Hi,
Could you tell us which svn revision (of public repository of course
) was used to produce this version ?
thank you !
Boris
Could you tell us which svn revision (of public repository of course
) was used to produce this version ?thank you !
Boris
Hi,Should be rev 2575.
Could you tell us which svn revision (of public repository of course
thank you !
Boris
Many fixes and additions have already been added since then though, so you'd be better off getting the latest if you're testing 3.0
Thanks,
Mike
Documentum doesn't even pretend to be open source 
It is not so simple. Let's not mix established players with disruptive newcomers. Well known fact is that in open source world there will be lots of people who don't want to pay for the license. All people want stability (which is why I find Peters damage control post comical), but just some are willing or able to pay for it. And number of paying customers depends more on pricing strategy than on having two versions, stable and broken one.
When someone like Alfresco has strategy based on open source, it is usually because it attacks already formed market, taken by big players. Open source enables to rapidly take and retake parts of that market. It is all about distribution. Which is what worries me with this approach. Basically, Alfresco is opting for 10k installations with 10k paying customers, instead of 1mil installations with 10k paying customers. Not having stable OS edition will do nothing about number of paying customers, but it will slaughter potential huge volume of installations that free (or even non free but much cheaper solution) would have. From what I've seen so far, clever pricing strategies always win against "we are open, but aren't really open" tricks that pop up now and then on open source scene.
Also, you make it sound bad when someone wants Alfresco for free Alfresco itself uses tons of free and opensource products and components, and wouldn't be possible in this form if they would pay for every single one of them (and especially if every single one of those had same "innovative" aproach to packaging software). Being open source brings some advantages to the table, bug cleansing and testing being the most talked about, but, personally, i think that biggest plus for VC funded company like Alfresco is huge installation volumes, evangelizing and free marketing that it gets from people who don't pay licenses.
After all, biggest acquisitions of open source companies had absolutely nothing to do with number of paying customers, yearly revenue or profit: it is all about market share and presence. This model kills those, and I would like Alfresco to rethink approach once again, because I don't feel right balance is achieved.
Note: I do think Alfresco was more than fair and brave up until now, with full suite GPLed. Even with this model, those who want and know, will be able to manage and take the most out of it. Just am a little bit worried about bad press this decision is already starting to get, and impact of not having stable OS version on installed base.
It is not so simple. Let's not mix established players with disruptive newcomers. Well known fact is that in open source world there will be lots of people who don't want to pay for the license. All people want stability (which is why I find Peters damage control post comical), but just some are willing or able to pay for it. And number of paying customers depends more on pricing strategy than on having two versions, stable and broken one.
When someone like Alfresco has strategy based on open source, it is usually because it attacks already formed market, taken by big players. Open source enables to rapidly take and retake parts of that market. It is all about distribution. Which is what worries me with this approach. Basically, Alfresco is opting for 10k installations with 10k paying customers, instead of 1mil installations with 10k paying customers. Not having stable OS edition will do nothing about number of paying customers, but it will slaughter potential huge volume of installations that free (or even non free but much cheaper solution) would have. From what I've seen so far, clever pricing strategies always win against "we are open, but aren't really open" tricks that pop up now and then on open source scene.
Also, you make it sound bad when someone wants Alfresco for free
Alfresco itself uses tons of free and opensource products and components, and wouldn't be possible in this form if they would pay for every single one of them (and especially if every single one of those had same "innovative" aproach to packaging software). Being open source brings some advantages to the table, bug cleansing and testing being the most talked about, but, personally, i think that biggest plus for VC funded company like Alfresco is huge installation volumes, evangelizing and free marketing that it gets from people who don't pay licenses. After all, biggest acquisitions of open source companies had absolutely nothing to do with number of paying customers, yearly revenue or profit: it is all about market share and presence. This model kills those, and I would like Alfresco to rethink approach once again, because I don't feel right balance is achieved.
Note: I do think Alfresco was more than fair and brave up until now, with full suite GPLed. Even with this model, those who want and know, will be able to manage and take the most out of it. Just am a little bit worried about bad press this decision is already starting to get, and impact of not having stable OS version on installed base.
