Several Stampede Developers Depart 80
palpatine was one of many readers to write with the news that "[m]any of the developers of Stampede Linux have resigned today, putting in doubt the future of the distribution." The link here connects you to a letter signed by 22 people who have declared their separation from Stampede, including former buildmaster Rob Aagaard and former lead Alpha developer J. Daniel Powell. (Read more.)
The letter is written by Jacob Moorman, who had been until yesterday Stampede's assistant head developer. In part, it reads: "Due to a number of reasons based on the current administrative nature of the Stampede Linux distribution, we are unable to continue supporting the efforts of the distribution. As a group, we feel that the needs of the group have not been supported by the current model of operations."
I asked project founder Matt Woods about the resignations and what they mean to Stampede's plans, in particular to tomorrow's scheduled Stampede .90 release.
Matt attributes the resignation of several developers and other folks associated with Stampede Linux to disagreement among project members about how the Stampede project should be managed.
"The resignations have been brewing for quite some time. The major reason for resignation is the current method of leadership. Those who resigned wanted to see a board of directors that handled all matters (BSD style). They were unhappy with the tiers of leadership that exist today (much like the linux kernel development structure). The current leadership method has worked well up until this point, and shows no indications of future failure."
Happily, he writes, "I am still on good terms with most of the developers, to quote one of them: 'Business is business, friendship is friendship,' that is, the two are unrelated."
And what does the sudden change in personnel mean to Stampede Linux?
"The future of Stampede is not in doubt, we're recruiting more and more developers as we speak (The response from the development volunteer community has been tremendous). Development will be hindered in the short term, but we forsee a future explosion in the speed of the development cycle. Unfortunatly, 0.90 will need to be delayed for a short amount of time (exactly how much time is unclear at this juncture), but users can be assured that 0.90 is coming, and it is coming soon."
Stampede developers past and present are invited to contribute their insight into what caused the rift. If you're involved with (or considering) an open-source project with more than one person, you may want to pay attention to what they say.
Re:This is why the new moderation sucks (Score:1)
Unless it is the opposite...
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Par for the course (Score:1)
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:1)
Using Stampede (Score:1)
Developers of Stampede (Score:5)
Jake Moorman: He was the assitant head developer and former lead for 0.90. He developed the SLAB system that stampede currently uses to build the distributions and contributed many packages and much else to the distributions.
J. Daniel Powell: He was the former lead for the Alpha platform port. He had done a lot of research and development for that platform along with being an invaluable member of the team.He also helped a lot with package submissions.
Rob Aagaard: He was the co-founder of Stampede Linux. He had been there from the start with Matt Wood. He was also very vocal about getting the much delayed 0.90 release out the door and did his own build to get the efforts on their way. He is the only reason 0.90 was almost released today.
Gabe Ricard: He worked on many projects and submitted packages. He worked on the Stampede Lite project and on the PowerPC port. He was also very instrumental in getting people interested in Stampede.
David Burley: He spent much time reviewing logs, keeping in touch with the mirrors, and working with end users to resolve issue. He also authored the manual installation instructions which later gained help from Timothy Krell. Not to mention the fact that he submitted packages and other resources the group needed.
Erich Ziggler: He spent many hours helping individuals get Stampede installed and running on thier system. And although not really extremely involved directly with the developmental process, if it were not for him there probably would not be nearly as many Stampede users out there.
Per Linden: A vocal supporter of Stampede both on IRC and on the mailing lists. He put together numerous packages for Stampede and tried to help it become the best it could be.
Michael Gorse: If not for him the 0.90 pre tree that had been used for the past m onth for testing would have never gotten out. He made the first build after the code freeze due to Matt Wood's untimely departure shortly after the code freeze started. This was a horrible time for him to take a vacation.
The list goes on and on. This is a clear description of what the first 8 people listed on the list have done, and the others have helped in many ways also. It is horrible that people are denying them recognition for the work that they have done on the distribution. Also it is of note to mention the reality that there is a reason not all of them have been completely active developers lately. Maybe there is something wrong with the administration. Keep an open mind and read through the letter closely. It just appears that they are unhappy with the way things were run. I am glad they put personal feelings aside.
Sigh. [Off Topic] (Score:4)
Is this really so enjoyable that dozens of people spend their time ripping on anyone and everyone? It makes me sad to see so many people enjoy telling other people how stupid they are. Why is there so much destruction?
I've even caught myself slipping into the pit of unbounded criticism. Just a couple of weeks ago someone made me realize that I had accused them of attitudes that I didn't know they had. I just assumed the worst of them and proceeded accordingly, and unjustly. It scared me to see such a change occur in myself on an online forum. Being rude and self-righteous is contagious.
Is this the inevitable source of destruction for any online communication more interesting than Instant Messenger? Put enough people in one place and give them the ability to interact, and *WHAM* perfectly good and normal people distort their opinions and views just so they can rip on some guy.
Is it just me, or does anyone else long for discussion where the object is to share knowledge and not to gain conversational dominance? Maybe it's distorted hindsight, but I remember being able to do that once upon a time.
Sigh. I'll go crawl back into my hole now. You may now offtopic me into oblivion and pour hot grits down my pants while telling me that I'm a hypocritical, uninformed fool. That's what discussion is about these days, I guess.
Re:stampede sucked anyway! (Score:1)
No bugs or snags at all.
~Chris
Re:More proof... (Score:1)
>profitability for 7 more quarters. There is not going to be seven more
>quarters for them.
Wrong dude. The guys running RedHat and the other Linux dists are smarter than asswipes like you who know nothing about the stock market. Did you even notice the companies RedHat (Cyngus being one) bought just after they hit it big with their IPO? Instead of buying full color ad pages in the Ziff-Davis trade rags, RedHat and the others started planning for their future. Sorry to disapoint you but Redhat is going to be around for a while. A whole lot longer that most of the silly e-comerce and internet retailers will be.....
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:2)
apt-get -b source
dpkg -i
OTOH, I wouldn't think you'd gain much. Most systems today are I/O-bound, not CPU-bound. You might see some benefits from, say, an optimized libc or an optimized kernel, since those components touch everything on the system, as well as any tasks you run that are indeed CPU-bound.
I doubt Debian would do it, though. -m486 is about the best you can do if you want code that runs on everything from the 386 to the Athlon. And we've got enough work to do with the architectures we do support.
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:2)
The free software movement has always had rifts like this. Look at Emacs vs. XEmacs, or the controversy over NET2 when Alan Cox took over networking from Fred van Kampen, or the sound driver situation of a few years ago, or the political stuff in Debian when Bruce Perens quit.
Happily, it all works out in the end. The Emacs and XEmacs people still do their own things, but they at least try to maintain compatibility. Linux networking generally rocks now, and keeps getting better (as opposed to the 1.0 days when the BSD folks kept beating up Linux for crappy networking). Sound support is improving. Debian is still rolling, and Bruce even comes back around on occasion to help out.
Whatever the money does, I think there will always be a core group that values free software, not to mention the many people who have learned the quality lesson (the only way you can guarantee quality results is to have source). Even if Red Hat, VA, LinuxCare, etc. tank, we'll just go back to the gool ol' days before Jesse Berst knew how to spell Linux, and we had to hack our own device drivers.
stampede sucked anyway! (Score:1)
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto [nai.net]: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:1)
Yes, pgcc may give you a 30% faster completion times for the "tar" program, but:
- how much of your cpu time is spend tarring and untarring?
- how much of that performance is dependent on ram available for disc cache, ide/scsi bus performance, etc.?
I'll take a good stable distro anyday of the week over something theoretically faster, but not as stable.
NOTE: I have not tried Stampede Linux. I'm extrapolating experiences from Mandrake Linux, another pgcc optimized distro.
hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:2)
btw what are the standard 'good' optimization flags?
-O6 -mpentiumpro ??
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:1)
For the most recent iteration of this discussion, see this message [debian.org], and browse a little further into the thread. The topic of binary-i586 eventually came up. Several people have on several ocassions given good comments on why this is a bad idea. It's not only binary-586, but eventually binary-k7 or binary-p3. Several developers have also claimed that 586 optimizations hurt performance on P3 machines. In that thread, Joey asks for hard numbers supporting the 20% speed increase other people claim, but until now (11 days later) the only response has been silence.
If you are really interested in this, install the pentium builder [debian.org] package, read the docs and start recompiling libc6. After that you'll probably want to recompile libstdc++, the X packages, and stuff like that. If you can come up with hard cold data that supports the claimed speed gains, I'm sure someone will get interested rather quickly.
But then again, keep in mind the Intel world is not only Pentiums.
As for optimization flags, read the gcc documentation. Basically you are looking for stuff like unroll-loops, inline-fuctions, some of the forces and the like. Beware! This will bloat the generated code!
Re:Linux and the GPL... (Score:1)
I'm happy that everyone in the world is not as clueless as you are. The truth of the matter is the Entire NASDEQ is Down. Not just Linux Stocks. But then when you're a troll the truth doesnt matter, only the hype.
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:1)
For the record, the fact that we had an internal dispute related to the management of the project should have NOTHING to do with the overall credibility of Linux and or Free (or Open Source) Software. This was simply a dispute over the way the Stampede Linux project was being managed, no more, no less. There were no other factors involved in our decision to leave the project. Period.
While there may be many developers out there who are feeling sore because they are not receiving vast quantities of money for their work, and others are, I must make it very clear that this has nothing to do with why we left Stampede.
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:why this happened (Score:1)
While this is an interesting point I must make it clear that Stampede was never meant to compete with RedHat and the likes. We never really made any attempts at outward marketing. It was just a project we worked on for fun. We did what we pleased to do with it, and we tried to make it work for other users as well when they had problems.
Heck, the only reason I ever even got involved was because I wanted to figure out exactly how Linux and Free Software works, and I did.
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:why this happened (Score:1)
I understand your belief that Stampede would have flourished had there been a larger user base, however, based on my experiences, that would not have mattered. I'm sorry I cannot elaborate on this, I do not wish to discuss personal matters in a public forum.
The only comment that I can make related to your views on marketing is that it never really was given any thought by the management. Again, to delve any further into that matter would involve personal matters that I do not wish to make public.
And I do not know how much clearer I can make it that we were not intending to "defeat RedHat", or any other distribution for that matter. We found projects we liked to work on, and we worked on them when we could. We have had fun doing this and learned a lot. It was never about selling product, making money, etc. It was just something we liked to do in our spare time.
Although I love working on/with Free Software in my spare time, I wouldn't mind working on it fulltime, in fact that'd be great. However, there is no way that I would ever want to be working on a distribution fulltime without a serious, proven infrastructure designed for that purpose in place.
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:Think please... (Score:1)
Re:It is in trouble... (Score:2)
A bit off-topic (however, see the last paragraph) but this has to be said...
No sector rose at the rate of Linux sector, either. And the Linux companies aren't doing any worse than the others who IPO'd at the same time--most are now trading at a fraction of their initial offer price, Linux or no Linux. That has more to do with overall market behavior than anything specific to Linux. In any case, companies live and die by the balance sheet, not their stock price. Recent IPO's will need to trim their sails and perhaps push toward profitability earlier than they might otherwise have done (thus settling for less growth), but some will undoubtedly thrive no matter how bearish the market turns.
You don't seem to be very familiar with these companies (or with how companies are capitalized and grown, for that matter). None of them propose selling free software as their primary source of income; rather, they sell services (integration, support, value-add, and so on). I don't pretend to know if this will wind up being a successful business model or not-- and I don't see how you could know, either. The stock market certainly doesn't--it doesn't need to be any more rational on the way down as it was on the way up.
Stampede isn't a company, but the fate befalling it is a lot like what often happens with small companies: fragmentation due to differences or difficulties in leadership and vision. Although it won't die when it runs out of cash like a company does-- in some ways cashless collaborations such as this are more resiliant-- even if it fails (and it remains to be seen if it will) it hardly reflects on other efforts involving Linux. As for whether RMS, ESR, and the like are visionaries or fools--well, at least they are willing to sign what they believe, unlike trolls and astroturfers such as yourself. And if you think the success or failure of a company or the collapsing of a bubble market has anything to do with the viability of free software-- well, I think we know who the fool is, here.
Re:dumbass (Score:1)
That would be Diana Hacker. She also wrote The Bedford Handbook For Writers and Rules For Writers.
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:1)
Re:It is in trouble... (Score:1)
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:1)
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:1)
BTW, thanks for reading my original post carefully. Your response shows that you did.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:2)
The fact that Stampede is currently having a few top-level disputes isn't really the main problem here..The fact that another crack has developed in the Linux foundation, however, is.
I think we're in the middle of an interesting time, really. It used to be, a few years ago, that we were all doing this for fun...We didn't care about getting rich. Now, we all wake up and realize that money is starting to get in the way of ideas. The free exchange of ideas and been limited by the fear of getting screwed. Consequently, people are getting pissed off. After all, why should they work for free, when someone else is profiting from what they do?
While I don't think this will eventually spell out an epitaph for the whole Linux movement, it still remains true that a minority of people with less than pure intentions are driving the majority of people apart rather than uniting them under a common umbrella.
Instead of developers doing what they do for fun, now there are nameless people at the top raking in money off their work, and making alot of people very, very sour in the process..It breeds distrust and resentment in a community that bases its whole existance on mutual trust and cooperation.
Stampede's issues are an indicator of a much bigger problem that supercedes what distribution you run, or what platform you use. It comes down to an issue of people, and how they work together. We all have to agree to play one game, not two. We either continue as we have traditionally, or we become suspicious of eachother and suffer the consequences of doing so.
Time to make up our minds, I say.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Re:Attention moron... (Score:1)
Par for the course (Score:5)
--
Index of Alternative Operating Systems
Re:No, linux stocks disproportinately down (Score:2)
Once Linux stocks hit a true fair value (which, in my opinion, they are approaching, but they still haven't hit), they can start to fluctuate based on real changes in the market, real earnings reports, and other "real world" phenomena. That will be a great development for the Linux business community, because it'll prompt these companies to think in terms of real, sustainable business plans, rather than making blind, trendy acquisitions (ahem, Andover!).
Red Hat and VA need to figure out how to build serious, profitable businesses to guarantee that they won't be a couple of flashes in the pan. As long as the market was rewarding them based solely on hype, that was never going to happen.
So, as a Linux user, I'm glad to see the stocks fall to real values today, rather than seeing them fall into bankruptcy a few years down the line.
--JEZ
Re:GNU/Linux :) (Score:1)
Re:Anyone have more pertinent info about this ? (Score:1)
Re:Anyone have more pertinent info about this ? (Score:1)
Re:Reason Why I Left && Other Information (Score:2)
John,
Although I am no lawyer either, there are plenty of people who seem to agree with my point. Check out the following URL's which say that so long as I am not being paid and I am not working outside of my job description and what I do isn't done with malice or with the intent to harm, then I cannot be held liable. This comes from the Federal Volunteer Protection Act signed by President Clinton in 1997. Here are some URLs to info:
L iability.html [ptialaska.net]
http://www.njnonprofits.org/vol_pr otect_act.html [njnonprofits.org]
http://www.ptialaska.net/~jdewitt/vlh/Law/VLHTort
http://www.nonprofitlaw.com/quicktipsv ol.htm [nonprofitlaw.com]
--David Burley
Reason Why I Left && Other Information (Score:5)
"Stampede developers past and present are invited to contribute their insight into what caused the rift." As stated in the resignation letter the reason why we left is based on the current administration model of Stampede GNU/Linux. I cannot comment for others beyond that as they all have different feelings and reasons which make them feel the way they do. So the rest of this comment is from my point of view and my feelings. Despite how it may be worded.
For one to be involved in such a project you expect several things. Some of them are legal protection, financial support and a say in how decisions are made. Each one of those issues will be addressed separately in the following:
Legal Protection: Being involved in an Operating System distribution there are concerns that your advice to persons on IRC and elsewhere could damage someones data or files. Although never the goal, it does happen and is inevitable. The user types in the command wrong or misinterperates the advice or suggestion given. I have a brain fart and am not thinking straight and miss a step. . . These are just a few examples of what could happen.
I am not 100% certain about my legal protections if a user damages their system while following my advice. The Stampede Linux Foundation is indeed a Non-Profit Organization in Utah, but I was never shown any proof that it was a Federally recognized non-profit (I believe the technical name is 401-C3 status). Thus I have no legal blanket protecting me from a lawsuit. Although I am a poor college student and they would not get much from doing so (besides a few computers... which would hinder my Free Software development projects) it is still not something I want to see happen to myself or others.
Financial Support: Being so involved in the Stampede GNU/Linux Distribution and other efforts I have been traveling to the Linux World COnference and Expo's in both NYC and SJC (the past 2 anyways) and was also at The Bazaar. My trip to The Bazaar was partially funded by Earthweb, but my trips to LWCE were not funded by anyone but me.
The issue of funding trips for core developers had come up and was never addressed. It is in my opinion that at least some of the cost should have been deferred off onto the distribution. Stampede does have some money (not a lot but enough to do that a few times for several people). Also being the college student I am there is only so much money to go around. I get a lot out of meeting those who use what I work on. I also learn a lot about up-and-coming projects from other groups.
Although I see nothing wrong with the development model we used for a long time for other groups, it did not work for ours. The above issues and others could have been easily resolved in what would seem to be a more 'fair' manner if there was a group of individuals who could vote on such issues.
On April 6 Rob Aagaard attempted to switch Stampede over to a Board of Directors from its current model. Matt Wood was disagreeable to doing such and I didn't like his response. Not to mention the fact that he refused to be at the meeting. This is not to say that I agree with the manner the meeting was conducted, but Matt should have been present to diffuse the situation and discuss the issues with us openly like he says he will. At any rate this situation led me to believe that there would be no change and that action must be taken. Voila, the resignation.
Although I was not the developer to say "Business is Business, Friendship is Friendship", those sentiments are mine exactly. And even more than that I will continue development on tools, utilities and new specifications for which Stampede was working only under a different group which aims towards supporting my efforts. The Marble Horse Free Software Group [marblehorse.org] (MHFSG) is working on a new revision of the Stampede Linux Package format, specifically version 5a. Not to mention a few other projects I am working on. The projects are less Stampede centric as they should be useful to all distributions and homebrewed systems alike. None-the-less Stampede is free to use them and their input will be regarded at the same level as others.
Lastly I would like to thank Stampede for the good times I had with them. I have no hard feelings and would like to continue a good relationship with the people involved. Those who need to contact me know where to find me (IRC: openprojects.net NICK: khemicals).
Regards,
David Burley
former Stampede jack-of-all-trades
You didn't quote, you trolled (Score:1)
corel linuxcare stampede (Score:1)
best logo yet (Score:1)
--
Backwards Compatibility. (Score:1)
Backwards compatability is the best thing.
Backwards compatibility is also what bites M$ in the ass almost every time there is a problem with Windows: Having to support everything all the way down to M$-DOS 1.0, emulating old versions of Netware, running 16-bit code in a supposed 32-bit environment, etc.
Backwards compatibility should not be taken to an extreme.
And do you *really* know anyone who uses any computer less than a Pentium? I sure as hell don't.
Re:Backwards Compatibility. (Score:1)
Okay, fine, so there *are* people who use older machines... I stand corrected. When I stand at all.
Re:a part left out.. (Score:2)
I'm greatly saddened that many don't understand this breakup. I'm also mad that Matt decided to write off the people that left as insignificant. Nobody on that list was insignificant, otherwise they would have never considered themselves a part of the community.
Dan Knoepfle
- ----------------
-DeadMonkey-
-----------------------------------------------
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey...
www.stampede.org
Something to consider (Score:3)
"Former supporter" is probably the best way to describe the people on the list, but it may be misleading. Many of these individuals were so integral in helping others needing problems, providing input during meetings, and just overall being there. By signing the letter, they've shown that they might not be there in the future. Now, having chatted with all of these people at sometime in the past, I must say that it is quite a loss to the Stampede community. Now, I can't comment on what's been happening lately, as I have been trying to stay out of the loop to let the situation sort itself out. I didn't resign because of Matt, I resigned because the Stampede community slowly became less positive of a community to be in. I sincerely hope that Stampede will survive and grow stronger through this and that my fellow developers can find a new home in which to thrive. All I know is that with all the friends I've made and the experiences I've had, without Stampede my life would be very different. I still use Stampede .89 on all my Linux boxen, and I see no reason you shouldn't too.
Dan Knoepfle- ----------------------------
-DeadMonkey-
-----------------------------------
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey...
www.stampede.org
Re:Open Source And The Joy Of Beaurocracy (Score:1)
There has to be a big man, and a small man; a good man, and a bad man. You dig? I may think SuSE, and RedHats distros suck, but I am smart enough to admit that hey, they have done alot for the linux community, I for one would not be a linux geek if I hadn't started with redhat.
OTOH, I could care less what happens to the stock market, I will always be a linux lover, regardless of market share. And stampede's demise is not in anyway a precursor to the destruction of the whole community any more than if one building falls down in a major city, and you gotta admit, stampede's building was pretty small by comparison.
Re:why this happened (Score:1)
What is all that Red Hat ass kissing about? A person like you should be using Microsoft OS and AOL and eat McDonalds (I'm sure you are.) because "Billions of users can't be wrong.
Which part of "customer needs" is Red Hat addressing that Stampede is not? Name it. If you can't, don't bullshit about "customer needs."
And that open insult on OpenBSD is simply childish. In your criteria, OpenBSD addresses some of the most important thing that customers need: Security.
If you think ALL USERS want easy to configure/install distro that do not require technical skills, think again. Most of the users are still technical people and they choose distros for technical reasons.
Lastly, I'll use one of the phrase that Linus used most in earlier Linux development flamewars: "Show you what you did." and stop whinning. geez.
These comments should be marked as Flambait at the first place.
Re:dumbass (Score:1)
if someone said "and then she said yes" and your readers have no idea who "she" is you'd replace she with [name]. Also []'s are used when you quote has a capital letter in it (as in you're quoteing an entre sentance, or the begining) and the qute is embedded in a sentance, you use the []'s to make the upper case M a lower case. This is all being taken from the MLA writters ref. by diane hacker 2nd ed. look it up before you accuse the writting staff of being incompetent
-Doug
I do! (Score:2)
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:4)
- they rarely enhance performance at all - pgcc has problems compiling quite a lot of software - any good optimizations that pgcc developes are eventually folded back into gcc/egcs - Debian runs on many different platforms, and spending time producing 2 x86 distrox probably isn't a very good way to use Debian's resources
Check the debian-devel archives for more info.
OTGet it right (Score:1)
You mean by "securing" someone elses work, at least be honest. If you want to sell your own work you wouldn't care what license someone elses work was under, now would you?
BSD is a great system. Too bad it's under a license that invites parasites like you to steal it and resell it.
OT - How strange (Score:1)
How very strange. It is at -2. Didn't realise that was possible, but I browse at -1 and at the end of the article is a note that there is 1 comment below my threshold... of course after manually changing to -2 I find out it's just a stupid troll waste of bandwidth *sigh* if you guys are gonna troll at least learn how to do it right? Is that too much to ask? Good trolls make people think - bad trolls just waste bandwidth.
Oh, btw, it's not censorship. You can yell censorship all you want, it just proves you don't know what the word means. The right to speak doesn't imply the right to commandeer someone elses resources to propogate your speech. This is the same argument all the lame email spammers use, and it's just as much pure BS in either case. Taco should log UberTroll's IP and send a nice little letter to his ISP...
Re:Ok then... (Score:1)
If it's a private library, no it's not censorship. It's stupid, and defeats the entire purpose of a library, but it's not censorship. Censorship would be bullying a sites ISP into yanking it, not blocking access to it on a particular machine that a particular person owns.
Anarchy doesn't mean anyone has an obligation to propogate your message at their expense, any more than freedom of speech does.
Re:Wrong... (Score:1)
Let's see, what you are saying is you want to take a complex program that hundreds of developers spent millions of man-hours on, change a couple lines, sell it, and give those developers nothing. Sounds fair, right? If it's good enough for Bill Gates...
If you code something extensive enough to make a stand alone product, nothing is stopping you from making it a binary only product and selling it whether it's written for BSD, Linux, Windows, Mac, OS/2, etc. Whether anyone with a brain will want it is a different matter, but you are free to try. If you code something that cannot stand alone, an extension to another program, you have to abide by the license the programmers that wrote the original program specified. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
And they announce this because...??? (Score:1)
on the off topic... I wonder... (Score:1)
there seem to be lots of people who like to troll, and flame, and so forth; and a similar amount of people who like to flame trolls and troll flames, and so forth.
would a self-designation as troll option improve the general slashdot comment-reading experience (signal/noise ration)? or would trolls avoid designating themselves as such? or would people post good comments but designate themselves as trolls to protest the system?
on a similar note, what if there were a mirror of slashdot, but with the purpose of being a receptacle for trolls/flames?
Leadership NOT failing?! (Score:2)
I find this statement very interesting and hard to justify. Leaders are responsible for seeing things get done, and ensuring people stay focussed and positive. Having 20 people, in unison, withdraw their support indicates a deep seated failure of the leadership.
Good leaders focus the talents of their charges. They keep them in high spirits when all seems lost and know how to manage each person to achieve their personal best. All of this while still getting the result the company wants.
Having 20 people go all at once is significant in any group.
It doesn't necessarily mean the end of stampede. Perhaps it will improve things in the long run because a large group of dissenters have left and the moral of the remaining people can be lifted and focused. Conversely, Maybe stampede will die because the heart has been removed.
Alert leaders would have either:
a) been able to fix moral to keep things going, or
b) given the boot to the main dissenters early on
A split is not necessarily a bad thing - look at Emacs and Xemacs, a common goal but a fundamental difference of opinion, neither one right nor wrong, just different.
The split shows the strength of open source rather than its weakness - the dissenters can now go and do things their way, and those who believe the dissenters are wrong can band with stampede, unhindered by the non-believers.
Re:Reason Why I Left && Other Information (Score:2)
Thanks for your response. The URLs you directed me to are a reminder of why I am not a lawyer
However--I would be leery of assuming too much from this act. It protects me in my capacity as a volunteer at three-day events (a horse discipline that can be dangerous). It obviously protects a client of mine, who is a Ski Patrol leader. If I were an attorney (and I would regard any suggestion that I am an attorney as defamatory) I'd take issue with how broad the definition of volunteer might be--and would a programmer working on an OSS project count?
However, all that aside, I see your point: you would feel better if you knew the organization was registered as a 501(c)(3).
Thanks for the information.
John Murdoch
Re:Reason Why I Left && Other Information (Score:5)
David!
Completely apart from the discussion of what happened and what the consequences are, you should be aware that membership in a not-for-profit organization does not provide you with any legal protection whatsoever.
What is generally termed a "not-for-profit" organization is recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The law pertains to whether or not profits of those organizations are taxed. It says nothing--nothing--about any kind of legal protection for group members. Any kind of protection for liability (in the case you describe, liability for errors and omissions) would only come from an insurance policy taken out by the not-for-profit on behalf of its leaders (expensive) or members (hideously expensive).
For the record: I am not a lawyer. I have been the business manager of a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit that fought the IRS over our status--we won at the Court of Appeals level over a precise definition of the IRC and the specific intent of Congress in establishing not-for-profits. (If you're a lawyer, look up "Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing v. Commissioner.") I have also been covered by E&O by a not-for-profit, have written claims-handling systems for a large insurance company that issues E&O policies, and am presently covered under liability policies for two not-for-profit organizations in my community.
John Murdoch
Re:why this happened (Score:1)
I am not advocating adopting RedHat.
I would like to see more choices in the OS market.
I would like to see OpenBSD succeed and be one of those choices. I took the time to write something to help shed light, to help OpenBSD to be better at competing effectively.
I used RedHat as my example because they are the market leader and in marketing you always keep your eye on the market leader. I don't love RedHat just like I don't love Amazon, or United, or Microsoft, or General Motors... but we study them to see what makes them successful. Since you have trouble grasping this, let me point out for the record that ("show me what you've done!") not only is RedHat's website too secure for you to hack, you don't know how to hack Debian's, SUSE's, FreeBSD's or NetBSD's sites either, and not Netscape's nor Sun's. You couldn't even hack Microsoft's, the most insecure OS of them all!
This is why when OpenBSD supporters say "security", very few people heed the call. People do believe that OpenBSD is more secure, yes. But most people don't feel that they need more security than RedHat et al offer.
See? I'm not insulting OpenBSD: I'm giving it credit for its features. I'm trying to direct your attention at customer needs; not needs you wish people have, but the needs that they think they have.
But, you think like a jealous schoolgirl: anything I say about your rival that even hints at positive is deeply insulting to you. Guess what, sweetie: yes, that dress does make you look fat.And "insult on OpenBSD... In your criteria..."? It's "insult to" and "by your criteria", unless you're some kind of hillbilly, shitkicking, schoolgirl.
If you think ALL USERS want easy to configure/install distro that do not require technical skills, think again. Most of the users are still technical people and they choose distros for technical reasons.
Like you said, "if I think that"... but I don't. Once again, you are doubly wrong. No, you're triply wrong:
I promised three corrections, actually, you're quadruply wrong!!!
Sucks to be wrong about everything, doesn't it? Bad enough that you are so bigoted that you can't think clearly, but your foul style makes you unpleasant to even be around.
Why is everything this guy say marked up?
Because I have high karma from saying many intelligent and funny things in the past. Karma automatically adds an extra point. That's how Slashdot works. Why don't you try reading the source instead of just staring at the screen and wondering like some clueless AOL luser. Ordinarily, I turn off the extra point, but I've been browsing with cookies turned off, and in that mode it's not an option. Maybe someday you'll get enough karma... :) nah, that's not a possibility.
why this happened (Score:2)
Before I go any further, let me mention that I have zero inside knowledge, of this situation. I can, however, pass along a "suit's" perspective on why this happened. This is how this case would be analyzed in a business school strategy class.
Take a look at About Stampede [stampede.org]. The most useful/workable definition of "marketing" is "meeting customer needs". What customer needs does Stampede address? I don't see one. They may have one, but they have not communicated it.
What they do communicate is a laundry list of features. Common mistake techies make: customers do not want features; customers want benefits. So, for example "optimized for Pentium." Who cares? "Ten percent faster"? OK, that would be something... but they only make that claim buried deep inside a bullet point, and the reader is tempted not to believe it. If the benefit of this system is that it is 10-30% faster (not faster than unoptimized, but faster than RedHat), put that at the top of the front page, and demonstrate significant support for the claim. Customers look for a reason to download, and to convince them you have to demonstrate that you believe it. And believe me, if it's really 10-30% faster, people would download it. So, I could go on in detail about all of the other features, but that would be another techie mistake... :) Gotta stay on-message.
RedHat is the de facto linux, and linux is the de facto "free-nix". I'm not defending the wisdom of that, just observing it. Take note, BSD, Stampede, et al: This situation will never change till your platform/technology/distribution-channel convinces customers that it offers benefits that overwhelm the benefit of using the one that everybody else does. And saying, for example a la OpenBSD, "we're more security conscious and therefore more secure" is not enough. Because RedHat+linux+GNU is pretty darn secure anyway. There are tons of em out there, and they're not all hacked every day: they're secure enough. A "customer benefit" must be something (a) unique to a product and (b) that fills a "customer need", i.e. in the case of security, customers need to need more security in order for the feature to be a benefit.
Then, the rest is just noise. Open/free source developers work for the psychic benefit. Where's the fun in working on something that nobody's using? In this atmosphere, normal disagreements are going to explode into "I quit" disagreements because there is nothing else holding the team together. Except the friendship that they've vowed to keep.
Meeting customer needs, this is key. Everything else revolves around marketing.
Re:why this happened (Score:2)
The part I don't buy is, if the objective was learning and you succeeded, what is the disappointment and frustration that I and everyone else here detects in the resignation email? You'd feel good and rewarded if you acheived your goal, wouldn't you? Anyway, forgive me if I implied that you didn't achieve your personal goals, or that the project had failed to meet any of its planned goals: I was proposing that if Stampede had stampeded with users, I think the team would stay together, and I outlined where I think the marketing vision went wrong.
And this "marketing vision" brings me to the point that I didn't make clear. It's sort of the opposite of "we never really made any attempts at outward marketing." I was trying to present a more broadly encompassing view of
It starts with- deciding what goes into the "product", and runs through
- making it available and
- informing people about it,
- figuring out why people who hear about it don't download,
- helping people who do download and have trouble, and
- following up with people who try it and attempting to fix what they don't like.
By this definition, as soon as you put up a link that says "download", you're marketing. Now, I'm not trying to say that you expected to defeat RedHat... but, why not? If it took off, that would be a distinct possibility.So, while the group did engage in a number of marketing activities, it ignored some that are extremely important, and I think hurt itself. Don't get me wrong, there's no shame in any of this. Heck, putting together a distro that works is quite an accomplishment: kudos! But other people and organizations have made some of the same mistakes before and I thought it would be worthwhile to point out how this situation appears to the MBA mind: believe it or not, all of this stuff gets classified as "marketing." I wanted to throw it up here for Slashdotters to know how the "enemy" (in the form of VCs, for example) thinks, and in hopes that it might help some project out there better to succeed at its goals.
Re:why this happened (Score:2)
Linux would not exist today if that argument mattered to any of the developers.
Linux was marketed to developers by offering benefits to them that the available alternatives did not: source code that you were free to modify. Since the widespread acceptance of RedHat Linux, several other camps have indicated to me that they care what the flies think. The "lesser" distributions of linux such as debian seem to want more people to adopt their platform, and some other unices (the BSD's, HURD, et al) seem to want more people to adopt theirs. I was offering them helpful tips to those people as to how to attract more users.
Users? Whether you define the market to be "lusers" or "developers" is important, but not to the point I was making. You think developers are all that matters. You may be right. But if that's true, My argument still holds, 100%: if a platform wishes to win among developers, it must do so by communicating to the developers in the language of benefits, not features. Think of of all the features that HURD has... why don't you use it? Because, what are its benefits, compared to the benefits offered by RedHat Linux? Till it has more benefits, its features will sit on the shelf (and not that many shelves, either).
Re:why this happened (Score:2)
The goals for the project, listed on the about page, are RedHat's goals, the customers are potential RedHat customers. So, forgive me, I know you don't like to think of it as competing, but there's no other word for it: the markets overlap just about 100%
Peace. And good luck in your next endeavor!
Re:Sigh. [Off Topic] (Score:1)
There's a reason I browse at +3.
-RickHunter
GNU/Linux :) (Score:1)
That last remark, in the article's signature, seems like a nice place to pull gossip from:
Jacob MoormanFormer Assistant Head Developer, Stampede Linux (or Stampede GNU/Linux)
Now, those 22 people didn't resign because the others wanted them to call it GNU/Linux all the time, did they? Just wondering :).
Pi
Re:hmmm. optimized debian? (Score:1)
Re:You didn't quote, you trolled (Score:1)
Re:a part left out.. (Score:1)
a part left out.. (Score:3)
It should be noted that all of the people listed on the resignation letter were not active developers, only 5 have actually contributed recently to the project, and at least 1 has never actually used Stampede Linux, but rather is affiliated to another developer through personal relations.
Sounds to me like this changes the story at least somewhat.
Short Amount of Time (Score:4)
I hope these managers can find some one really good, or they may loose this product.
Brother Can You Spare A Dime? new economy version (Score:1)
Once I built a network, I made it run
I made it race against time
Once I built a network, now it's done
Brother, can you paradigm?
Once I built an OS, just like Sun
Bits and coders and lines
Once I built a OS, now it's done
Brother, can you paradigm?
There are two more stanzas for which I can't think of anything just yet. Look here [ukans.edu] for the original words. Once I've burnt up all my karma, I think I may quit /.
Current leadership model... my ass. (Score:1)
Re:OTGet it right (Score:1)
BSD is far from dying.....
Re:Sigh. [Off Topic] (Score:1)
I'm sure we all agree anonymity means being able to conceal one's identity. To me, it also means selflessness - accepting (not necessarily agreeing with) other people regardless of who they are. This second, less common definition of anonymity, rings a lot truer to me.
On /. we have this "noise filter" that has essentially contributed to making a monster of each of us. Nobody wants their voice silenced by posting at 1, so we do what it takes to be treated as equals. If /. were truly an anonymous forum (see my second definition), it is likely that far fewer of us would be exhibiting this behavior.
I am speaking for myself, perhaps some others will identify with this. How many times have I read an article on /. and thought, "what is an insightful or informative response?". The next question I ask myself after realizing all my reponses would be redundant: "OK, what will be funny?" Translation: "how can I increase my karma by posting?". How many time have I thought to myself "Dang, that is what I was going to post".
On one of my other UIDs I felt the other side of the moderation system. I made a funny post and got marked down. The first post under that UID. Very discouraging. See with that post, the moderation system made me an outsider. As a geek, my answer to rejection is rebellion. Perhaps this effect has a bit to do with trolling and grits et.al.
And no, I won't jump on the Slashdot-is-dead bandwagon, either. This thing is what we make of it, well, what we make of what those andover boys think is appropriate "News for Nerds, stuff that matters". There's that rebellion kicking in again =)
Bitching about the moderation system isn't going to change things either. My first UID is < 20000 and people have been bitching ever since I've been around here. I'll bet they were bitching before I got here too, hence the "new" moderation system. Aboloshing moderation altogether just might change things...but that's a whole other post.
Re:on the off topic... I wonder... (Score:1)
No, linux stocks disproportinately down (Score:1)
For CALD, the reason is simepl - they simply aren't a significant player, and they were late to IPO.
For LNUX, it departed from reality the moment the price got above $60. Anyone who got involved in buying that stock over $100 wasn't even gambling - at least in gambling there is a small chance you will win - over $100, LNUX was assured of tanking, 100% assured with no chance of doing anything else.
Yes, LNUX heading for single digits (Score:1)
Lets get one thing straight - we are entering a bear market. A huge number of companies are about to go bye-bye, some of them will be names you have come to think of as permanent fixtures. LNUX is clearly at the top of the list, by virtue of its incredible negative momentum. Lets face it - by rights they probably had no business going public for at least another two years. They went public as a glorified chop shop and used their stock as currency to buy up companies that might give them a better chance than the other countless PC chop shops in any strip mall out there. But the companies they bought really only made their prospects even riskier. Andover is not the type of company you acquire to shore up an already ridiculous stock price.
Of course, its not VA's fault that investors chose to chase LNUX up so high, and I hope thatin their board meetings, H&Q were advising them to look for a sub-billion valuation in the future. If expectations continue to be high, LNUX management will slowly move on in the next few months as expectations fall apart.
They may fall further than you want (Score:1)
You should note that momentum implies a difficulty in stopping.
It is not impossible that a protracted LNUX slide (which chould happen in a long bear market) could see the stock delisted.
Re:It is in trouble... (Score:1)
stock market == real world
Thanks for letting us in on that revelation.
Attention idiot... (Score:1)
Now look at VA-all that increase in stock value was due to people zealously buying for a piece of the pie. Then when it peaked a bunch of people started selling figuring they'd got their profits and now it was time to go home, so it dropped a bit. Then the last people to buy before the peak freak out because they are losing money and sell all they've got. So it drops more. So more people freak out because it looks like an unhealthy company, even though the only reason they are losing money is because so many people are deciding they want out and VA is paying them, and now these people all want out dropping the price still further. Repeat ad infinitum, until the company is bankrupt and has 0 remaining shareholders.
If neither Red Hat nor VA had gone public none of this would have happened and they would still be quite financially successful companies.
So the stock market is about as far from the real world as anything can get.
Have you taken a finance class or just get your econmic theory from M$ yes-men?
Considering you can't spell economic I would say you're in no position to lecture me on economics. And your grammar sucks too.
Re:Check your facts before screaming, kiddo (Score:1)
Re:why this happened (Score:1)
Not if everybody inside thought it all sucked.
I used to work at a restaurant owned by some family friends and it was quite a successful place. But I thought the style of management sucked and I and many others were constantly dissatisfied. Whether or not this restaurant was "stampeding with users" was irrelevant because we were being mismanaged and essentially disconnected from caring about the success or failure of the business we were at. Hell, most of us would be happiest if it had gone out of business so we didn't have to quit.
So if Stampede had been the most successful distro, but most of the people involved felt that they weren't doing what they set out to do, this would still happen.
Suggested Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
What is the significance of these developers resigning from Stampede?