40,000 Stranded Downloads Can't be Wrong...

[tshif]

I guess it comes down to if you don't like what we are doing then do it yourself. I agree everyone should be a linux guru with at least 200 years of experience and everybody should write all of their own stuff and never rely on anybody else. Go for it you have my vote. The door is that way >>>>>>>>>
Tom

Welcome to PBXIAF - where it's Tom's Way, or the Highway. And while your here - if you know what's best for you - you wont express any opinion that doesn't jive with Bossman Tom, or he will go ballistic and start a blame-flame thats ends with you being asked to leave. (See just one example, above)

Same for citing FACTS. It's just unwise, and tends to conflict with Darmok's views. Again - if you know whats wise for you, just hold it all inside, breath deep and don't forget to spew endless lines of praise and adulation. TheShniz - you might not have been offered the door if you rememebered to spew and grovel appropriately.

I can't WAIT to see what happens to the first person who begin to discuss how all the signs are now in place for this entire project to be taken to a fee-based model. Perhaps Darmok will bring back tarring & feathering as retribution for asking sober, important questions?

With all the hints being dropped but never outrightly discussed - who isn't waiting for the "other shoe" to drop around here?

The 1.2 distro already talks of having to be a reseller in order to be able to do certain install types. But try asking what that means, and all you get is "oh dont worry, it'll be inexpensive and wonderful." Oh, well. Hurray, then. I'm already thrilled. There are things in 1.2 that DONT WORK RIGHT YET. But watch out, don't point that out, or the response line you will here is "40,000 downloads cant be wrong." SPARE me the platitudes.

And In the current Nerd Vittles - "PiaF Software Update Service. At least for now, the PBX in a Flash Software Update Service continues to be a free option on all PBX in a Flash systems..." Again, alluding to serious changes coming - but no outright explanations or frank discussions. Just PLAYING GAMES, obfuscating the true nature of the situation from all of us with a stake in the results.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if KerryG and the TrixBunch aren't being a little more up-front an honest than our own Darmok in many ways. At least they don't pretend to be truly open source community based any more. With all the signs coming from Darmok, from the proprietary scripts to his regular explosively nasty and unnecessarily rude comments to his own admirers - we should realize that he intends to suck every penny out of the project the same way Fonality wishes to with their distro.

It seems Darmok is FINE with totally free, when it comes to what he gets from Asterisk to FreePBX, but that when it comes to HIS contributions being free - well, THAT'S another story altogether. I guess the concept of FREE is a lot easier for Darmok to understand when its himself GETTING it free, than when he is PROVIDING it FREE. (Reminds me of my grandmother who seemed to get confused about money matters ONLY when it was her having to SPEND the MONEY, not when others owed it to her!)

Most of the scripts are compiled - but of course we are told that is at the request of the scripts author. Yeah, sure ok, if you say so. (At least he didn't try to tell us the scripts are compiled for our own safety...I was actually waiting for that.)

But the net result is that his works (scripts) can not be built upon, or added to, by the community. Its a stand alone work ultimately doomed to end badly, selfishly guarded as a monolith to ego, and greed.

We all were led to think that this distribution was different. A true community effort, where those that had skills could contribute, and the collected body of the work could grow. Nope. Compiled scripts just place every single one of us who depend upon them at risk.

Pardon me, but heres what many of us have left unsaid so as not to seem overly crass. But since Darmok's most recent diatribe, crass really doesn't seem to be such a problem around here.

"What happens when Tom gets his air tanks mixed up and drowns himself one day? Or gets hit by a bus? Or pisses somebody off to badly in one of these forums? Then What?"

Thats the root reason for TheShniz's remarks, which so elegantly, and in very polite and neutral tones, expressed the very serious problems that we all now should have with the way this project is evolving. He says: "For this reason, I'd highly suggest that anyone really wanting Hamachi or whatever the script of the day is... it's better to reinvent the wheel, than create a dependency." Oh by the way, for that sober, thoughtful, and utterly on-target statement, he was shown the door, and invited to leave the forums and the project by good old Darmok.

Ward, consider putting your weight behind a different project. The work you produce is open, documented, and will grow the body of, and the usability of asterisk for years to come. Your work can be grown, extended, and embraced in the true spirit of what this community could have been. You are creating a legacy.

Darmoks. recent decision making and diatribes makes it increasingly hard to think of him as community minded, since whatever he DOES produce is privatized. It can't be grown, extended, or even live past his moody, cranky involvement in the project, however long that might be. The way he behaves, I honestly wonder how long it will be till he has some kind of blow-up, attitude issue, or yet one of the famous Darmok Mood Swings and just decides to walk away and shut it all down.

More importantly, those 40,000 downloads of pbxiaf 1.1 of which you are so proud, have just been officially and formally stranded at that revision level by our buddy Darmok.

 

[darmock]

It is what it is. 1.1 is not stranded you can still update and get fixes to your hearts content. The real issue is writing new applications and trying to support everybody/all versions which is a real time constraint. As for your points excellent diatribe however

1. You are quite entitled to disagree with me I don't have a problem nor will I hesitate to tell you what I think. From what I read of your response you don't want me to state my opinion about anything.

2. I could give a flying flip about praise and adulation. I write stuff so the software disto I support can be improved. I make my money in the software industry and my only requirements is a paycheck. Here in this realm I do thing because I like to do stuff not because I do it to get credit/praise/boot licking/whatever.

3. As for going fee based. I should launch into another rant but I won't I can count on one hand the number of people who have put there money where their mouths are and provided hardware or cash to keep things going. Currently Ward, Joe, and I pay for the bandwidth and equipment out of our own pocket. Would be nice to actually break even with this stuff but alas this is not to be. Yes you can say my attitude sucks blah blah blah and this is why no one contributes hard cash to us. Oh well each to their own.

4. Wow free free free you sling that term around a lot what is not free about it? I did not realize it was not free. Lets see you are getting a program that installs stuff and you can just download it and use it. How is this not free?

Let's not mince words. What is really at stake is the issue of compiled versus uncompiled. I protect the programs I write. I got tired of stuff I have written showing up elsewhere (spelling mistakes and all sans any copyright notice edited out as is supposed to be there). You still get to use them on your PIAF system for free so I guess we have a very different definition.

5. User contributions. Very interesting. So far the only user contributed script is ultimate cnam and he chose to keep his code in the open which we respected. The install portion of it is compiled because I wrote it as requested. Anyone is free to write a script and post it it won't be compiled in any fashion if that is what they choose this is not up to me I respect software authors wishes. I keep hoping that people will write stuff but so far the majority of it is written by the PIAF Dev Team.

6. Ownership of the code. Everything I write is signed over to the PIAF project Sorry to disappoint you. All of the plain code is available on our SVN server to members of the PIAF Dev Team. All of the code including the development and build environments (which I wrote from the ground up in C) is available to any member of our team. The SVN server is duplicated in a couple of places in case of disaster. Thus your rather silly point about breathing the wrong mix holds no water I am afraid. Of course now you want to join the development team to have access to the source. wink wink nudge nudge.

7. Perhaps showing TheShinz the door was an error on my part. I put a lot of care into my stuff and I let others on the team look at it and vette it prior to it going out. Thus I got my back up about the comments.

8. 1.1 versus 1.2 The whole purpose of the moving forward was to provide a better product in the long run. I can see where some of the 40,000 users might think they are abandoned but that is not the case. Running the various updates provides them almost the same functionality as installing 1.2. Since you requested this "so politely" I will look at upgrading all of the existing boxes to 1.2.

9. I had been considering a release of some of the compiled source within PIAF. I had been looking at this as most of the objectives of compiling some of the older scripts has been met. I suppose now it will look just like caving in to pressure. Oh Well will think some more on that.

10. Lastly you guys accuse me of being too serious I think you need to take a look in the mirror sometime. Anyone can disagree with anything I say or the way things are done. I give all suggestions the consideration they deserve and a lot of the time they are implemented. If you want more say in how things are done write some stuff and release it to the community. Adding a post complaining about things is not necessarily contributing. While you complain about my attitude at least I keep posting new things for PIAF

I have a list of things that need to be done for both 1.4 and 1.6 and am quite happy to share the list and let people at it. Whatever code they contribute back will be posted as is no changes with their own license on it. I admit I am tired of plunking away on it and using up my free time.

Do you feel better? I certainly do!

I am sure Ward will chime in sometime shortly Joe won't as he is on the high seas at the moment

I trust you have a good evening and thank you for your comments

Tom

aka Darmock

aka The Devil

Aka The Bad Guy

 

[tshif]

Not the Devil!

Tom - your response was rich and complete - and absent all flames. You are indeed a gentlemen.

Truth be known - I would give a lot to have as much to offer a community like this as you bring to it daily. It would be safe for me to assert you are the lifeblood of most installations of pbxiaf that exist today. In that I mean they would not exist without the wonderful and talented work you have so freely given to all of us. I just cant bring myself to feel anything but appreciation for what you have already done. My Respect and admiration are freely offered here to you.

I hope this discussion can continue as need be - to surface areas of concern that are both difficult, and necessary to share information.

I would ask that you think about something when you are making some decisions about how to sunset pbxiaf versions 1.0 and 1.1, and that something is this:

Do you remember how often you felt frustration, and the sinking feeling that you could not support your trixbox users because of the closed nature of most of their coding and systems? And the way every new release is a new ISO, and nothing can be upgraded without an act of Congress?

Give yourself a real moment or two to remember the depth of the despair that caused you - or any of us that have joined you here for the same reasons. And then lets have a dialog with everyone here about ways to help the 1.0 1.1 users move forward with you.

One last thing - don't pass out from shock when I say this, but I agree with you about contributions. I am among the most guilty, having only contributed once to this project. When I'm done here, I'm gonna fix that as best I can. I can't quite find the contribute link here on the forums. Is it the same as using the contribute link on NerdVilttles?

And for real, Thanks again Tom for all you have done.

 

[KodaK]

Let's not mince words. What is really at stake is the issue of compiled versus uncompiled.

That is the crux of the issue, yes.

I protect the programs I write. I got tired of stuff I have written showing up elsewhere (spelling mistakes and all sans any copyright notice edited out as is supposed to be there).

There is another way to protect your code: assign copyright to the FSF and release it under the GPL. Then if someone does use your code without attribution, you can possibly sic the FSF lawyers on them. Of course, this also gives others the ability to expand and enhance your code too. It's just another option.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright

Also, do you have any examples of your code being used, unattributed, that you can point to? Obviously that's a pretty terrible thing for someone to do, and they should be called to task for it.

User contributions. Very interesting. So far the only user contributed script is ultimate cnam and he chose to keep his code in the open which we respected. The install portion of it is compiled because I wrote it as requested. Anyone is free to write a script and post it it won't be compiled in any fashion if that is what they choose this is not up to me I respect software authors wishes. I keep hoping that people will write stuff but so far the majority of it is written by the PIAF Dev Team.

It's up to you (you as in the project, not you as a person) to foster an environment that attracts users and developers that are willing to collaborate and not simply consume. If it's not an attractive development environment, nobody is going to do so. Obviously my opinion is that if things were more open then it might (might) attract more developers. I can tell you that I have been looking for a distro to put my time into. That certainly isn't going to be trixbox, and if it weren't for your closed code it would be PiAF. I'm certainly not trying to dictate how you do anything, I'm simply stating how I see things. If I'm feeling like that, there may be others (I find I'm never on the cutting edge of a trend, I'm always a few steps behind.)

 

[TheShniz]

Settle-up fellas, it’s after 1am [now after 3am] and I’m just getting started…

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Together is the power of OSS.


tshif aka Tony, I’ve only had the pleasure of seeing you online since the end of last year from a different forum, but it’s been a pleasure ever since. What you wrote is very blunt, and let’s be honest here for a second: we’re all guys (I’m pretty sure), and bluntness is often needed with our gender. While it may be deemed insensitive and sometimes difficult to read, I am in total agreement with you. I wonder: you had four hours to make your post, how much of it was filled typing?

KodaK aka Jason… with a name like that, you’re already on good footing! [my name is Jason as well]. I’ve been in the family business of telephony all my life, and how true is it we rarely get to meet those we work with on a daily basis. More often than not, when we do meet someone IRL for the first time, it’s only after 10x years of talking with them on the phone or online. As it pertains to those online, I like to keep track if only to see what they’re up to. It’s amazing sometimes how time flies, and you have been very helpful to a lot of people for more than a while… if anything, I just wanted to say thanx.

Tom aka Tom… you’ve been taking a lot of crap now for your compiling of ‘mere scripts’, and rightly so. But PiaF probably wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for you, and I think your binaries sometimes overshadow that in discussions. I do appreciate your efforts, and I understand why you feel the way you do… even if I disagree with some of your actions (compiling). I think Ward [same as you] really needs a solid foundation to develop what he does w/ Nerd Vittles (a growing testament), and you along with Joe provided just that.

Let's not mince words. What is really at stake is the issue of compiled versus uncompiled.

That is the crux of the issue, yes.

x2

The reason why we have munin health monitoring today is because several YEARS ago some guy named George on his very first post in the forums of another board posted about some plugins he found on a very-dated French website, and began discussion by posting some very ugly-quick & dirty notes on getting it running (reading French helps). This was a revelation at the time as nothing to date has ever been seen and was highly requested. With his help, I wrote the first beginning to end instructions on making it viable for everyone. Only after this was done, did Andrew package what we accomplished in RPM form… which is not only being used over there, but here as well.

I did not bring this single example out to show how wonderful (or not) I am, but rather ask if any of this sounds familiar to anybody? No, I’m not talking about munin… I am talking about the process it went through to get where it is today. Who do think should get the credit for this work? It’s all based in Munin, how about them? How about the French guy who has so long since come and gone? How about George who found his plugins and paved the way in the first place? How about myself who wrote the install script for everyone to use? How about Andrew who bundled what I wrote into rpm?

You see… I look at what’s being accomplished here with IAXModem/HylaFax/AvantFax (as another example) and I see the exact same process. So very often, our most visible contributors like to say how nobody is ever contributing anything… but I don’t see anything of the sort. It may not be on the same scale as Ward’s full blown applications or something as developed as Tom’s Disk backup, but they’re every bit as useful.

So far the only user contributed script is ultimate cnam

Not trying to pick on you Tom… you’re most definitely not the first to say such a thing, and you certainly won’t be the last… but this just isn’t true. To be honest, everytime I read a statement like that, it sounds like that person may just need to step back for a moment and take a breather (tunnel vision).

Rather, what I believe is *exactly* what KodaK said:

to foster an environment that attracts users and developers that are willing to collaborate and not simply consume. If it's not an attractive development environment, nobody is going to do so.

Let’s think way back to the days of A@H, and I mean WAY back (pre-1.0), and then fast forward to today. Why is it do you think A@H never became all that it could be? Not to be overly hard on Andrew, but it’s because that environment was NEVER in place from the get-go, and it’s still not to this day (which is why we’re all here). There has never been, is not, and does not ever appear to be a community of sharing. Where does this [my] statement come from? Is it because nobody was willing to contribute? No, it’s because Andrew was never willing to open up the project in any fashion… and we can see today how that plays very well with Fonality which has only been expounded.

The only way I differ with Jason is that I don’t think developers *might* be attracted by a solid & open construct… this is undeniable, the only question is *when* they will be. Look at any genuinely successful OSS project and you will see this everytime… Joomla (someone say phpNuke?), vTiger (Sugar is for coffee!) … and hopefully someday proven to be PiaF (PBXtra, err I mean Trixbox(tm) “Pro”).

Sorry for the novel… I’m going to bed

P.S.
If you want a chuckle in retrospect (cuz I know he just joined the boards here), you reminded me very much of Bubba.

 

[wardmundy]

Wow! We drove up to the mountains yesterday to take our little girl to camp, and when we arrived, the Internet was dead until about an hour ago. Sorry I missed the fun.

Let me see if I can lay out the issues and solicit your suggestions on how we should move forward. I think we all know how this project came about so I'll skip that chapter. Now that we're rolling along, two major issues (from our vantage point) have arisen.

First, we really don't especially like writing code for others to gobble up as their own... with no credit at all. See the FreePBX fiasco for the latest example.

Second, we don't have a company behind our efforts. That's a good thing!!! BUT we've got to have some revenue stream to keep the lights on.

Now let me present the solution that I have proposed, and I would stress that NOTHING has been decided at this juncture. First, we are the only distro that has a migration path. You can move from Asterisk 1.4.15 to 1.4.19 with all the security patches by typing update-source and update-fixes and then have a cup of coffee. When you return, you'll have an upgraded system with any additional bugs caused by the update also fixed. No other distribution has anything close.

Second, you can get instant fixes to bugs in CentOS, Asterisk, PHP, FreePBX, or any other code on the box by simply typing update-fixes. No other distribution has anything like that either.

To say that update-source and update-fixes set us apart is a gross understatement. Having said that, I am also sympathetic to those that don't like compiled scripts for the reasons that have been mentioned. Open source encourages participation and growth in a project, and it's what the open source movement is all about really. That vision has gotten distorted by Fonality and by Digium, both of whom use an open source application to push people towards their commercial products. Some of this is done in subtle way, and some of it isn't. But... they, too, have to eat.

So here's what I'd like to propose to my partners, but I want your feedback first. First, I'd like to see us open up the source to scripts for introducing new applications into PBX in a Flash. Will other folks steal some of our work product? Probably. And, in return, we'll take a more careful look at some of their source code and use some of it in accordance with the license agreements for their code. The good news is that this approach will let others contribute and debug the new applications which will get solid, reliable apps integrated into PBX in a Flash quicker.

Second, I'd like to see us start charging a $25 annual fee for use of update-source and update-scripts, both of which would remain compiled. You're not paying for the code by subscribing. You're paying your fair share of the R&D and distribution costs for the two components that really set PBX in a Flash apart. And, yes, we get to eat!

Of course, we will remain the only distro with all existing source in place to let you change or update your system as you see fit without playing games with RPMs. And, if you'd prefer to update your system using your own scripts or someone else's and never use update-source and update-scripts, that is your call. We also will always maintain our ISO installs with the latest and greatest versions of everything. So you can always start over just like in the good ol' days.

Third, we plan to have a PBX in a Flash Partners Program for VARs and hardware manufacturers. This program would provide Tier 3 tech support on PBX in a Flash at very reasonable rates on an as-needed basis, and we hope to provide hardware and software discounts to those that sign up. I don't have any good numbers for this yet,
but we hope to have something in place later this summer.

So... now it's your turn. What do you think?

 

[KodaK]

First, we really don't especially like writing code for others to gobble up as their own... with no credit at all. See the FreePBX fiasco for the latest example.

I whole-heartedly agree that that's a bad situation, but it is the nature of this particular game. If you don't want to play in that sandbox that's completely understandable. But by not doing so, you participate in actions that are reminiscent of that which you sought to replace.

Second, I'd like to see us start charging a $25 annual fee for use of update-source and update-scripts, both of which would remain compiled. You're not paying for the code by subscribing. You're paying your fair share of the R&D and distribution costs for the two components that really set PBX in a Flash apart. And, yes, we get to eat!

If you could find a way to do this and open the code to the two utilities, I would be behind you 100%. This could be enforced by a username and password scheme, or a license key or something. Put the closed code on a system you control, with a web interface or something, that way an individual system can stay closed-code free. Much the same way that RHEL does their system updates. (And, incidentally, the reason CentOS exists.)

Barring that, don't even include the compiled scripts on a system, and only make them available to those that wish to participate in the program.

The key issue is being able to have a base system with no closed code. Call me a purist.

So... now it's your turn. What do you think?

You asked.

I still need to mull this over a bit more.

 

[james]

On Kodaks note we have a script that we see certain un-named manufacturers trying to reverse engineer bit the beautiful thing is the script is not anything profound you have to see how the magic happens server side that allows the script to work as it does...

 

[KodaK]

Investigating further, I'm not sure that you can do what you're planning on doing and not be in violation.

Also, please keep in mind that I'm trying to help and not disparage.

Anyway, going by the FAQ on this site:

http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html

There are a few barriers that I see to your proposed solution.

One:

As a seller of GPL based products what is good practice ?

If you make available software/firmware updates via Internet, and the update or software/firmware image contains GPL software, you have to provide the corresponding source code for every single version.

This may just be a logistical problem, but the next two appear to be the killers:

What are common mistakes ?

Forgetting to include the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable", i.e. the tools required to compile and install the GPL licensed components.

In the case of software distribution by making publicly available for download: Linking to a license text or source code on servers other than yours. This amounts to GPL Section "3c" (passing on a written offer), which is only valid for non-commercial distribution.

The "scripts used..." appears to be a violation of the GPL now (as I sort of expected) especially in the specific case of Ultimate CNAM. Since that is GPL, the installer needs to be as well. As I understand this.

The distribution by linking to third party sources: I don't know if you do this, but if you do then the minute you start charging, you become a "commercial distribution" and that would be a violation.

I'm certainly not an expert on the GPL, and we may want to seek out and invite one to comment in order to proceed in the proper manner.

 

[mtennant]

I don't know how you can do it within all the rules that have grown up around the stuff we are dealing with here, but I for one (with two extensions and one DID and one wonderful Proximity Detection application) think $25 a year is money well spent to keep this brain trust together. Count me in Uncle Ward.

 

[dobbs]

One would need to be an attorney to sift through a lot of the GPL language, and even then there's no doubt room for interpretation. I, for one, don't see a problem with add-on products/services being compiled or protected. Perhaps they are kept as strict add-ons for subscribers only. As long as the main product is all GPL, I don't see a conflict - but then I'm not an attorney. Still, there are plenty of examples of fee-based add-ons for GPL products.

I also think a nominal $25 is more than fair. You can certainly count me in.

 

[james]

I think ward is/was a lawyer before all this....

on to other things : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license? No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

 

[pcott]

I had a witty acerbic reply all lined up, but mtennant put it better than I ever could.

Count me in too.

 

[The Deacon]

Like the others, I too think that $25/year is pretty reasonable. Even at twice the price.

Of course, I too wanted to be counted in.

-Rick

 

[wardmundy]

James got it exactly right. I think some were confusing GPL-licensed components (for which source has to be made available) and other code where there is no corresponding requirement. Without getting too deep in the weeds, an installer need not be open source even if it installs open source code. So long as the installed GPL code also includes the source code for it, there is no GPL violation. This is exactly the situation with Ultimate CNAM. The installer is not open source or GPL code. It's freeware. The installed Ultimate CNAM app is, and the source code for it is readily available on your hard disk. You can take it and make any additions or changes you care to make so long as you comply with GPL2 if you redistribute it.

So... if anyone wants to build an installer that updates a particular version of Asterisk, for example, so long as the newly installed version of Asterisk on your system also includes the source for the newly installed version of Asterisk (which it always does in the case of PBX in a Flash), there is GPL2 compliance.

To put it another way, if somebody builds you a house, you get all the components that make up the house plus the blueprints, and you can take those and make any additions desired. But we don't have to teach you how we built the house.

 

[Alex728]

$25 is even more reasonable for those of us across the pond with current exchange rates.

Incidentally I help run a "lifestyle/culture forum" for (mostly) young people who are in to electronic dance music.

We have a facility whereby people can download MP3s of various DJ's mixes and their own tunes (this is done with agreement of the record labels and the artists involved, as often they are all the same people or friends of the DJs!) Of course hosting / bandwidth isn't free, so we have a facility whereby subscribers can get more MP3s and access to some other features on the forum.

Also for posting about events with an entry charge where they intend to make a profit that section of the forum is only available to subscribers or a small fee per post. Some people complain about this but a fair few are happy to subscribe - like the plans for PiaF even if people don't subscribe it doesn't completely limit the use of 90% of the resources (users can still download MP3s but not as many and use all the other bits of the forum).

The subscriber bit appears to be part of vbulletin as well and could be something you can make use of..

 

[TheShniz]

Busy week, wanted to chime in, and am just catching up...


1.)


I whole-heartedly sympathise... and am filled with joy in the (hopeful) realization that compiling scripts isn't the way to help growth.


2.)


I don't have any problem w/ charging a $25 annual fee for use of update-source and update-scripts, and keeping them compiled... I think that $25/yr is a good amount too

However, I also share KodaK's desire to remain a purist, in that I feel the system should be 100% open... and agree w/ Jame's suggestion to keep it server-side.


3.)


I like the idea of a Partners Program for VARs, but I wonder what else could be offered outside of tech support? Reason being, I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that since VARs are doing this to make a buck themselves, that they actually know what they're doing and would have no use for said support.

Hardware and software discounts seem interesting, but I'm skeptical of their value... that is, I being a VAR would get even better discounts through the various distributors which we're already using. I say this, because 5% or whatever 'the other' distro was offering just wasn't compelling.


X.)


Please understand I *really* like the idea and want to help support the distro financially by purchasing equipment through here, but that also needs to be competitive with other avenues... otherwise I'd just be bleeding myself in an already tough times.

I fervently hope the ability to install systems via CD/ftp/share or whatever isn't limited to being a VAR.

 

[stuck]

I agree with the $25 annual fee. Very reasonable. I guess it remains to be clarified whether that is per machine. If it is then the VAR program could benefit from a set annual account/fee that the VAR could use to update all of the machines that they manage?

 

[wardmundy]

That's still to be worked out, but my view is that it needs to be per machine because you're basically contributing to the cost of development and bandwidth. And, at least for me, that means the folks that use it the most ought to contribute the most.

Just to provide an example. Let's say someone finally gets the VAR thing working nationwide (or worldwide) and sets up a network of installers that sign up 50,000 client machines. We really couldn't provide the bandwidth to support those customers without imposing either a per machine fee or some astronomical VAR signup fee which would mean we ended up with at most one VAR. Just my $.02.

 

[Titanous]

The installed Ultimate CNAM app is, and the source code for it is readily available on your hard disk. You can take it and make any additions or changes you care to make so long as you comply with GPL2 if you redistribute it.

I'm a little late to the party, but my Ultimate CNAM script is actually licensed under the GPL3. There's a diff here.