[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On 12/8/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/3/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>>> This is an original way to say: if the features of a current product
>>>> aren't complete and adequate do not use it. I don't think that in the
>>>> real world that you like so much this is an acceptable attitude. Or is
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> I think it is more accurate to say, "some 'features' cause more
>>> problems than they solve, so adding every requested 'feature', is not
>>> always the best path".
>>> This is a very "real world" practical attitude, that most software
>>> companies follow.
>>
>> You speak from experience or just perusing a common preconception?
>>
>
> Speaking from experience, that comes from:
> - reading software industry publications
> - having worked for multiple companies that do software development
> - being an author of many publically released programs.

Alright. Let play the big hard game: I worked almost 30 years in
software development companies delivering shrink wrapped applications
for small, medium and big (as you call them Fortune 500) companies. Half
of that time I was in charge with the research and development and
engineering. I can recognize featuritis. However, this discussion makes
me think of situations when the product marketing people were leaned
toward some personal driven agenda's of very ambitious sales people.

>>> I did not understand your comment
>>
>> I mean that you propose a rigid behavior where a more flexible one
>> serves better the user.
>>
>> By the way, I'm always wondering who's the real user of our work: the
>> system administrator, the end user, Philip Brown, &c ?
>
>
> There is no single "real user". As I've said before.. and as it says
> on our "core principles" pages...  Our packages should be designed to
> meet the needs of all levels of user(both "novice users" AND "large
> sites"), as much as possible.
>
> http://www.opencsw.org/about/core-principles/
>
>   "In summary, CSW packages should be as useful to a “newbie” solaris
> user, as they are to the 10-year veteran in a “fortune 500″ company.
> Neither should be favoured to the detriment of the other."

And why my user base, which is composed of software engineers, is not to
be served by our distribution? The same alternatives priority packages
have their usefulness and managed intelligently by the people in charge
of the local installation can be valuable.
-- 
Peter