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>