2 ms·

If you look at Gitlab, the intent is similar to yours and is no different. Just that the brand is managed much better. For example, Runner is an open source pr

If you look at Gitlab, the intent is similar to yours and is no different. Just that the brand is managed much better. For example, Runner is an open source project that is used to run CI jobs. https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ . Omnibus is packaging tool (https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html) and Gitlab is the git tool itself. If you peek at the top right corner of the documentation site, you will see these three big headings. Here are your gitlab clients - https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ (including all the native apps) Gitlab CE is the open source software. This is similar to you having riot. Gitlab.com is the hosting service - similar to you having modular. There is no difference in intent or licensing... im talking about brand. For the end-user, the benefit in incalculable - one website (and Google search keyword) to find out all the options and all the information. I send people to Gitlab.com if they want to run it themselves OR if they want to buy the hosting service. In fact, Gitlab had org vs com domains for open source vs paid software .. when they then merged (https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/ https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/) There is no reason for you to identify Vector.im as separate from Riot.im as separate from Modular.im . For me as an end-user, it doesnt matter - Riot.im could have a link to download and a link to host and a link for about us. It is not about inevitability - you are outwardly branding stuff separately that is not needed and can be unified under a single umbrella to reduce confusion.

detaro 8y ago
The intent is different. Gitlab wants to distribute and sell one unified thing, Matrix wants it to be clear the pieces are just that: pieces you can interchange with others. It's not important to how Gitlab represents itself to the outside that you maybe could replace Omnibus or the Runner with other software, for Matrix it's important.
- sandGorgon 8y ago
  There is only one piece of software that is componentized and named here - riot.im which is a client. Your argument is a straw man argument because I don't see websites for Synapse or Dendrite..which is their core server. That is still part of matrix.org . Vector is the name of their company and modular is the name of their hosting service. So the argument about representation doesn't stand. The brand theory still holds.

detaro 8y ago

The intent is different. Gitlab wants to distribute and sell one unified thing, Matrix wants it to be clear the pieces are just that: pieces you can interchange with others. It's not important to how Gitlab represents itself to the outside that you maybe could replace Omnibus or the Runner with other software, for Matrix it's important.

sandGorgon 8y ago
There is only one piece of software that is componentized and named here - riot.im which is a client. Your argument is a straw man argument because I don't see websites for Synapse or Dendrite..which is their core server. That is still part of matrix.org . Vector is the name of their company and modular is the name of their hosting service. So the argument about representation doesn't stand. The brand theory still holds.