[csw-maintainers] no one else who matters? (was CSWcswclassutils: it wants to write in /usr)

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Gary Law <glaw at opencsw.org> wrote:
>... Blastwave. They have a larger installed
> base, more hits on google (*much* more in fact, and more recent new
> pages that refer to them too), active forums and IRC channel that
> suggest plenty of users.


So lets fix that.

It has already been proposed that we need to make an effort to
"advertise" ourselves better. I think that those people who are
interested in doing something about this, should form an off-list
"working group", to improve the situation.

I am interested in this, also I think William... who else is willing
to actually DO something about it?


> What we have is, IMHO, better software.

yes we do.

> We completely lack credibility otherwise,

I'm not sure how this translates into lack of "credibility".

To my mind, its just the opposite. Keeping the same prefix, that many
of us had, while we worked on "CSW at blastwave", emphasises that it
belongs to us, the true continuation of "The CSW packaging project"

Changing it, reduces our credibility, by denying the above.

I will remind you that "CSW packaging" is *NOT* a creation of Dennis
Clarke. He merely hosted it. He never "owned" it, even though he liked
to give the appearance that he did.



> In this particular case, of course, this is a real problem. I've got
> to go to my provider of zones and say ' install this package ' and
> hope none of their other customers ever want to use Blastwave. If I
> was a commercial provider of zones, and had an understanding of these
> issues, I'd refuse to install our package (and the Blastwave one of
> the same name) just to avoid future support headaches.

I think that the conflict works in our favor; users have to choose
between "install blastwave", or "install opencsw", and thus do an
evaluation of "which is better?"

Almost any sane organization that does the evaluation, will concur
that they are better off installing *our* packages.

For cases where those organizations have an issue of, "we really like
your packages, but there's this specific issue where blastwave has
...." hopefully, they can be encouraged to actually mention this to
us, and then we can FIX it.

I will take a moment to point out that we are way ahead of blastwave
in up to date packages at this point.
Since this is a public list, and the "advertising/promote group" has
not been formed yet (and I i think would deserve first say on how this
is disclosed), I wont mention exactly how far ahead we are.
But take my word for it when I say *very* far ahead.