Re: Next version of XD for SuSE 9.1?

thank you for the explanation. i think so long as the public is getting
the binaries (in their favorite 'latest release') all will be fine. that
would keep the supporters of 'open source'  happy at least.

i guess it's actually surprising to me. when i first started using Linux
(back in '95) it seemed things were much easier. now, because of demand,
things have become far more complicated.

so i totally understand the 'why' of no longer being distro-neutral. but
i have to admit i'm pretty disappointed by it.

as to GNOME...i actually had to switch to KDE because of the horrendous
gnome-pilot application. i've never seen such a necessary piece of
software (especially in the eyes of the corporate world) be completely
neglected to the point of losing users. but that is happening. i would
seriously hope that whoever maintains that package opens their eyes and
either does something to fix the problems or hands the package over to
someone who will.

but i digress.

thank you again. it's always a pleasure to hear from the 'horses mouth'.

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 18:55, Mark Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 17:44 -0400, jack wallen wrote:
> > hmmmm well i guess if no binary packages come out of evo2 for FC2 i
> > might wind up switching to thunderbird. i just found the FireFox
> > calender extension and it's not too bad. 
> 
> By the time Evo2 comes out, there might be an FC3.  This isn't so much a
> warning as an indication that 1) I don't follow the FC release schedule,
> and 2) version numbers tend to increase over time.
> 
> > it's not that big of a loss since i can't seem to sync my clie with
> > GNOME anymore anyway (gnome pilot sucks these days - does nothing but
> > crash - and no one seems to be doing anything about that).
> 
> gnome-pilot is admittedly in need of attention.  No argument from me on
> that matter.
> 
> > i would think that Fedora Core is going to continue where red hat left
> > off and a majority of users will migrate from red hat to FC. if that's
> > the case wouldn't it make sense that evolution be made available for
> > FC2?
> 
> One of our concerns with Fedora Core has been that it might turn into
> Debian Sid.  We never supported Debian Sid, even in the days when we
> were supporting Debian stable.  Community-supported distributions can be
> very unstable from a standpoint of third-party software.
> 
> You've seen http://www.redhat.com/software/rhelorfedora/ ? Check the
> "ISV certifications".
> 
> Supporting a distro means several things:
> 
> - Somebody here has to get things to build on that distro.  This is not
> always a trivial exercise.
> - Somebody here has to test those packages before they're released.
> Everything we support (i.e. everything other than snapshots,
> xd-unstable, and the like) goes through a certain amount of testing
> before it's released.  Evolution goes through more testing than some
> things we ship (e.g. gnome-games gets a fairly light pass), in part
> because we've (historically) charged for Connector, and a certain level
> of quality expectation comes with anything that costs money.
> - Someone has to provide paid support on the distro in question.  This
> means that support staff need access to the distro in question.
> 
> None of this scales especially well to large numbers of distros.  Over
> time, the number of distros we supported has declined.  Note also that
> some of the justification for support of certain distributions, at least
> for Evolution, has been Connector sales.  Now that Connector is Free, we
> have little financial incentive to provide Evolution binaries at all.
> It's worth noting that Red Carpet is available for Fedora Core 1, but
> that's effectively a client for Red Carpet Enterprise, which is still a
> source of revenue.
> 
> > or is this a competition thing? is this SuSE saying "we don't want app X
> > to work with distro Y"? 
> 
> We don't necessarily want to dedicate scarce resources to building,
> testing, and supporting app X on distro Y.  If you care about distro Y,
> which we don't support, here's the source.  Have at it.  Patches
> gratefully accepted.  We have absolutely no intention of *preventing*
> app X from working on distro Y.
> 
> Note that we build snaps of Evolution on platforms for which stable
> Evolution is not currently available from us (Mandrake Linux 9.2, SUSE
> Linux 9.1).  These packages, being snapshots, don't get tested by us
> before release, and they're not supported.  We build them because 1) we
> actually are interested in making sure that it works on a wide range of
> platforms 2) the benefit of getting bug reports from the community on a
> wider range of platforms offsets the cost of getting snapshots to work
> on those platforms.
> 
> > i realize this has been discussed ad nauseum on this list and other
> > places but i really don't know if the public (or the media) has had a
> > satisfactory (or understandable) answer. i mean let's face it - it looks
> > fishy.
> > 
> > Ximian supports Red Hat
> > Red Hat migrates to Fedora Core
> > Novell buys SuSE
> > Novell buys Ximian
> > Ximan no longer supports Fedora Core
> > 
> > that's how the public views it. 
> > 
> > from my point of view (the medias) it looks simply as if Novell is
> > strong arming Ximian to not support its 'competition'. 
> 
> This isn't complete coincidence, and all of these factors are relevant,
> but it's not a grand conspiracy.  We used to be distro-neutral.  We're
> not distro-neutral any more.  This makes life easier for us in many
> regards, and we have reason to be thankful.  It's far easier for us to
> have our software integrated into the base OS vs. installed separately
> (and nigh impossible to uninstall after the fact).
> 
> It's kinda like buying a house and moving out of a rented apartment.
> 
> Again, we used to be distro-neutral.  We're not distro-neutral any more.
> Nobody should take this personally.  Worst-case scenario: you won't
> necessarily have the absolute latest version of Evolution until you
> upgrade to the next version of your distro.  In that regard, Evolution
> is no different from gcc or X.  The source is out there.  We have no
> obligation to provide tested, supported binary packages for specific
> platforms.  When it's in our interest to do so, we do so.  When it's
> not, others are free to build them.  One of the reasons I'm personally
> thankful for Connector getting freed is that it makes it easier for
> users of unsupported platforms to use the software.
> 
> -Mark Gordon
-- 
jack    **  nothing is as beautiful     ** 
wallen  **  as nature, when seen        **
jr      **  from the seat of a bicycle  **

_______________________________________________
Users maillist  -  [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/users