think you're b
This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with
PL's business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself, the
software and it's community is far more important. It was bad enough to see
the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now
we're se
My view on the matter has always been this. Most people already know how
to find Puppet (it's usually in their distribution already). This change
might inconvenience people slightly, but it's not a big deal for the
technically adept. The folks who aren't technically adept should use their
distri
>
> That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is
> simpler for developers.
>
>
>
And yet, I haven't heard a single user say anything to the affect of
"please make us jump through additional hoops in order to download the Free
Software releases. In fact, this thread ex
On 15 Oct 2012, at 01:26, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>>
>>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website which
>>> result in the fr
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>>
>> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website
>> which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and
>> do
On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:
>
> Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website
> which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and
> download.
>
> Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-
20 matches
Mail list logo
