3 ms·

IMO large number of apache projects are in 2 categories: 1) First try out in open source. If it gets popular, develop commercial package around open version +

by geodel 10y ago

IMO large number of apache projects are in 2 categories: 1) First try out in open source. If it gets popular, develop commercial package around open version + extra/proprietary feature or support while open source version is relegated to experiment or lab evaluation in companies. 2) First offer a commercial offering. Once it is proven to be failed or non-strategic or both, donate to Apache foundation. None of that is bad per se but it makes me feel very many apache projects are of middling quality and riding on vendor driven hype.

rectang 10y ago
One of the best things about the ASF is that technical governance stops at the Project Management Committee (PMC) level. There is no steering committee sitting in judgment of your project or telling you what to do. The Board's writ extends to community oversight, but not technical oversight. The ASF believes that emphasizing community tends to produce excellent software on average. Gating projects or otherwise interfering based on somebody's arbitrary judgment of quality would be be foreign, and would in fact impede the freedom of projects to develop according to the best judgment of the individuals actually doing the work.
- geodel 10y ago
  Sure, I think apache is mainly about legal/project management best practices. Let the committers/contributors care about engineering quality.
teddyh 10y ago
I had that feeling about the Apache Foundation, but I also saw that they had a lot of projects which seemed to be important, even if most of them seemed to be heavily oriented towards large enterprise-style Java-based things, which I haven't had much use for myself. Then they took on OpenOffice, and lost what little of my respect they still had. Background: OpenOffice used to be the go-to Microsoft Office compatible free software suite for Linux and other Unix-based systems. Then some politics happened and it forked to LibreOffice, and essentially all the developers left for LibreOffice, which is where the development happens today. However, the company still legally owning the OpenOffice code, and the name, still try their darnedest to get people to still use the rapidly-failing OpenOffice, to convince new developers that this is the same OpenOffice that they once knew, etc. (They have had a booth with staff at every FOSDEM for many years now, often conveniently located right beside the LibreOffice booth.) For the Apache Foundation to accept OpenOffice as a project in this situation is unacceptable. Predictably, the aforementioned company tries to play up the Apache Foundation connection at every opportunity, trying to imply that since it's an Apache Foundation project, it is therefore a serious and still active software project.
- jimjag 10y ago
  So much incorrect in the above I don't know where to start... what "aforementioned company" are you talking about? You imply it's a company that "own(s) the OpenOffice code, and the name", but it's the ASF that "owns these" not whatever company you seem to be implying. I would suggest getting your facts right before posting things... it makes one look kinda foolish.
  - teddyh 10y ago
    Maybe they don't own the name (i.e. trademark); it’s not very important to overall accuracy of the summary. It’s also very odd of you to ask what company it is – shouldn’t you, of all people, know? I left the name out because it’s not important what company it is.
- vorg 10y ago
  I didn't know much about the ASF until they took in (Apache) Groovy last year, into the incubator in May and as a top-level project in November. ASF bent or broke many of their standards to accommodate Groovy... Most Groovy links at apache.org redirect to groovy-lang.org, which is privately owned by a single individual. He also keeps his own mailing list which he claims has more subscribers than the official Groovy users list at Apache. Access to the old mailing list history was obscured and made difficult. The Groovy build system mainly runs on a separate server somewhere in Germany, with only minimal interaction with the Apache process. The Groovy brand was changed from referring to a spec to referring to their particular implementation, something which I challenge. Based on that sample size of 1, I wouldn't be suprised if ASF bent or broke their standards to accommodate many other projects they take in.
  - humbedooh 10y ago
    I may seem that way, but the whois database is just plain wrong :) The ASF owns and manages groovy-lang.org.
    - jimjag 10y ago

by geodel 10y ago

rectang 10y ago

One of the best things about the ASF is that technical governance stops at the Project Management Committee (PMC) level. There is no steering committee sitting in judgment of your project or telling you what to do. The Board's writ extends to community oversight, but not technical oversight. The ASF believes that emphasizing community tends to produce excellent software on average. Gating projects or otherwise interfering based on somebody's arbitrary judgment of quality would be be foreign, and would in fact impede the freedom of projects to develop according to the best judgment of the individuals actually doing the work.

geodel 10y ago
Sure, I think apache is mainly about legal/project management best practices. Let the committers/contributors care about engineering quality.

teddyh 10y ago

I had that feeling about the Apache Foundation, but I also saw that they had a lot of projects which seemed to be important, even if most of them seemed to be heavily oriented towards large enterprise-style Java-based things, which I haven't had much use for myself. Then they took on OpenOffice, and lost what little of my respect they still had. Background: OpenOffice used to be the go-to Microsoft Office compatible free software suite for Linux and other Unix-based systems. Then some politics happened and it forked to LibreOffice, and essentially all the developers left for LibreOffice, which is where the development happens today. However, the company still legally owning the OpenOffice code, and the name, still try their darnedest to get people to still use the rapidly-failing OpenOffice, to convince new developers that this is the same OpenOffice that they once knew, etc. (They have had a booth with staff at every FOSDEM for many years now, often conveniently located right beside the LibreOffice booth.) For the Apache Foundation to accept OpenOffice as a project in this situation is unacceptable. Predictably, the aforementioned company tries to play up the Apache Foundation connection at every opportunity, trying to imply that since it's an Apache Foundation project, it is therefore a serious and still active software project.

jimjag 10y ago
So much incorrect in the above I don't know where to start... what "aforementioned company" are you talking about? You imply it's a company that "own(s) the OpenOffice code, and the name", but it's the ASF that "owns these" not whatever company you seem to be implying. I would suggest getting your facts right before posting things... it makes one look kinda foolish.
- teddyh 10y ago
  Maybe they don't own the name (i.e. trademark); it’s not very important to overall accuracy of the summary. It’s also very odd of you to ask what company it is – shouldn’t you, of all people, know? I left the name out because it’s not important what company it is.
vorg 10y ago
I didn't know much about the ASF until they took in (Apache) Groovy last year, into the incubator in May and as a top-level project in November. ASF bent or broke many of their standards to accommodate Groovy... Most Groovy links at apache.org redirect to groovy-lang.org, which is privately owned by a single individual. He also keeps his own mailing list which he claims has more subscribers than the official Groovy users list at Apache. Access to the old mailing list history was obscured and made difficult. The Groovy build system mainly runs on a separate server somewhere in Germany, with only minimal interaction with the Apache process. The Groovy brand was changed from referring to a spec to referring to their particular implementation, something which I challenge. Based on that sample size of 1, I wouldn't be suprised if ASF bent or broke their standards to accommodate many other projects they take in.
- humbedooh 10y ago
  I may seem that way, but the whois database is just plain wrong :) The ASF owns and manages groovy-lang.org.
  - jimjag 10y ago