You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> on 2017/05/14 06:35:08 UTC
Against website split
Dear all,
I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that
NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache
rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this
leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
"closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
development.
I added the following to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938 :
* There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
perfectly working by using redirection.
* Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
"cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate model".
* There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
* OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name of
the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo is
consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate in
its development.
* Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided to
not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for the
project and no split.
Best regards,
Ognyan
Re: Against website split
Posted by Attila Kelemen <at...@gmail.com>.
I think it is a little overthinking of the issue. I have a hard time to
believe that the end of the domain name would have any noticable effect on
how many would want to contribute. This might be the case for some unknown
project but NetBeans is well known.
That said, a single site is a lot less confusing than having two separate.
2017-05-14 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com>:
> Dear all,
>
> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
>
> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is also
> the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans. Having
> netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that NetBeans
> is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache rules. If
> netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this leaves the
> impression that we produce quality product in the same "closed" process as
> before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for the nowadays NetBeans)
> and NetBeans don't need participation in its development.
>
> I added the following to https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938 :
>
> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
> perfectly working by using redirection.
> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
> open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also "cutting
> of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate model".
> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name of
> the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo is
> consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate in its
> development.
> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided to
> not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for the
> project and no split.
>
> Best regards,
> Ognyan
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org>.
Actually the platform can run modular systems without a user interface too.
Too, Eclipse and NetBeans have both existed with the same terminology for
years. I am not sure changing the name will fix people not knowing what it
is, but will be costly to the project, and those building on it. But, this
thread is not about the platform nor the IDE, but about the projects site;
features aside.
Wade
On May 15, 2017 12:02 AM, "Dmitry Avtonomov" <dm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think a reasonable split is renaming the platform to something new. There
> is SO much confusion when I tell people that "it's built on Netbeans
> Platform". They either have no clue (a good thing) or they think of the ide
> (a bad thing).
> There are so many packages starting with openide or opendesktop or
> something similar. It should just be the ODT - Open DeskTop or ODF - Open
> Desktop Framework. It's for desktop applications, not for smartphones etc.
> and it's not the netbeans ide.
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > puh, not sure about that.
> > Usually .org and .net, .com etc are just aliases to the same pages.
> >
> > I'd rather have seperate sub pages for dev and endusers both on the same
> > domain.
> >
> > Would need to think more about a reasonable split.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 14.05.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Michael Müller <michael.mueller@mueller-
> > bruehl.de>:
> > >
> > > My Two pence:
> > >
> > > Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands
> > for Open Source.
> > >
> > > Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising
> > xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too.
> > >
> > > Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <
> > emilian.bold@gmail.com>:
> > >> I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The
> > >> previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in
> > >> many other ways.
> > >>
> > >> The split seems logical: users vs dev.
> > >>
> > >> There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project
> > >> that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source
> > >> project for a decade or two already!
> > >>
> > >> The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually
> > >> make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the
> > >> main site.
> > >>
> > >> --emi
> > >>
> > >> Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a
> > >> scris:
> > >>
> > >>> Dear all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
> > >> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
> > >> also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
> > >> Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message
> that
> > >> NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by
> Apache
> > >> rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website,
> this
> > >> leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
> > >> "closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
> > >> the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
> > >> development.
> > >>>
> > >>> I added the following to
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pageId=69408938
> > >> :
> > >>>
> > >>> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
> > >> perfectly working by using redirection.
> > >>> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans
> is
> > >> open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
> > >> "cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate
> > >> model".
> > >>> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
> > >>> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name
> > >> of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo
> > >> is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate
> > >> in its development.
> > >>> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they
> decided
> > >> to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for
> > >> the project and no split.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Ognyan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Michael Müller
> > > Brühl, Germany
> > > blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> > > it-rezension.de
> > > @muellermi
> > >
> > >
> > > Read my books
> > > "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> > > "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/
> > 9781484224861
> > > "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
> >
> >
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org>.
I do not necessarily agree they are separate projects. I think they are
separate products. There is a NetBeans ecosystem, and I see much of what
will be in the IDE and the platform, whether for 3rd party app usage, or
the IDE, being pieces of that ecosystem. There are inevitably pieces that
can be their own projects, but you can not have the IDE without its
underpinnings, which is the platform, without it being something different
IMO.
Sure, they could be split, but for some of the pieces I think that
granularity is at a source repository level, but not a full project level.
To do that before intaking NetBeans as it is would be a cluster and a half,
and would majorly delay a lot of what needs to be done.
I think if there is will to do that work, then it will bubble itself up
regardless, but that will definitely take some time, and if during
incubation, then fine, but I doubt there will be such a will for that much
work before the platform and IDE can be released here.
Wade
On May 15, 2017 10:38 AM, "John McDonnell" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure it's too early, but your right it does need its own thread.
>
> I had mentioned something along the lines of this 2 weeks ago as it
> would make sense having 2 Apache Projects like NetBeans IDE, and
> NetBeans Platform. It should be during the incubation process where
> this is ironed out, and not postponed until after graduation.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> On 15 May 2017 at 14:57, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think a reasonable split is renaming the platform to something new.
> > There
> > is SO much confusion when I tell people that "it's built on Netbeans
> > Platform". They either have no clue (a good thing) or they think of the
> ide
> > (a bad thing).
> >
> > This should be a separate thread. It's a bit early in the incubation to
> > talk about this but it would make sense to rebrand the NetBeans Platform
> > and perhaps make it a subproject of NetBeans once we graduate.
> >
> >
> > --emi
> >
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Javier Ortiz <javier.ortiz.78@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitry has a good point there.
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> John
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by John McDonnell <mc...@gmail.com>.
Not sure it's too early, but your right it does need its own thread.
I had mentioned something along the lines of this 2 weeks ago as it
would make sense having 2 Apache Projects like NetBeans IDE, and
NetBeans Platform. It should be during the incubation process where
this is ironed out, and not postponed until after graduation.
Regards
John
On 15 May 2017 at 14:57, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think a reasonable split is renaming the platform to something new.
> There
> is SO much confusion when I tell people that "it's built on Netbeans
> Platform". They either have no clue (a good thing) or they think of the ide
> (a bad thing).
>
> This should be a separate thread. It's a bit early in the incubation to
> talk about this but it would make sense to rebrand the NetBeans Platform
> and perhaps make it a subproject of NetBeans once we graduate.
>
>
> --emi
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Javier Ortiz <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry has a good point there.
>>
--
John
Re: Against website split
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
> I think a reasonable split is renaming the platform to something new.
There
is SO much confusion when I tell people that "it's built on Netbeans
Platform". They either have no clue (a good thing) or they think of the ide
(a bad thing).
This should be a separate thread. It's a bit early in the incubation to
talk about this but it would make sense to rebrand the NetBeans Platform
and perhaps make it a subproject of NetBeans once we graduate.
--emi
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Javier Ortiz <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dmitry has a good point there.
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by Javier Ortiz <ja...@gmail.com>.
Dmitry has a good point there.
Re: Against website split
Posted by Dmitry Avtonomov <dm...@gmail.com>.
I think a reasonable split is renaming the platform to something new. There
is SO much confusion when I tell people that "it's built on Netbeans
Platform". They either have no clue (a good thing) or they think of the ide
(a bad thing).
There are so many packages starting with openide or opendesktop or
something similar. It should just be the ODT - Open DeskTop or ODF - Open
Desktop Framework. It's for desktop applications, not for smartphones etc.
and it's not the netbeans ide.
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:
> puh, not sure about that.
> Usually .org and .net, .com etc are just aliases to the same pages.
>
> I'd rather have seperate sub pages for dev and endusers both on the same
> domain.
>
> Would need to think more about a reasonable split.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.05.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Michael Müller <michael.mueller@mueller-
> bruehl.de>:
> >
> > My Two pence:
> >
> > Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands
> for Open Source.
> >
> > Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising
> xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too.
> >
> > Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <
> emilian.bold@gmail.com>:
> >> I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The
> >> previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in
> >> many other ways.
> >>
> >> The split seems logical: users vs dev.
> >>
> >> There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project
> >> that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source
> >> project for a decade or two already!
> >>
> >> The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually
> >> make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the
> >> main site.
> >>
> >> --emi
> >>
> >> Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a
> >> scris:
> >>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
> >> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
> >>>
> >>> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
> >> also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
> >> Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that
> >> NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache
> >> rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this
> >> leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
> >> "closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
> >> the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
> >> development.
> >>>
> >>> I added the following to
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=69408938
> >> :
> >>>
> >>> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
> >> perfectly working by using redirection.
> >>> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
> >> open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
> >> "cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate
> >> model".
> >>> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
> >>> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name
> >> of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo
> >> is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate
> >> in its development.
> >>> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided
> >> to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for
> >> the project and no split.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Ognyan
> >
> >
> >
> > Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
> >
> > Michael Müller
> > Brühl, Germany
> > blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> > it-rezension.de
> > @muellermi
> >
> >
> > Read my books
> > "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> > "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/
> 9781484224861
> > "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
>
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
puh, not sure about that.
Usually .org and .net, .com etc are just aliases to the same pages.
I'd rather have seperate sub pages for dev and endusers both on the same domain.
Would need to think more about a reasonable split.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 14.05.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Michael Müller <mi...@mueller-bruehl.de>:
>
> My Two pence:
>
> Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands for Open Source.
>
> Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too.
>
> Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>:
>> I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The
>> previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in
>> many other ways.
>>
>> The split seems logical: users vs dev.
>>
>> There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project
>> that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source
>> project for a decade or two already!
>>
>> The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually
>> make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the
>> main site.
>>
>> --emi
>>
>> Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a
>> scris:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
>> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
>>>
>>> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
>> also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
>> Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that
>> NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache
>> rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this
>> leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
>> "closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
>> the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
>> development.
>>>
>>> I added the following to
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938
>> :
>>>
>>> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
>> perfectly working by using redirection.
>>> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
>> open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
>> "cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate
>> model".
>>> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
>>> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name
>> of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo
>> is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate
>> in its development.
>>> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided
>> to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for
>> the project and no split.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ognyan
>
>
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
> Brühl, Germany
> blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> it-rezension.de
> @muellermi
>
>
> Read my books
> "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861
> "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
Re: Against website split
Posted by Michael Müller <mi...@mueller-bruehl.de>.
I never shall use my smartphone with it's crude auto correction.
That's what I posted:
And, Mandy Apache projects rising xy.apache.org <http://xy.apache.org>
sie their specific Main website, too.
And, that's what I originally wrote:
And, many Apache projects using xy.apache.org <http://xy.apache.org>
have their specific Main website, too.
Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
Michael Müller
Brühl, Germany
blog.mueller-bruehl.de <http://blog.mueller-bruehl.de/>
it-rezension.de <http://it-rezension.de/>
@muellermi
Read my books
"Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
"Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams":
http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861
"Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
On 05/14/2017 11:43 AM, Michael Müller wrote:
> My Two pence:
>
> Netbeans.com <http://Netbeans.com> would indicate closed Source,
> whilst Netbeans.org <http://Netbeans.org> Stands for Open Source.
>
> Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising
> xy.apache.org <http://xy.apache.org> sie their specific Main website, too.
>
> Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold
> <em...@gmail.com>:
>
> I see little gain in usingnetbeans.apache.org <http://netbeans.apache.org> vsnetbeans.org <http://netbeans.org>. The previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in many other ways.
>
> The split seems logical: users vs dev.
>
> There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source project for a decade or two already!
>
> Thenetbeans.apache.org <http://netbeans.apache.org> domain is an Apache demand. I would actually make redirects the other way around, by keepingnetbeans.org <http://netbeans.org> as the main site.
>
> --emi
>
> Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a scris:
>
> Dear all, I think it's better to have single
> netbeans.apache.org <http://netbeans.apache.org>. There are no
> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org
> <http://netbeans.org>. It's true that netbeans.org
> <http://netbeans.org> is the name that people know but this is
> also the name that people connect to corporate-developed
> NetBeans. Having netbeans.apache.org
> <http://netbeans.apache.org> as primary website will send a
> message that NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes
> participation by Apache rules. If netbeans.org
> <http://netbeans.org> is left as marketing and consumer
> website, this leaves the impression that we produce quality
> product in the same "closed" process as before (although AFAIK
> it is not entirely true for the nowadays NetBeans) and
> NetBeans don't need participation in its development. I added
> the following to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938
> : * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all
> netbeans.org <http://netbeans.org> links perfectly working by
> using redirection. * Single netbeans.apache.org
> <http://netbeans.apache.org> will send clear message that
> NetBeans is open community that welcomes development
> involvement. It is also "cutting of ties" with the perception
> of the previous "corporate model". * There will always be some
> confusion why there is such split. * OpenOffice.org
> <http://OpenOffice.org> is not a good example for splitting
> because the name of the software is "OpenOffice.org
> <http://OpenOffice.org>" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo is
> consumer software so it's not expected that users will
> participate in its development. * Example of using the old
> domain is groovy-lang.org <http://groovy-lang.org> but they
> decided to not use groovy.apache.org
> <http://groovy.apache.org> at all, so again it's single domain
> for the project and no split. Best regards, Ognyan
>
>
>
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
> Brühl, Germany
> blog.mueller-bruehl.de <http://blog.mueller-bruehl.de>
> it-rezension.de <http://it-rezension.de>
> @muellermi
>
>
> Read my books
> "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams":
> http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861
> "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
Re: Against website split
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, 14 May 2017, 11:00 Ognyan Kulev, <og...@ognyankulev.com> wrote:
> I would actually prefer netbeans.apache.org to redirect to netbeans.org
> (like Groovy) than having split sites.
>
If you look back a few weeks you'll see I suggested exactly this (like
Groovy). We were told this was unlikely to be agreed to, and that the
Groovy situation was a bone of contention within Apache.
Having two domains (site sections, not necessarily two sites) is really the
Plan B for those of us who don't want to stop using the netbeans.org domain
I think.
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: Against website split
Posted by Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com>.
На 14.05.2017 в 12:43, Michael Müller написа:
> My Two pence:
>
> Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands for Open Source.
There are many open source projects where a company publishes open
source but the management and the driving force behind the project is
the company. As far as I understand, one of the reasons for the move to
Apache is (partially?) to move the management part from Oracle to
(Apache) community and thus to increase the involvement of
users/developers to IDE and platform development.
I would actually prefer netbeans.apache.org to redirect to netbeans.org
(like Groovy) than having split sites.
> Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too.
>
> Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>:
>> I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The
>> previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in
>> many other ways.
>>
>> The split seems logical: users vs dev.
>>
>> There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project
>> that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source
>> project for a decade or two already!
>>
>> The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually
>> make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the
>> main site.
>>
>> --emi
>>
>> Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a
>> scris:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
>> technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
>>>
>>> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
>> also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
>> Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that
>> NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache
>> rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this
>> leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
>> "closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
>> the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
>> development.
>>>
>>> I added the following to
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938
>> :
>>>
>>> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
>> perfectly working by using redirection.
>>> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
>> open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
>> "cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate
>> model".
>>> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
>>> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name
>> of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo
>> is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate
>> in its development.
>>> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided
>> to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for
>> the project and no split.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ognyan
>
>
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
> Brühl, Germany
> blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> it-rezension.de
> @muellermi
>
>
> Read my books
> "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> "Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861
> "Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
>
Re: Against website split
Posted by Michael Müller <mi...@mueller-bruehl.de>.
My Two pence:
Netbeans.com would indicate closed Source, whilst Netbeans.org Stands for Open Source.
Thus, a second Emililan's proposal. And, Mandy Apache projects rising xy.apache.org sie their specific Main website, too.
Am 14. Mai 2017 10:00:58 MESZ schrieb Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>:
>I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The
>previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in
>many other ways.
>
>The split seems logical: users vs dev.
>
>There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project
>that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source
>project for a decade or two already!
>
>The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually
>make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the
>main site.
>
>--emi
>
>Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a
>scris:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no
>technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
>>
>> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is
>also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans.
>Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that
>NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache
>rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this
>leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same
>"closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for
>the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its
>development.
>>
>> I added the following to
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938
>:
>>
>> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links
>perfectly working by using redirection.
>> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is
>open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also
>"cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate
>model".
>> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
>> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name
>of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo
>is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate
>in its development.
>> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided
>to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for
>the project and no split.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ognyan
Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
Michael Müller
Brühl, Germany
blog.mueller-bruehl.de
it-rezension.de
@muellermi
Read my books
"Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
"Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams": http://www.apress.com/de/book/9781484224861
"Visitors" a photographic image book: https://leanpub.com/visitors
Re: Against website split
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
I see little gain in using netbeans.apache.org vs netbeans.org. The previous site is well known and we can promote our Apache future in many other ways.
The split seems logical: users vs dev.
There's no data to imply a general perception of a "closed" project that doesn't need participation. NetBeans has been an open source project for a decade or two already!
The netbeans.apache.org domain is an Apache demand. I would actually make redirects the other way around, by keeping netbeans.org as the main site.
--emi
Pe 14 mai 2017, la 09:35, Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com> a scris:
> Dear all,
>
> I think it's better to have single netbeans.apache.org. There are no technical obstacles for redirecting from netbeans.org.
>
> It's true that netbeans.org is the name that people know but this is also the name that people connect to corporate-developed NetBeans. Having netbeans.apache.org as primary website will send a message that NetBeans is now an open community that welcomes participation by Apache rules. If netbeans.org is left as marketing and consumer website, this leaves the impression that we produce quality product in the same "closed" process as before (although AFAIK it is not entirely true for the nowadays NetBeans) and NetBeans don't need participation in its development.
>
> I added the following to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69408938 :
>
> * There are no technical obstacles to keeping all netbeans.org links perfectly working by using redirection.
> * Single netbeans.apache.org will send clear message that NetBeans is open community that welcomes development involvement. It is also "cutting of ties" with the perception of the previous "corporate model".
> * There will always be some confusion why there is such split.
> * OpenOffice.org is not a good example for splitting because the name of the software is "OpenOffice.org" so they have to keep it. Also, OOo is consumer software so it's not expected that users will participate in its development.
> * Example of using the old domain is groovy-lang.org but they decided to not use groovy.apache.org at all, so again it's single domain for the project and no split.
>
> Best regards,
> Ognyan