Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:53:57 +0200
From:  Arthur Sherman <arturs (at mark) netvision.net.il>
Subject:  [coba-e:10997] Re: AW:  Re: Progress Development Bluequartz
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <01b201c81969$fc89d110$7002a8c0@dell>
In-Reply-To:  <C34A0116.1DA6C%webmaster (at mark) muntada.com>
X-Mail-Count: 10997

It seems that consensus is made.
:) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abdul-Rashid Abdullah [mailto:webmaster (at mark) muntada.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:04 PM
> To: coba-e (at mark) bluequartz. org
> Subject: [coba-e:10993] Re: AW: Re: Progress Development Bluequartz
> 
> Like many, I have been using Cobalt since the RaQ4 days.  I 
> know some who have been using it before then.  I remember the 
> days when a quick call to someone in the Bay Area quickly 
> resolved an issue.  Then we had to begin to pay for that 
> support.  Then that support went entirely away.  Then all of 
> a sudden, BQ sprung up and the ones leading the charge and 
> gave life to it were people like Brian and Michael.  I have 
> personally done business with these folk on occasion.
> 
> I have even done business with Paul who was very helpful in 
> solving an issue in which I needed to port an old version of 
> Real Server over due to kernel and library compatibility issues.
> 
> I would like to say that too believe they are more 
> contributors than gainers.  If it was so commercial, then why 
> was Brian so willing not so long ago to walk away from it 
> all?  Why did he come back?  I believe his motivations on 
> that part were more for the love of the project than 
> anything.  That is my estimate and my vote for the support of 
> those that might have a commercial interest.
> 
> Perhaps look at it from this point of view, if they have a 
> commercial interest, then they definitely have an interest in 
> ensuring that the open source base product is successful 
> which means it is open.
> 
> There are a lot of improvements that need to be made.  From 
> adding a more functional mailing list application to adding a 
> better way of allowing users more control over their own site 
> such as creating MySQL databases.  I have looked many times 
> about going else where but the sheer cost keeps me coming 
> back.  The system is reliable and simple (except for the PAM) 
> but there are things that need to be done.
> 
>  I am not a developer, but I am sure a user that can give 
> feedback.  Even then, if there is a mundane job that can be 
> done, I have enough "developer"
> knowledge that I can assist given enough direction.
> 
> Please, let's get the team formed and move on.
> 
> -Rashid Abdullah
> 
> 
> On 10/28/07 12:16 AM, "Jon McCauley" <jmccauley (at mark) ontarioweb.ca> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Aviles wrote:
> >> Michael, I am not saying you are bad, heck no.
> >> 
> >> I am only stating something that has happened in the past. 
> It is just 
> >> history and common sense. Take any of the projects that 
> have started 
> >> as Open Source and spin out to commercial and you have 
> seen a great 
> >> deal of the community leaving.  Take Sugar, Compiere and 
> Open Bravo 
> >> as two perfect examples. Once they announced that they were 
> >> separating the projects into free and paid they lost their 
> momentum. 
> >> Compiere forked into OB and Adempiere now and Sugar has 
> forked so many times it can be considered now a spoon.
> >> 
> >> The big difference at least there is that they are managed 
> under one 
> >> company umbrella. With BQ that never happened, so we now have 
> >> different people doing different things. Once again, I am 
> not putting the finger nor blaming anyone.
> >> 
> >> Now, I am not the voice for BQ at all. However as a 
> community having 
> >> someone with vested personal interest does complicate 
> things for the 
> >> "community", thatıs all.
> >> 
> >> Besides the obvious differences, are you and others going 
> to include 
> >> the roadmap for your own products into BQ? If not, then there is 
> >> nothing wrong with that, but then lets called it a fork 
> lets all be 
> >> happy. Then we can I guess agree to some common grounds 
> and move forward.
> >> 
> >> Don't make more of my comments because there is nothing 
> else behind.
> >> 
> >> Paul
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> > Paul,
> > I have been dealing with BQ since it migrated from the Raq550. Many 
> > contributories on this list have had their own agenda as 
> how to handle 
> > this as an open source project, but as a group this has 
> always stayed 
> > strong to-gater! I feel that people like Michael or Brian should be 
> > looked at as, ...  contributers.... then "gainers".... from this 
> > project....lets take a second to look at what they have 
> contributed to 
> > this project with out gain.....my 2 canadian cents
> > 
> > ---\
> > Best Regards,
> > Jon McCauley
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>