Home | Gallery | Forum | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com Forum
OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum.
Index / Public Discussions / General Discussion
author message
The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
21. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
There is another dynamic to consider. As it stands at least a portion of the project is GPL, open source. What are people getting when they pay for a subscription? Access to pre-built, supported binaries? Access to the closed-source driver? Access to secret build instructions? Priority development for their hardware? Or just an understanding that they are sponsoring further development? What do non-paying users get? How will the existence of "subscriptions" impact the incentive to independently contribute code, and vice-versa?
Date: 21 Feb, 2007 on 20:56
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
22. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
If I go with the OpenOffice model, I think sponsors should have

(a) a sponsor id, password access to a support website with the developer hopefully trying to fix their problem.
(b) sponsors will get access to latest version of the driver or programme. Non sponsors will get the last version that is not sponsored.
(c ) Since the code is open source, it should remain so. However, sponsors get prebuilt versions while non sponsors do not.
(d) If independent developers want to contribute code, they can still have access to the source tree. The disadvantage is that there will be different versions of the same programme or driver. Personally, I don't think there are that many OS/2 developers out there that this will actually be a problem.

cytan



obiwan (21 Feb, 2007 20:56):
There is another dynamic to consider. As it stands at least a portion of the project is GPL, open source. What are people getting when they pay for a subscription? Access to pre-built, supported binaries? Access to the closed-source driver? Access to secret build instructions? Priority development for their hardware? Or just an understanding that they are sponsoring further development? What do non-paying users get? How will the existence of "subscriptions" impact the incentive to independently contribute code, and vice-versa?
Date: 21 Feb, 2007 on 22:41
Warp5
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 29
since: 14 Dec, 2002
23. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

cytan (21 Feb, 2007 20:09):
Hi all,
If Robert (WARP5) or Adrian Gerschwend can post their thoughts here about the proposal, the ball can definitely start rolling.

Don't expect Adrian to comment, as he will be leaving for an extra long vacation in march and is busy finishing the setup of the new server, and I am happy about that! Subversion access is a lot faster now and this is important for developers. Let me once again thank the community for donating enough money so that netlabs.org could purchase the server.

I will post my thoughts as reply to the other posts.

Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 08:48
Warp5
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 29
since: 14 Dec, 2002
24. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

There is another dynamic to consider.

I would say there are lots of open question! That's why I created the wiki entry, because I cannot keep track of all of them in my head. (I already added to proposal with subscription to the wiki)


As it stands at least a portion of the project is GPL, open source. What are people getting when they pay for a subscription?

I don't want to get into the license discussion, that's why I will assume that all the code is GPL even if some modules are not, meaning that we have to publish the source. (we would not have to publish binaries, but if we do, we have to publish the source as well)

As it stands, I would say people are getting development. They are getting a person that replies to bug reports and that produces binaries. They get a person that will listen to feature requests. I would say, they are paying for development.

And btw, I am not sure a subscription model is the right one to use! I have my personal problems with subscriptions, some of them are related to how recent subscription in the OS/2 community (for example OpenOffice) have been handled. Time periods are usually unpredictable, as unforeseen problem arise. I think we should also look into a model where people pay for milestones separately. I know this involves more overhead in management but at least we should discuss this.


Access to pre-built, supported binaries?

This raises the question, if pre-built drivers should only be available for subscription customers. I don't really think thats a good idea. But maybe we have to go that way.
I think we can make a difference between a driver, and a supported driver, that is, we could technically "sell" the support and give away the driver.


Access to the closed-source driver?

I don't consider that an option. Netlabs.org is about open source projects.


Access to secret build instructions?

I don't think that build instructions should be secret. For UniAudio and WarpVision, they kind of are, but that is only because we did a bad job in documenting that. If you ask me, every person should be able to build netlabs.org projects themselves.


Priority development for their hardware?

That is an interesting point. I would say, people should be able to vote for their preferred milestone/ supported hardware with the money they spend.


Or just an understanding that they are sponsoring further development?

In the ideal world, that would be enough, right?! People are happy to pay to have stuff developed. Not sure if that alone will do...


What do non-paying users get?

They get a driver, just like paying customer. I see your point here, the next question will be: Why should I pay if I get it for free?

So we have to come up with some sort of advantage for people that pay. I would say, the ability to get support is one possibility. The next would be voting for supported hardware or features. Maybe we can add some more points.


How will the existence of "subscriptions" impact the incentive to independently contribute code, and vice-versa?

Wow. I never thought of that. Let me get back to that later.

Thanks for the very valid points, I will work them into the wiki, or you could do it...

Robert

Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 09:17
Warp5
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 29
since: 14 Dec, 2002
25. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

cytan (21 Feb, 2007 22:41):
If I go with the OpenOffice model, I think sponsors should have
(a) a sponsor id, password access to a support website with the developer hopefully trying to fix their problem.

OK, so people that pay get support. I am fine with that, makes sense! Having a userID and password makes it complicated. This requires a person to actively maintain that. I don't think I have to stress the fact that netlabs.org does not have such a person.

However, if this is absolutely required to make the subscription model work, then we have to do it.


(b) sponsors will get access to latest version of the driver or programme. Non sponsors will get the last version that is not sponsored.

Yea, or let me put it that way: Sponsors get access to beta and test versions, while non paying people get only access to the release versions. (of course, then we could simply delay the release versions and annoy people )


(c ) Since the code is open source, it should remain so. However, sponsors get prebuilt versions while non sponsors do not.

Does this imply that non sponsors get only the source code, no binary at all?


(d) If independent developers want to contribute code, they can still have access to the source tree. The disadvantage is that there will be different versions of the same programme or driver. Personally, I don't think there are that many OS/2 developers out there that this will actually be a problem.

I agree. I still have not thought much about the impact for other developers....
Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 09:26
Warp5
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 29
since: 14 Dec, 2002
26. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I have drafted out one idea in the wiki, please scroll all the way to the bottom of the page:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php/UniAudio_Development
Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 10:04
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
27. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I've read the wiki and agree with most of what you wrote. However, I don't see the point of paying $1 to vote for the milestones. Why?

I also don't see how putting money into milestones help simplify management. I would suggest sponsors can suggest milestones but these potential milestones are consolidated and voted on by sponsors either once a year or half a year. After the votes, they become new milestones. I think this should keep milestones under control or else it will always be a moving target for the developer.

Personally, I think there are enough bugs/improvements in Warpvision to keep a developer busy for 6 months!

cytan


Warp5 (22 Feb, 2007 10:04):
I have drafted out one idea in the wiki, please scroll all the way to the bottom of the page:
http://wiki.netlabs.org/index.php/UniAudio_Development[/quote]
Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 20:40
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
28. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

Warp5 (22 Feb, 2007 09:26):


(c ) Since the code is open source, it should remain so. However, sponsors get prebuilt versions while non sponsors do not.

Does this imply that non sponsors get only the source code, no binary at all?


Yes, that's the privilege for putting money in . Perhaps binaries are posted for non-sponsors every Christmas .

Date: 22 Feb, 2007 on 20:46
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
29. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
So for access to the latest development sources (required to contribute code) one must buy a subscription which pays another developer for meeting a milestone made possible by the code contribution.

If the primary developer will lose a milestone payment to someone else if he has not personally done the work, is he less likely to apply "outside" code contributions? Who would be the judge of whom is paid for which milestone?

Just a couple questions that come to mind immediately. I could come up with more. While the strategy so far seems reasonable for collecting funds, it does not yet address the question of attracting "multiple eyes" to the project.

Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 00:01
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
30. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
The subscription model really only works if there is *ONE* developer or *ONE* team hired to work on the code. There should be one guy who either works alone or leads a team of developers who will be paid per milestone. I don't think the sponsors can be the arbiter of whether the code is copied from outside contributions. The hired developer is responsible to work out the details if he wants to incorporate code from someone else.

We really don't want to make things too complicated or else this will not work despite all our good intentions.

cytan



obiwan (23 Feb, 2007 00:01):
So for access to the latest development sources (required to contribute code) one must buy a subscription which pays another developer for meeting a milestone made possible by the code contribution.

If the primary developer will lose a milestone payment to someone else if he has not personally done the work, is he less likely to apply "outside" code contributions? Who would be the judge of whom is paid for which milestone?

Just a couple questions that come to mind immediately. I could come up with more. While the strategy so far seems reasonable for collecting funds, it does not yet address the question of attracting "multiple eyes" to the project.


Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 04:01
Warp5
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 29
since: 14 Dec, 2002
31. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (23 Feb, 2007 00:01):
So for access to the latest development sources (required to contribute code) one must buy a subscription which pays another developer for meeting a milestone made possible by the code contribution.

No, that is not correct, and also not possible by the GPL I would say. The code will always be freely available in the SVN repository. Everybody can use it and fork it or branch off a different tree.
Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 10:04
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
32. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I understand that under GPL the code must be made available. However, correct me if I'm wrong, the source can be made available when it is done. It'll make zero sense if code under flux is always released.

cytan



Warp5 (23 Feb, 2007 10:04):

obiwan (23 Feb, 2007 00:01):
So for access to the latest development sources (required to contribute code) one must buy a subscription which pays another developer for meeting a milestone made possible by the code contribution.

No, that is not correct, and also not possible by the GPL I would say. The code will always be freely available in the SVN repository. Everybody can use it and fork it or branch off a different tree.
Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 16:23
DavidG
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 171
since: 04 Apr, 2004
33. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
[quote]cytan (23 Feb, 2007 16:23):
I understand that under GPL the code must be made available. However, correct me if I'm wrong, the source can be made available when it is done. It'll make zero sense if code under flux is always released.

cytan


Isn't that why you have trunk and branches in cvs and snv?

However, you would still need a developer to be resposible for the direction of the code. For instance, Steven Levine oversees the development of FM/2 which others contribute code to. Paul Ratcliffe oversees the development of XWP and its code updates.

DavidG

Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 18:22
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
34. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

DavidG (23 Feb, 2007 18:22):

Isn't that why you have trunk and branches in cvs and snv?


Yes. But CVS and SNV has access control. Not everyone can just upload code into the tree.



However, you would still need a developer to be resposible for the direction of the code. For instance, Steven Levine oversees the development of FM/2 which others contribute code to. Paul Ratcliffe oversees the development of XWP and its code updates.

DavidG



I'm assuming that Paul and Steven are donating their time and effort in this. In the case of UNIAUD and WarpVision, I think that we have to follow the OpenOffice model. I assume that SSI will at some point send the OS/2 source back to OpenOffice. I believe SSI does have one person who is overall in charge and paid to do the port.

cytan

Date: 23 Feb, 2007 on 18:34
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
35. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Anonymous read-only access to a Subversion repository is public access to source code that is in flux. If anyone is to do anything with the source, they have to have the very latest source, even up to the minute, or they can end up repeating work or risk doing something that breaks. That doesn't mean you want anonymous public write access to SVN, that would be bad.

The GPL does not mean the latest development sources must be made available if there are no public builds, but it is best that they are.

Talking about how paid, unpaid, official, and "single-patch" developers are to fit into the scenario might seem complicated, but it is at least as important as how users sponsor and influence development, which also can be perceived as complicated.

Development, after all, must be done by developers. Funding is only for the purpose of furthering development, and not the end in itself. My concern is designing a payment/voting system too complicated and rigid to promote and invite open development. This project is sufficiently different from OO.org that a copy of its model isn't necessarily a good fit.

Remember that the solution isn't just to substitute for Adrian's money but to also free it from the constraints of the single-paid-developer-only model.

Date: 24 Feb, 2007 on 02:43
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
36. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I agree that making things too complicated will not get us what we ultimately want: a usable UNIAUD and Warpvision. We cannot be the first group of people who want to sponsor the development of programmes in a controlled fashion. Anyone out there who knows of a model that is workable?

cytan


obiwan (24 Feb, 2007 02:43):
Development, after all, must be done by developers. Funding is only for the purpose of furthering development, and not the end in itself. My concern is designing a payment/voting system too complicated and rigid to promote and invite open development. This project is sufficiently different from OO.org that a copy of its model isn't necessarily a good fit.

Remember that the solution isn't just to substitute for Adrian's money but to also free it from the constraints of the single-paid-developer-only model.


Date: 24 Feb, 2007 on 03:04
Sebadoh
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.newterrasoftware.com
posts: 198
since: 10 Apr, 2001
37. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I agree, my original statement of a subscription was more of a joke then anything else, I originally said I would be willing to get in at a decent cost of entry (say 30-40 dollars) and then pay another 20-30 for each milestone. I mean, the costs would have to be worked out and I am just working off the top of my head but however I would be willing to offer more for warpvision then for uniaud, as much as we need Uniaud, currently I have working sound and a half working video player (grin). I think the milestone method would also encourage individual developers to contribute instead of hurt it. Since there is something to be gained from their efforts even if they are not the lead programmer. Pay them for features instead of time. This also makes people not take on more then they can chew because going down a long unproductive road wouldn't make them any money.


Warp5 (22 Feb, 2007 09:17):

There is another dynamic to consider.

I would say there are lots of open question! That's why I created the wiki entry, because I cannot keep track of all of them in my head. (I already added to proposal with subscription to the wiki)


As it stands at least a portion of the project is GPL, open source. What are people getting when they pay for a subscription?

I don't want to get into the license discussion, that's why I will assume that all the code is GPL even if some modules are not, meaning that we have to publish the source. (we would not have to publish binaries, but if we do, we have to publish the source as well)

As it stands, I would say people are getting development. They are getting a person that replies to bug reports and that produces binaries. They get a person that will listen to feature requests. I would say, they are paying for development.

And btw, I am not sure a subscription model is the right one to use! I have my personal problems with subscriptions, some of them are related to how recent subscription in the OS/2 community (for example OpenOffice) have been handled. Time periods are usually unpredictable, as unforeseen problem arise. I think we should also look into a model where people pay for milestones separately. I know this involves more overhead in management but at least we should discuss this.


Access to pre-built, supported binaries?

This raises the question, if pre-built drivers should only be available for subscription customers. I don't really think thats a good idea. But maybe we have to go that way.
I think we can make a difference between a driver, and a supported driver, that is, we could technically "sell" the support and give away the driver.


Access to the closed-source driver?

I don't consider that an option. Netlabs.org is about open source projects.


Access to secret build instructions?

I don't think that build instructions should be secret. For UniAudio and WarpVision, they kind of are, but that is only because we did a bad job in documenting that. If you ask me, every person should be able to build netlabs.org projects themselves.


Priority development for their hardware?

That is an interesting point. I would say, people should be able to vote for their preferred milestone/ supported hardware with the money they spend.


Or just an understanding that they are sponsoring further development?

In the ideal world, that would be enough, right?! People are happy to pay to have stuff developed. Not sure if that alone will do...


What do non-paying users get?

They get a driver, just like paying customer. I see your point here, the next question will be: Why should I pay if I get it for free?

So we have to come up with some sort of advantage for people that pay. I would say, the ability to get support is one possibility. The next would be voting for supported hardware or features. Maybe we can add some more points.


How will the existence of "subscriptions" impact the incentive to independently contribute code, and vice-versa?

Wow. I never thought of that. Let me get back to that later.

Thanks for the very valid points, I will work them into the wiki, or you could do it...

Robert


Date: 24 Feb, 2007 on 18:18
Kim
Team member
in staff

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.haverblad.se
posts: 2128
since: 10 Dec, 2000
38. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Question here, but do you really think that people are willing to be part of yet another subscriptions program? Just look at the subscription program for eCS I don't think that has been a success (and please someone correct me and show some digits here on how many that subscribes to eCS upgrades). As well, the old IBM subscription program wasn't a hit either among private users.

If a new subscription program should be set up I would suggest that there should be defined a minimum amount of users and if this can't be fulfilled; Plan B should be used instead.

Also, look at existing subscriptions plans and donation programs such as:

- eCS upgrade subscriptions
- Netlabs direct donations
- OS2 World bounty system

How much funds has been collected and how many people are subscribers already? How big is the markedplace? If people don't even care to cast their vote on a poll asking for future development and the same poll gets around 300-400 votes.

Also, what do you get for money, early betas and source code. I think that most users couldn't care less.

Finally I'm totally positive to the suggestion, just that I know from other community efforts it's hard to get people to cash up the money for something they think should be free and cost nothing.

Date: 25 Feb, 2007 on 11:17
zman
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 37
since: 25 Jun, 2005
39. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
.... not to mention people who have paid only to see good efforts stop at a 2.0 version; just short of the polish of a 3.0 product. i paid for warp vision then it became free. i paid $1,000.0 for voice type dictation in 1994 then it became free in 1996 and was then dropped. i paid for scitech. i even have a copy of system object model v3.0 beta. the list goes on and on.

i had the presence of mind, when users said oh it costs too much, to BUY vpc knowing that os/2 would eventually become less and less practical. i also bought good hardware in duplicate so that i'd have parts to support this aging platform.

i PAID for emperoartv and don't regret it since it plays dvds wonderfully. also records well!!! an editor is what is missing.

so, i'm set i have what i need and if nothing ever is released again what does it matter?

i've paid os2world, netlabs, even my russian heros. i've paid my dues. i'm glad i did; but, i can't continue.

BTW ms has just released vpc v7 with sound support for no cost. this eliminates any market for ssi to sell vm tech in a migration package for os/2 users. vpc7 doesn't need any version later than cp2 or ecs 1.2. i have it. works well.

Date: 25 Feb, 2007 on 12:43
cytan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 115
since: 05 Dec, 2003
40. Re:The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I think it's time for another poll! Will I pay $20 for a subscription for WarpVision development if there are clearly defined milestones? And another one for UNIAUD. If the number is less than 100, I think we can forget about it.

cytan


Kim (25 Feb, 2007 11:17):
Question here, but do you really think that people are willing to be part of yet another subscriptions program?

....
Finally I'm totally positive to the suggestion, just that I know from other community efforts it's hard to get people to cash up the money for something they think should be free and cost nothing.


Date: 25 Feb, 2007 on 18:39
The future of UNIAUD & WarpVision, netlabs.org blog
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
All times are CET+1. < Prev. | P. 1 2 3 | Next >
Go to:
 

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 Standard Edition,
Copyright © UltraScripts.com, Inc. 1999-2000.
Home | Gallery | Forums | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
© OS2 World.Com 2000-2004