Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:15:00 +1030
From:      "Paul A. Hoadley" <paulh@logicsquad.net>
To:        Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg>
Cc:        freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far....
Message-ID:  <20050213064500.GD8532@grover.logicsquad.net>
In-Reply-To: <420EF423.7020609@pacific.net.sg>
References:  <20050213004204.GA91920@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050213021055.69766.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> <20050213022605.GA24426@xor.obsecurity.org> <420ED112.80401@pacific.net.sg> <420EDF52.1090408@nbritton.org> <420EE518.9070605@pacific.net.sg> <20050213055831.GB8532@grover.logicsquad.net> <420EF423.7020609@pacific.net.sg>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 02:30:59PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:26:48PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >
> >>No matter what FreeBSD will do, companies will not accept FreeBSD
> >>more as long as this structure stays like this.
> >
> >What makes you draw this conclusion?
>
> My experience with companies here in south-east Asia and in Germany.
>
> If a company did not use FreeBSD anyway, FreeBSD was finally
> block-off with this reasoning.
>
> I never have had to go into the discussion regarding logos or names,
> it was just about the supporting structure behind.

You've snipped a little severely there, and I think this is worth
getting straight.  The original context began with a reference to
active committers voting for a core group:

> >Also remember that the community (committers) voted them into
> >"office" to represent and make decisions for us.
>
> Do not get me wrong here. I do not think that this is bad.
>
> I think that this is the reason for the acceptance as it is by
> companies.
>
> No matter what FreeBSD will do, companies will not accept FreeBSD
> more as long as this structure stays like this.

So when you refer to the supporting structure here:=20

> I never have had to go into the discussion regarding logos or names,
> it was just about the supporting structure behind.

are you really saying that you have had experiences where FreeBSD was
rejected when it became clear that the project was steered by a small
group of developers elected from a larger group of developers?  That
is, was the rejection based on a description of the core group concept
specifically, or some larger issue of support?


--=20
Paul.

w  http://logicsquad.net/
h  http://paul.hoadley.name/

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFCDvds730Z/jysbzIRAs+hAJ4sZzJ2RKckF81sVsZphe7hc3fF0QCfedB8
C0oABce3L8b+YB6Zyw4OQp0=
=jb/7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050213064500.GD8532>