You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jack Frosch <jf...@jinkmail.com> on 2003/08/06 16:06:03 UTC
Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being charged
for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very popular,
open-source J2EE container in JBoss.
Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business as
in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants to
control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
How about swallowing your pride, giving up your aspirations of
controlling every popular, open-source, significant project, and just
embrace JBoss with support, MBean development, etc.?
Frankly, I'm just dismayed by the Geronimo project and the pettiness of
the egos driving Apache.org.
Jack Frosch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Richard Monson-Haefel <Ri...@Monson-Haefel.com>.
Hmmm...this type of reasoning always amuses me. Perhaps everyone should just
give up and join Microsoft.
Jack Frosch wrote:
> Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
> commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being charged
> for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very popular,
> open-source J2EE container in JBoss.
>
> Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business as
> in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants to
> control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
> whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
>
> How about swallowing your pride, giving up your aspirations of
> controlling every popular, open-source, significant project, and just
> embrace JBoss with support, MBean development, etc.?
>
> Frankly, I'm just dismayed by the Geronimo project and the pettiness of
> the egos driving Apache.org.
>
> Jack Frosch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Author of J2EE Web Services (Addison-Wesley 2003)
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 3rd Edition (O'Reilly 2001)
Co-Author of Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000)
http://www.Monson-Haefel.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jochen, you wrote:
>Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
>
>>However, open process is at least as important as open software.
True. Apache has a totally open development process.
>Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
>Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
>impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
>has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took
>those decisions, or how they look like.
Well, you don't know them because they have simply not been taken at all.
In essence, what has happened is that some developers have proposed
Apache to start a J2EE project. Apache said, "hey, we have many parts of
the J2EE stack already, many Apache developers want to do it, other
projects have expressed interest in donating J2EE code to Apache in
these months... let's do it!".
So there is only a team of initial committers that have indipendently
done some work on this outside of Apache, before proposing it to us, as
other projects have taken their decisions before donating their
codebases to us.
The bottom line: no design decision has been taken, we have some code to
start on (which has still to be committed), a certification aim and a
bunch of volunteers. What happens now is only what these volunteers
decide to do.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@ispsoft.de>.
Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
> I think there is strength in diversity - there are lots of models out
> there and people can try them all.
True - to a certain degree. As almost everything in life. :-)
> The history of the attempts, failures and otherwise is spread over many
> public and private email repositories and fractured by many many different
> view points - all of them biased to some degree or other.
I can imagine. However, I think it would help people like me to see some
pointers. The idea of a corresponding FAQ entry was already mentioned, but
what 've seen so far.
This is not to blame or naming anyone, but to learn about the different
point of views and (hopefully :-) to find some sense in both.
> We are still interested in discussions and open for exchange of ideas and
> possibly even sources, if license and copyright allows.
>
> (NB. I am in no way able to say "we" on behalf of the ASF, but I do
> know that the geronimo project would agree with this statement)
I like to read that. :-)
Thanks,
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
>
>>However, open process is at least as important as open software.
>
> Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
> Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
> impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
> has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took
> those decisions, or how they look like. I just read in some mails,
> that they are "soon to be published".
>
> Not that *I* am the one who could influence that, but there have been
> some prominent names expressing interest in Geronimo on this list,
> who could.
While some decisions have been made and some code is being written,
this is what is required to start the apache process. Nothing that
has been decided or written has been fixed in stone and the process
exists to make changes.
>>The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss project
>>over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem, that
>>hopefully the open process of apache will address.
>
> That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed feelings.
> My impression is that the Apache side behaves very, well, formal. Right,
> there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between
> various open source projects should be different, say friendly competing.
Well I also like the friendly model - but it does not always work,
personalities do clash, things fall apart, the center cannot hold,
democracy is the worst system except for all the other ones, etc. etc.
I think there is strength in diversity - there are lots of models out
there and people can try them all. JBoss is being developed under
one model - which may suit some, but that should not prevent others
from trying other models. While I have not worked under the
apache system before (and I'm sure I'm going to find aspects of it
very frustrating), I am very hopeful that the openess of the process
will be a big win for both the developers and users of OS J2EE.
> While I reject words like "controlling every popular, open-source,
> significant project", I still would prefer a public statement like
> "we have attempted to do this and that, but that failed because ...".
The history of the attempts, failures and otherwise is spread over many
public and private email repositories and fractured by many many different
view points - all of them biased to some degree or other.
I don't think it is productive to revisit the history of it all - the small
amount of it that has happened so far has already resulted in name calling
etc.
What is important, is that for various reasons and through foul means and
fair - a community of developers has been attracted to the ASF to attempt
a new project. So let's look forward.
> And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in discussions
> and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license and
> copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors?
We are still interested in discussions and open for exchange of ideas and
possibly even sources, if license and copyright allows.
(NB. I am in no way able to say "we" on behalf of the ASF, but I do
know that the geronimo project would agree with this statement)
cheers
--
Greg Wilkins<gr...@mortbay.com> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462
Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 02:17 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
>
>> However, open process is at least as important as open software.
>
> Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
> Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
> impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
> has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took
> those decisions, or how they look like. I just read in some mails,
> that they are "soon to be published".
>
> Not that *I* am the one who could influence that, but there have been
> some prominent names expressing interest in Geronimo on this list,
> who could.
And I think that they will. Admittedly, we're a bit behind the ball at
the moment in getting squared away with CVS and site, but that's just
part of the dependency chain in the incubation process.
This is an ASF project - there have been architectural decisions made
by the people who are donating code, but that codebase is the tip of
the iceberg. There's lots more iceberg :)
>
>
>> The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss
>> project
>> over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem,
>> that
>> hopefully the open process of apache will address.
>
> That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed
> feelings.
> My impression is that the Apache side behaves very, well, formal.
Why? The formality here is that given the climate surrounding this, we
need to be very careful and analytical to ensure that the code we
distribute under the Apache Software License out of our CVS
repositories is free and clear of any other claims of ownership. For
example, we want to be extremely careful that we don't violate the IP
rights of JBoss or any other open source copyright owners. This is a
principle that the ASF has consistently stood for.
> Right,
> there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between
> various open source projects should be different, say friendly
> competing.
> While I reject words like "controlling every popular, open-source,
> significant project", I still would prefer a public statement like
> "we have attempted to do this and that, but that failed because ...".
> And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in
> discussions
> and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license
> and
> copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors?
I don't follow. I don't think we want to bring any history into this.
The ASF wants to do a J2EE project - we aren't the first, and won't be
the last.
The ASF is a neutral steward in this, providing a good license, good
infrastructure, and community support. Everything else is up to us,
the project community.
geir
>
>
> Jochen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc. 203-434-2093(m)
geirm@adeptra.com 203-247-1713(m)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@ispsoft.de>.
Quoting Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>:
> On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 04:29 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Our of curiosity: where did you get the impression that we were not
> anymore?
>
> [not being ironic, just curious, so that we learn for future efforts]
Nothing I can express, more an emotional thing. When I wrote that people
seem to behave "formal", I didn't mean so much that they are abiging their
rules, more in the direction of "cold". (Sorry for not better explaining
myself, it is sometimes hard, if you aren't a native english speaker and
used to talk in technical terms only.)
I still do believe, that my feeling wasn't so bad. By grepping to the
emails you will surely find words like "dictator", "ignore him", and
all that kind of stuff, which definitely do not express respect or
a kind of sadness ("too bad we cannot even use the excellent deployer").
For the outsider that I am, this is not a positive sign, even if there
may be good reasons. And that is precisely why I think that explanations
might not hurt.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 04:29 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> I am happy to say that Brian Behlendorf's reply to Marc Fleury is
> definitely what I wished here. I suggest to add this to the FAQ,
> at least the words on "we are still open".
Our of curiosity: where did you get the impression that we were not
anymore?
[not being ironic, just curious, so that we learn for future efforts]
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@ispsoft.de>.
Just as a side note, commenting my own mail:
> On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 08:17 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > Right,
> > there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between
> > various open source projects should be different, say friendly
> > competing.
Reading the happenings on jboss-dev and jboss-user, I personally understand
now that it is hard to handle JBoss in that way. I still believe, however,
that there may also be others sharing my initial feelings. Thus I would
suggest to drop a note somewhere. In particular the immediate removal of
CVS access for the Jetty developers is worth noting.
> > And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in
> > discussions
> > and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license
> > and
> > copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors?
I am happy to say that Brian Behlendorf's reply to Marc Fleury is
definitely what I wished here. I suggest to add this to the FAQ,
at least the words on "we are still open".
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 08:17 Europe/Rome, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
>
>> However, open process is at least as important as open software.
>
> Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
Allow me to point out that "incubation" is the process by which the ASF
*screens* communities to understand if the have a future inside apache.
The incubator was created as a solution to the 'thermal death' of some
projects, which were killed by the fact that the mail developers left.
Apache is about healthy communities, not about code.
The reason for this is that we believe that a healhty community will
make good code, while the opposite is not necessarely true.
Why so? well, if a community is healhty and diverse, it is respectful
and open to collaboration, alternatives, new ideas and new proposals
and with no political bias. It is balanced and long-lasting.
On the other hand, good code without a healthy community around it,
it's too tight to the current developers and their orientation. lack of
diversity of affiliation, also, has strong impacts on the way the
community might evolve because the company paying them could go
bankrupt and leave the code dead.
> Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
> impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
> has already made behind the scenes.
Wait, you are getting the wrong impression.
Apache has a rule for project incubation: while we focus on
communities, you need something that works. We found out in the past
that incubating a healthy community out of "ideas" is impossible:
because it's much easier to talk than to write code, people talk a lot.
We call the initial codebase "the seed".
In this case, "the seed" is composed by code that was written by the
people that donated the code to start this project.
It's the beginning of the design phase, not the end.
> I do not even know who took
> those decisions, or how they look like. I just read in some mails,
> that they are "soon to be published".
"the seed" is not yet on CVS because the ASF is screening all possible
legal issues because we are *very* sensible to copyright issues: Apache
does *NOT* have code on our CVS modules that the foundation does not
own. It's a normal process during incubation to "legally validate" the
seed, but in this case, additional care should be applied because of
the legal sensitivity of this project.
> Not that *I* am the one who could influence that, but there have been
> some prominent names expressing interest in Geronimo on this list,
> who could.
When a project is being incubated, the group of apache members
sheparding the incubation will look exactly at how the community
handles disagreement and proposed changes.
After the seed enter the CVS, normal community open development will
take place.
Let me repeat: a seed is the point to start, not the point to end.
There has been already on this list the question on whether or not to
use Avalon for the containment. The choice of JMX vs. Avalon will be
discussed several times. The development community will find consensus
on how to move forward.
>> The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss
>> project
>> over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem,
>> that
>> hopefully the open process of apache will address.
>
> That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed
> feelings.
> My impression is that the Apache side behaves very, well, formal.
Yes and no. What you percieve as "formal" is a collection of best
practices on open source software development. "design patterns", if
you want. They have been written by tens of different individuals after
years of practice in creating open source communities, mostly out of
jakarta.apache.org and xml.apache.org, I, myself, helped in the
incubation of several communities that now count up to 20 active
developers with a high degree of diversity.
Apache cares about the people more than they care about software.
And the people who wants to participate in this, they have to show they
share the same view of software development.
> Right,
> there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between
> various open source projects should be different, say friendly
> competing.
This is exactly one of the parameters the shepards will use to judge
the incubation evolution. If the community is not friendly, it will
never become diverse, then it will never exit incubation.
You must understand that "incubation" is a process that have
potentially two ends: the incubated community becomes a official apache
project or it gets kicked out.
> While I reject words like "controlling every popular, open-source,
> significant project", I still would prefer a public statement like
> "we have attempted to do this and that, but that failed because ...".
I agree with you that it was not made clear that this project is *UNDER
INCUBATION* inside Apache. We apache members know what this means, but
several people outside don't.
I hope that my words clarify the position of the process.
> And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in
> discussions
> and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license
> and
> copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors?
Believe me, every ASF member watching this process agrees 100% with
you: if the development community behind Geronimo "closes doors", it
will be a very bad sign and it will be picked up.
At the same time, it's *way too early* to jump to conclusions.
First, the seed didn't even enter CVS.
Second, the community didn't even start working or releasing stuff.
Third, there is a lot of FUD floating around and, IMO, all this will
have to calm down before the community starts operating nicely and
focusing on code, instead of fighting personal attacks and friction.
so, my point is: incubation is a 'trial period' that is going to end
when the community becomes "healthy and diverse" enough for the ASF to
be "confident" on the long-lasting behavior of it.
I hope this helped clarifying the ASF position on Geronimo.
If not, please don't hesitate to ask more information on this list:
last thing we want is to give a wrong impression on what we are doing
and why.
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
Jochen, you wrote:
> Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
>
> > However, open process is at least as important as open software.
>
> Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
> Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
> impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
> has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took
> those decisions, or how they look like.
I think that this is a very unfair comment, and would like to take some time
to explain why I believe this.
Apache doesn't have a simple way to start a project from scratch, but does
have mechanisms for accepting existing projects.
I expect that it is simpler and more productive for the sponsoring
individuals and the Apache process to start the project first, and then have
it accepted into the Apache incubator.
There is little reason why any aspect of a project cannot be changed
retrospectively should the community reach agreement, those reasons are
pretty much limited to conforming with the project's charter, the legal
obligations of the ASF, practical constraints imposed by infrastructure, the
rules governing contributors roles[1], and whatever additional rules are
imposed by the project itself.
In this case the governing project is the incubator, but if or when geronimo
becomes a fully fledged Apache project those rules themselves are open to
modification by the community through its project management commitee.
Once geronimo has become an Apache incubator sub-project it will be governed
by Apache's rules and processes, therefore no condition that pre-exists the
creation of the project is treated any differently from any condition
arising afterwards, if you don't like decisions that have been made when the
project was a private one you will be at liberty to comment on them and
lobby for change, or if you are elected as a commiter you will be able to
make proposals and cast binding votes. For example the rules governing
Jakarta and inherited by Jakarta sub-projects are documented here
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html other project have similar
processes[2], it is this, and other interpretations of "The Apache Way" that
characterises the management of Apache projects.
One final point I'd make is that Apache doesn't pretend to have entirely
open management, Apache has to exist in the real world of lawyers and
corporations, but it does exist to foster collaborative and consensus based
process. This commitment can be best illustrated by refering you to the very
first paragraph of the ASF website[3].
"The Apache Software Foundation provides support for the Apache community of
open-source software projects. The Apache projects are characterized by a
collaborative, consensus based development process, an open and pragmatic
software license, and a desire to create high quality software that leads
the way in its field. We consider ourselves not simply a group of projects
sharing a server, but rather a community of developers and users."
I've been part of this community for a bit more than a couple of years now,
and I can assure you that I've never experienced any decisions which have
been sucessfully imposed without either consensus or a majority vote of the
appropriate constituency, and remember this is a meritocracy, to join the
constituency and help make the decsions you care about all you really have
to do is to demonstrate your willingness and ability to participate at the
appropriate level.
d.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html
[2] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?PoliciesAndProcedures
[2] http://www.apache.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@ispsoft.de>.
Quoting Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>:
> However, open process is at least as important as open software.
Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO).
Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my
impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture)
has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took
those decisions, or how they look like. I just read in some mails,
that they are "soon to be published".
Not that *I* am the one who could influence that, but there have been
some prominent names expressing interest in Geronimo on this list,
who could.
> The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss project
> over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem, that
> hopefully the open process of apache will address.
That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed feelings.
My impression is that the Apache side behaves very, well, formal. Right,
there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between
various open source projects should be different, say friendly competing.
While I reject words like "controlling every popular, open-source,
significant project", I still would prefer a public statement like
"we have attempted to do this and that, but that failed because ...".
And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in discussions
and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license and
copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors?
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
Let me firstly say that JBoss is a quality open source project and I
continue to use, support and recommend it to my clients.
However, open process is at least as important as open software.
The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss project
over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem, that
hopefully the open process of apache will address.
regards
Jack Frosch wrote:
> Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
> commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being charged
> for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very popular,
> open-source J2EE container in JBoss.
>
> Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business as
> in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants to
> control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
> whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
>
> How about swallowing your pride, giving up your aspirations of
> controlling every popular, open-source, significant project, and just
> embrace JBoss with support, MBean development, etc.?
>
> Frankly, I'm just dismayed by the Geronimo project and the pettiness of
> the egos driving Apache.org.
>
> Jack Frosch
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--
Greg Wilkins<gr...@mortbay.com> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462
Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 07:06 AM, Jack Frosch wrote:
> Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
> commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being
> charged for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very
> popular, open-source J2EE container in JBoss.
>
> Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business
> as in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants
> to control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
> whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
>
> How about swallowing your pride, giving up your aspirations of
> controlling every popular, open-source, significant project, and just
> embrace JBoss with support, MBean development, etc.?
>
> Frankly, I'm just dismayed by the Geronimo project and the pettiness
> of the egos driving Apache.org.
I think this is a very good question. I believe the answer lies
not in copyrights or ownership, but in community. Apache is a place
where communities are grown and fostered. The products of these
simply exist for all to use in whatever way they wish. Apache does
not rely on ownership or copyright to hold a community together, yet
somehow our communities hold together despite disagreements, losing
key contributors, forking, or other such things. I do not believe
our communities would hold together if there were a better alternative
way to reach the same goal.
One thing you mentioned, control, is a common misconception of Apache
projects. Apache projects do not exist to exert control, they exist to
provide a minimum common platform of functionality available to all at
no cost (economic or social). We don't tell anyone how they must
use our code, nor do we expect anything in return. Again, this is
a crucial distinction between our products and other proprietary or
more-restrictive products. We rely on our community to produce
excellent code in order to maintain our popularity.
Let me turn the tables a bit: Do you think Apache can create a J2EE
product that will dominate the market by means other than product
excellence? (In other words, do you see something inherently wrong
with a competitive J2EE landscape?)
-aaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
> Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business as
> in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants to
> control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
> whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
Actually it appears to me that Apache is attempting to provide an
alternative and/or complimentary product to JBoss.
This potential increase in consumer choice seems to me to be diametrically
opposed to the Microsoft tactics you allude to.
As far as I can ascertain there is no ill will being directed at JBoss or
any other organisation, Open Source or commercial, by this move.
Rather it would seem that what negativity is around is being directed at
this project before it has even got off the ground, released a single design
document, a charter, or any code whatsoever.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Jack Frosch wrote:
> Open source projects typically solve a problem not addressed by
> commercial vendors, even if the problem is just the price being charged
> for the commercial solution. Yet we already have a very popular,
> open-source J2EE container in JBoss.
>
> Why must people's egos get in the way of common sense in our business as
> in so many? Like Microsoft, it appears that Apache.org just wants to
> control everything - and that's just such a lamentable motivation,
> whether held by Microsoft or Apache.org.
>
> How about swallowing your pride, giving up your aspirations of
> controlling every popular, open-source, significant project, and just
> embrace JBoss with support, MBean development, etc.?
>
> Frankly, I'm just dismayed by the Geronimo project and the pettiness of
> the egos driving Apache.org.
First, I'm nothing to do with Geronimo or an official Apache member. I am
however a JBoss user:
My guess is that it is due to legal positions. Apache cannot work with
LGPL/GPL derived work due to the nature of those licences.
JBoss are a for-profit organisation and don't seem to be becoming a
J2EE-licenced server. So the leading 'free-software' option is not
available to anyone who believes in standards.
Apache are a non-profit, and an 'open-source-software', and can make a
J2EE-licenced server happen. There is also the belief that diversity
improves products.
It shows that Apache aren't trying to control things as they're happy to
re-use existing products with open-source licences.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org