[Gnu-arch-users] Re: The future of GNU Arch users

[James Blackwell]

> > Why would you distribute the sources to proprietary software? 
> 
> I don't see why not. Here are some use cases:
> - I have a small project of no interest to general public, and no
>   practical value to anybody other than myself; or


If the software has no value to anyone but yourself, is there any need to
distribute? Surely you can keep a copy with you, perhaps on a usb flash
device.


> - I work for a distributed company, with developers in various parts of
>   the world. And some of the developers have dial-up access only

A distributed company certainly has the resources to support their
employees -- even if it's a $250 a month colocation facility. You seem to
address this below, so I'll go into more depth down there.

> > 
> > If you're writing proprietary software then presumibly you have an income
> > flow. If you have an income flow, then you can pay someone for hosting. :)
> 
> Income flow may be "potential", while the expenses are "real".
> Nevertheless, the expenses should be kept low...

This is a fair enough reason. Lets take it for granted that there is a
need for free hosting for proprietary software.  This still doesn't extend
an obligation for anyone to provide it. Bandwidth must be provisioned for,
machines must be purchased, administration time and even the costs of
electricity and space must be accounted for. 

In other words, hosting something is not free -- somebody ultimately has
to pay for it. I've always been happy to help people out that are
improving social conditions in some way (primarily free software but
occasionally charities as well).  Many other people (and companies) has
this view as well. In a world of limited resources people only have only a
certain amount of reseources available at any given time. 

Why take something of value and give it to somebody that's trying to make
a buck? The return on supporting things like charities and free software
is that the investment improves society, which helps all members.  What is
the return on investment in supporting someone that is going to turn
around, lock you out and charge you for something that you helped at their
most desperate?



> It is much easier (and cheaper) to find someone to host files accessible
> with FTP or HTTP rather than "my_favourite_source_control_system_protocol".


Heh. I had almost forgotten the original point of this talk. Your problem
is that bzr doesn't support pushing yet. You're absolutely right;
bazaar-ng is missing core features that are required for most, if not all
reasons. 

This, along with a number of other, equally important, things remain to be
done. The developers are well aware of the irony of a distributed revision
control system that doesn't distribute. =) The Rsync setup is a temporary
work-around while even more improtant things are being worked on.

Be patient. These things will come in time (I ask for push support in
bazaar-ng frequently so you have no need to worry that they'll forget that
its needed!)

> I guess what I am trying to say is: Having a dumb file server as a
> storage for SCM is a great feature, and it should be extended to the
> point of being fully usable.
> 

I deeply agree. :) 

> Why is it great:
> - Many ISPs offer "free web storage", why not use it.
> - I would not depend on sourcecontrol.net to host my projects
> - I could post (and share) proprietary SW with tele-coworkers
> 

Makre sure you get the ISP to support digest so that your secrets are
safe.
-- 
 James Blackwell      |   Try out the blog planet for revision control
 Tell someone a joke! |   at http://planet.revisioncontrol.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400