What's Canonical thinking about Bazaar?

[Patrick Regan]

I know that I'm bringing up this topic, yet again, but I've been
silently watching this mailing list for a few days now (I'm hoping to
start helping with documentation in the coming week or so), and I feel
I should add my two cents as a causual user of bzr.

I personally could care less about how Canonical wishes to brand Bazaar.

I want a tool that works. I want a tool that is easy to use. I want a
tool that doesn't require a lot of adaptation of my workflow. These
are THE most important things I want. I would venture a guess that
those who don't care about internals of said tools would feel very
similar.

I am not rich, so free helps; I love open source so I'd prefer that,
but ultimately, if it does those three things above, that's my choice.
I don't care if I have to pay some money, I don't care if it's
corporately backed. I just want it to work.

Fortunately, bzr is wonderful for me. I love open source and rarely
has it let me down. As much as I'd like to be an idealist, life gets
in the way. If Canonical wants to brand it their product, but it's
still good, I don't care.

I may be unique in this view, but I think you'd find that there are
others who would think similarly (especially those who will NOT read
this mailing list). Most users are not religious. Even those who love
and use Open Source. I don't have hard data, but I would venture a
guess that most users of Linux have some proprietary application
installed and they don't think twice (ie. flash, drivers). Why would
it matter to them if this package is sponsored by Canonical vs branded
by Canonical?

As far as development goes: I am now only just getting started as an
Open Source developer, and really I'm just trying to focus on the
documentation, but as long as I am treated fairly, my contributions
are taken into consideration, and I'm seen as a member of the
community, then I don't care if a corporation is behind the community
or not. I don't even care if my patches are not as high priority as
the corporations. The project has to survive somehow, and if that
means a corp. is paying the bills, then they deserve a little special
attention.

If those who are afraid of this change are afraid of a corp. "taking
over" and not engaging the community, it has happened with "community"
projects as well. That and I'd like to see the track record of
Canonical not engaging the community before I'd listen to fears.

Again, I'm a newbie to this mailing list and to contributing in
general, but that's how I feel about this subject.

Pat

On 11/5/09, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
>  > > Sure.  That doesn't mean that "corporate product" is meaningless in
>  > > marketing.
>  >
>  > I really don't know how you'd read what I've been saying as implying
>  > anything like that.
>
> How could I not?  You've given no reasons why "community project" is
> better than "corporate product", you've just assumed it is a primary
> goal as far as I can see.  You've ignored Martin's request for an
> explanation of what "community ownership" means.  (I suppose I could
> take that as a compliment to my own post on the subject.... ;-)
>
>  > Anyway, I'm sure others are as tired of this thread as I am. If the
>  > PTB at Canonical haven't heard the concerns raised yet, I doubt
>  > further input from me in this thread is going to make it happen.
>  > I'll wait for further developments (and respond as appropriate at
>  > that time).
>
> That's probably best, but while you're waiting, please think about how
> to present your position to non-KoolAid-drinkers like Martin.  He
> seems genuinely puzzled about what you're on about.
>
>


-- 
Patrick Regan
Email: regan.patrick at gmail.com
Phone: (330) 576-4044