To register as Vendor

If it doesn't fit anywhere else, drop it in here. (not to be used as a chat/nonsense section)

Moderator: Moderator Team

AmineKhaldi
Developer
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:01 pm

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by AmineKhaldi » Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:33 pm

PurpleGurl wrote:
Black_Fox wrote:I'm not sure if anyone bothered to actually checkout the link. They offer version 0.3.3 and say "ReactOS 0.3.3 i386 CD is the latest version of ReactOS."
i386? OMG! ROS won't even run on a 486.
It's pretty common to refer to 32bit editions using "i386" just as "amd64" is used to refer to 64bit editions. It doesn't mean literally Intel 80386.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Webunny » Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:16 pm

AmineKhaldi wrote:
PurpleGurl wrote:
Black_Fox wrote:I'm not sure if anyone bothered to actually checkout the link. They offer version 0.3.3 and say "ReactOS 0.3.3 i386 CD is the latest version of ReactOS."
i386? OMG! ROS won't even run on a 486.
It's pretty common to refer to 32bit editions using "i386" just as "amd64" is used to refer to 64bit editions. It doesn't mean literally Intel 80386.
But it seems weird they're speaking of a 0.3.3 version, though.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Z98 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:47 pm

You're basically asking us to police any vendor that attempts to sell ReactOS to make sure they're up to date and pass on the message that ReactOS is not ready for general usage yet. Are you really not aware that that is what you're arguing for or are you somehow justifying to yourself that the amount of work that would entail is somehow justified by some kind of payoff? Cause to me and the rest of the team it sounds like a gigantic waste of time which does not measurably increase the number of people who realize ReactOS is alpha.

There seems to be some confusion as to what my "concern" with "consumers" is. I am not being altruistic here. My goal is to keep the signal to noise ratio low when it comes to people coming to the project with problems. At present we cannot help people whose root problem is ReactOS is not ready to do whatever it is they want it to do out of the box. We can help people who have a desire and willingness to engage in a prolonged conversation and obtain and submit logs about what they are trying to do. We cannot stop others from mistakenly portraying ReactOS as something it is not, but trying to preemptively prevent it is a battle lost before it even starts, so we don't bother. In a similar vein, because of the specific type of user we are trying to attract right now, it is not in the project's best interest to try casting as wide a net as possible. The number of people caught in that net that would have no idea how to be productive testers is too high. We thus are fairly selective about when and where we promote ReactOS and the means we provide access to ReactOS.

You believe I've ignored your point about the value of establishing some sort of relationship with this vendor? Take that as a hint. It's because I'm not seeing the value. You like to claim that your arguments are logically structured. I suppose it's why I don't bother deconstructing them piece by piece and instead just go for whatever was the original point you used to underpin your argument. If I do not find that original point convincing, the rest of the argument might as well not exist since their validity hinged on the original point.

Consider the topic closed. We're not going to bother trying to dissuade you from your position but we're also not going to listen to any further justifications you have.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by PurpleGurl » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:38 pm

AmineKhaldi wrote:It's pretty common to refer to 32bit editions using "i386" just as "amd64" is used to refer to 64bit editions. It doesn't mean literally Intel 80386.
Oh, just a code set identifier, I get it. And yes, AMD64 is what they call x64 since AMD was the first the come up with that instruction set, although Intel has since used and expanded it. Intel did have their own original 64-bit implementation that wasn't too popular, I guess because it radically broke from compatibility, whereas AMD's x64 long mode has moderate backwards compatibility.

Oh, and I am not sure of what all CPUs ROS can run on. I don't remember if P2 was the original stated minimum or not, or if it will run on a K6. I might remember someone getting it to run on a P1, though maybe they had to change the build options or something, but it was so long ago.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Webunny » Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:14 pm

Z98 wrote:You're basically asking us to police any vendor that attempts to sell ReactOS to make sure they're up to date and pass on the message that ReactOS is not ready for general usage yet. Are you really not aware that that is what you're arguing for or are you somehow justifying to yourself that the amount of work that would entail is somehow justified by some kind of payoff? Cause to me and the rest of the team it sounds like a gigantic waste of time which does not measurably increase the number of people who realize ReactOS is alpha.

There seems to be some confusion as to what my "concern" with "consumers" is. I am not being altruistic here. My goal is to keep the signal to noise ratio low when it comes to people coming to the project with problems. At present we cannot help people whose root problem is ReactOS is not ready to do whatever it is they want it to do out of the box. We can help people who have a desire and willingness to engage in a prolonged conversation and obtain and submit logs about what they are trying to do. We cannot stop others from mistakenly portraying ReactOS as something it is not, but trying to preemptively prevent it is a battle lost before it even starts, so we don't bother. In a similar vein, because of the specific type of user we are trying to attract right now, it is not in the project's best interest to try casting as wide a net as possible. The number of people caught in that net that would have no idea how to be productive testers is too high. We thus are fairly selective about when and where we promote ReactOS and the means we provide access to ReactOS.

You believe I've ignored your point about the value of establishing some sort of relationship with this vendor? Take that as a hint. It's because I'm not seeing the value. You like to claim that your arguments are logically structured. I suppose it's why I don't bother deconstructing them piece by piece and instead just go for whatever was the original point you used to underpin your argument. If I do not find that original point convincing, the rest of the argument might as well not exist since their validity hinged on the original point.

Consider the topic closed. We're not going to bother trying to dissuade you from your position but we're also not going to listen to any further justifications you have.

O...k...

This is what I said:

"I rather persist in establishing relations with companies who already sell it anyway."

This is what you make of it:

"You persist in trying to sell a product that is not ready yet."

And

"You're basically asking us to police any vendor that attempts to sell ReactOS to make sure they're up to date and pass on the message that ReactOS is not ready for general usage yet."

Now, look at it. Do you not see any discrepancy there?

I could maybe put it on the conto of you not reading it comprehensively enough if it was only once, but since you keep doing it, I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or intellectually dishonest. What part of that sentence did you not understand? I'm proposing to take a much more positive pro-active role in establishing ties with companies. Where you come up with the interpretation that *I* want to sell it, or that *you* need to police everything, I have no idea, but it seems to me you pull that out of your...well, let's say out of thin air. No, I suggest this, because it offers potential for mutual beneficial advantages, such as finances, networking (social and professionally), exposure to other markets, etc. That you don't see any value in this, is not my fault. This has been a recurrent theme on many things, not least with the community-drive bottom-up approach and suggestions I and others have suggested before: they are almost all shot down. And always for the same reason: you guys 'don't see the use of it' and think 'it's a waste of time'. I've already pointed this out before, but it's only a waste of time because one takes the short-term technical approach. Which is understandable, because you're coders. But , just like you're sometimes saying to a poster: "You don't know what you're talking about, go and read up some more before talking about code", I have to say the same to you: you clearly do not know anything about marketing. So please do no make statements in that domain that make it painfully obvious you should read up on it too.

Your premise is short term, and goes like this: what is most useful; getting more code done with the time we have, or wasting our precious time on secundary things (like in getting more exposure, establishing ties with companies, and community-involvement)? Almost invariably, you and your fellow coders come to the conclusion: "why, it's coding, of course! This makes sense." And it does. From your stance, which is the short-term technical stance. I, and some others on the forum (an elsewhere as well), take another premise, however, and that is that, to have a thriving community, you need to invest heavily in that too, and NOT only as an after-thought, like 'when we have nothing better to do' (because as a coder, one will almost always find something better to do; namely coding). Why do you need to put a considerable amount of time in stuff where you, basically, do not see the use of it, and makes you think it's a giant waste of time? Because without it, on the long run, you loose out on it. It's not just me that thinks that, btw, it's actually fairly common knowledge. Including for some people who have grasped the essence of what it takes to be successful as an open source project (which is something else than as a pure coding-project), see viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13762&hilit=+truth#p113129 . Even after 10 years (even more, if you count the very beginnings), our fan-based community isn't all that big. I didn't research for it yet, but I think Linux had a far bigger growth in ten years than we ever did or will have, at this pace. After a huge campaign and much organisation, preparing and what not, we managed to achieve 25000 euro. Projects like Haiku can get the same or more without doing much hassle. This indicates that their fanbase is larger, or is more generous, or both. Now, has it ever occurred to you to ask why some projects succeed in gathering a large following, and some not? There are some variables, for sure, but the main thing is what the guys from .net core have found out for themselves: "My team has done open source before, for example MEF, but I think it’s fair to say that this wasn’t exactly fruitful. We think the primary reason for this is the lack of community engagement. While we made the source available, we haven’t invested into building a community around it. We strongly believe that building a community is key for the success of any open source project. And in order to build a community it’s critical that the development happens in the open."

So they learned from their mistakes, and know how important the community is. Now, I could be talking about quality of the code, what people want or not, how 'finished' the product is they want or don't want, etc., but let me tell you one thing: *the* determining factor for getting a large fanbase is first and formost getting more exposure. You have to be known first. You need to reach the audience, and enlarge your base. This is true, EVEN if your product isn't 'finished' enough to your taste, or EVEN if you think it's wasted time to put the effort into it. I have said this before, but - even if 80% would not be seduced into continuing to use ROS because it's alpha and 'not finished' - more people means more testers, more donators and eventually more developers (maybe even paid ones). This is not tangible in the sense of having an 'immediate return', and thus you deem it largely a waste of time, and you do not see the use of it, and hence think that my original point 'is not convincing' and 'the rest of the argument might as well not exist'. This is faulty reasoning on your behalf, but you've convinced yourself I'm in the wrong, and you're right, to the point you 'do not want to listen' anymore. Yes, that's always a good thing. Do not listen to anyone else than to people who are of the same opinion than you. It broadens the mind, surely. However, let me make a prediction that with that attitude, in another 10 years our fanbase will still only have grown marginally, with all the natural consequences of still being shorthanded, still having relatively few testers, still having a moderate amount of donators, still wishing more devs would come in, etc. You might not see that as a problem, and that's your prerogative. But it won't change the fact that as long as you give so little importance to these things, compared to 'getting on with the code', ROS is never going to be as successful as it could be. It's not just not a waste of time, it's the key for the success of any open source project. The key.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by EmuandCo » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:48 pm

OMG. I will not read all this!
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Webunny » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:29 am

EmuandCo wrote:OMG. I will not read all this!
It's only three paragraphs. ;-)

jonaspm
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Mexico
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by jonaspm » Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:07 am

*the* determining factor for getting a large fanbase is first and formost getting more exposure. You have to be known first. You need to reach the audience, and enlarge your base. This is true, EVEN if your product isn't 'finished' enough to your taste, or EVEN if you think it's wasted time to put the effort into it. I have said this before, but - even if 80% would not be seduced into continuing to use ROS because it's alpha and 'not finished' - more people means more testers, more donators and eventually more developers (maybe even paid ones).
I love this text
Image

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by EmuandCo » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:18 pm

I do not. You say we should get normal users as testers? So we should do what many game devs already do and the result ALWAYS is the same, mad ppl! Users DO NOT want to test, the want to USE software. If we sell or let ppl sell CDs which do not mention EVERYWHERE that this is not useable for everyday work, we will have only one thing. REALLY BAD PR, the WORST even. ppl will install it on their PCs, maybe even overwrite a existant OS and then it's done, heaven shalt burn! So you say we have no clue of marketing, yes? Well, my daily job is selling IT stuff to customers, Victor even makes that much more professional than anyone here does. I would be very careful with such assumptions, just because we do not agree with your "just three paragraphs". I strictly vote against it, if it's not discussed with us to be 100% sure, that users wont be abused as testers without even knowing! I agree with you that showing presence @ Linux days and stuff is not enough, but THAT is the wrong way to go! My personal suggestion would be a leaflet with all needed information which we send to open source aware companies. As soon as we have a working base aka beta state, we can even sell CDs, but not before that task is reached.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by PurpleGurl » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:06 pm

The way I see it, it's a balance. Yes, we have to get the word out. That will get others interested, and attract sponsors and developers. At the same time, we don't want to risk giving our fanbase a bad taste in their mouths and risking that they turn their backs on us. I guess that's what the devs here are saying, that we only have really one good shot at a reputation, and we don't want to risk blowing it. We don't want to pass off what many might consider junk as fully-polished.

As an aside and looking at the larger picture, it's always bad PR to lie or trick fans into being interested, since that can always backfire. Yes, the "rock soup dinner" approach sometimes works, where a movement doesn't actually exist, but when enough come together it suddenly does. My name for this comes from a fable. A grifter told some strangers that he had a special rock that he could turn into soup and asked for a pot to boil water to demonstrate. So he starts boiling the rock in water, and others thought it would make a better meal if they added their own ingredients. So one goes and gets some meat, and others some vegetables, and maybe a couple bringing spices, etc. It probably turned out to be a good meal. However, the rock had nothing to do with it other than being a prop in a con game. He managed to con people into feeding him who otherwise would have turned him away, all for the novelty to see how he'd use a rock as an ingredient. That was a more benign con in that he did provide entertainment and an opportunity for people to come together in good will. But the problem with even that scenario is that sometimes, the ones being taken can spot this right away, and they back out and tell others it's a hoax or a con game. Instead of leaving fed and full of fuzzy feelings, they leave feeling angry and cheated.

It's like how some feminists built part of the movement on untrue things. A number of feminist writers wrote that eating disorders were the top killer of women. When asked where they got it, they said they quoted a particular feminist writer, and that writer claimed the Centers for Disease Control was their source for their data. When the CDC was asked, they laughed and showed their data, and eating disorders were certainly not one of the top 5 killers of women. So someone pulled this "statistic" out of thin air. I'm not mentioning to bash them, but when an organization or idea is based on falsehoods, it harms credibility and may cause the whole thing to tumble like a house of cards. My point is for us to not do that. Yes, it's harder to win support sometimes with the truth, but that just means more work is required and that the good will generated won't evaporate as quickly as it was built.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Z98 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:14 pm

I like now you ignore the "If a user is determined to buy something, nothing we do will stop them. They are perfectly free to go and pay a member of the community to go burn them a CD and mail it to them. What need is there to involve the project?" This applies as much to a third party vendor as it does to a community member. Since the project internally does not want to be involved in the selling of images right now, we would of course not be interested not associating with any vendors that currently already try to sell ReactOS. That they already try to do so counts against them in the project's judgment. And once we are ready to sell, we would not be relying on this particular vendor anyway, since there are services that we can more easily hold accountable that are based in Europe and the US. That you could not draw this inference seems to indicate you do not understand why we don't put much store in the rest of your arguments on this topic.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Webunny » Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:30 pm

Z98 wrote:I like now you ignore the "If a user is determined to buy something, nothing we do will stop them. They are perfectly free to go and pay a member of the community to go burn them a CD and mail it to them. What need is there to involve the project?" This applies as much to a third party vendor as it does to a community member. Since the project internally does not want to be involved in the selling of images right now, we would of course not be interested not associating with any vendors that currently already try to sell ReactOS. That they already try to do so counts against them in the project's judgment. And once we are ready to sell, we would not be relying on this particular vendor anyway, since there are services that we can more easily hold accountable that are based in Europe and the US. That you could not draw this inference seems to indicate you do not understand why we don't put much store in the rest of your arguments on this topic.
I'm talking about getting more exposure and networking, and trying to get a mutual beneficial relationship. What has that to do with 'being able to buy a CD' and 'nothing can stop them'? And? Does or should that stop you in any way of trying to do any of the things mentioned? Even when taking that at face value, it would still mean you didn't do any effort in this regard, at least not with that third party. And why not? Because your (ROS) ego got bruised that they didn't ask you first and already sell it (while that is, in fact, inherently fine; since you released ROS under GPL), and that they 'can't be hold accountable'. How would you know? You didn't even try to communicate about this with them! Which is exactly one of my points. And you don't want to associate with any vendors because...you don't want to be involved in selling the images? What is this? We're using tautological constructions now? You're not interested because you're not interested. Great. Perfect circular argument. And you use that to claim that is the reason you don't put store in my arguments... :roll:

The 'need' to involve third parties or community members is exactly that, which I described in my former post. You basically answered by repeating ROS ain't interested, and that's why 'my arguments and points are deemed worthless'. Let me point out that the latter does not logically follow from the first. And as long as you (ROS) give so little weight to involve the community and getting more exposure, the longer it will take for any substantial fanbase to become involved. I would suggest - not for the first time - a bit less of a centralised take on things. It seems to me, that you think that 'involving the community' is a top-down issue, where 'what is good for the community' is decided by the devs or 'higher ups', and not by the community itself. If you want a large thriving community, this is the wrong way to handle it, however.
EmuandCo wrote:I do not. You say we should get normal users as testers?
You make an artificial distinction. What are 'normal users' and what are 'testers'? I was a normal user and then I became a tester. I doubt I'm the only one. You miss the point that, by overall exposure, you will ALWAYS get more 'normal users' AND more testers AND more donators (which can be normal users too, btw) and maybe even more devs.
So we should do what many game devs already do and the result ALWAYS is the same, mad ppl!
Actually, it's quite successful, as a new vendor-mechanic, at least on steam. Sure, there have been some rotten apples, but most of them did pretty well. And especially with indie-games who are open about it in front that it's a work in progress, you see very little complaints. On the contrary: most are very supportive and want to see the game reach its peak. The only instances where the public is universal negative about, is if they are promised a finished game, and get utter crap, and the devs don't even bother to bring out patches. THEN you get the result you describe. But since ROS isn't going to do that (I hope), I see little value in that counterargument.
Users DO NOT want to test, the want to USE software. If we sell or let ppl sell CDs which do not mention EVERYWHERE that this is not useable for everyday work, we will have only one thing. REALLY BAD PR, the WORST even. ppl will install it on their PCs, maybe even overwrite a existant OS and then it's done, heaven shalt burn! So you say we have no clue of marketing, yes? Well, my daily job is selling IT stuff to customers, Victor even makes that much more professional than anyone here does. I would be very careful with such assumptions, just because we do not agree with your "just three paragraphs". I strictly vote against it, if it's not discussed with us to be 100% sure, that users wont be abused as testers without even knowing! I agree with you that showing presence @ Linux days and stuff is not enough, but THAT is the wrong way to go! My personal suggestion would be a leaflet with all needed information which we send to open source aware companies. As soon as we have a working base aka beta state, we can even sell CDs, but not before that task is reached.
Nonsense. I already gave you the example of indiegames where the fanbase is VERY supportive of the game, and buy it, EVEN if they know its not finished yet. It is not, therefore, a question whether users get a finished product or not, but if they are aware it's a (un)finished product, if you explain what you're trying to do, and get them involved. I see this basic misunderstanding about marketing and selling-principles perpetuating a lot, also with z98. Let me repeat: it is NOT necessary for a product to be 'finished' to be successful in getting an involved fanbase who supports you. Not. It's the way you PRESENT it; you must be OPEN about it's shortcomings so they do not have inflated expectations, and make them AWARE what the purpose is, and if that goal is something they see any worth in, IT DOES NOT MATTER if the product is, objectively speaking, 'not finished' yet.

The biggest misconception here on the forum by some, is that you won't win over somebody if you can't immediately give him a finished product in return. This is simply not true.


@purplegirl: yes, of course it's a matter of balance, you are right. For instance, one can't expect every last dev to spend hours and hours being busy with marketing, getting exposure, etc. No, that's what PR is for. If that wouldn't be the case, we would maybe have more exposure after a while, but no code progress at all. So, yes, it's a matter of balance. The only thing that I find a bit disturbing here, is how extremely low the importance of community involvement is deemed here. There is no balance at all. I can understand it partially, because of the typical short-of-hand reason, but still, it's also because the devs are hardly interested in anything we do or propose on the forum. Either it's too trivial to be bothered, or if it's important enough to note, we get a 'njet' because they don't like it, whatever the community thinks of it (remember the slogan). There are a (very) few exceptions, but even then it's because someone else organises it - the 'higher ups' almost never seem to deem it worth to put any time in it, ever. For them it IS worth nothing: look at z98 reaction; this makes it abundantly clear. Even if 99% of the community would say: please try to negotiate with that company, he (ROS) would still say: no, we don't see the importance of it, period. And it's exactly this sort of disinterest that leads to a low fanbase. With all the consequences that entails. It doesn't seem to occur that it's not only about the short-term direct result that you get from it, but that it's also the broader, indirect effect you get in the long run that is important. I've tried several times to point this out and get this through, but to no avail. Mind you: I'm not saying they aren't doing a great job. They do. I think they're doing great, with the coding. But they are pretty bad at marketing and social involvement and participation, let's face it.

That's not a personal reproach, btw. Everyone is good and weak in something. That goes for me and everyone else too. And I'm not saying PR didn't do anything FOR the community, far from it. But not (or very seldom) BY the community, aka: let the community decide something. The devs are good in coding. They're less good in some of the other area's I described, that's all that there is to it. No-one should feel offended.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: To register as Vendor

Post by Z98 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:32 am

You again demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of what type of outreach the project wants to engage in at this time. You also demonstrate a very serious lack of understanding of software development in general. Considering your seeming inability to comprehend or complete unwillingness to accept the two, what value are any of your suggestions for how the project can achieve outreach or further the development of ReactOS? As I've said previously, we're not going to bother trying to change your mind about how we do things here since you obviously don't place much value in our positions. Conversely, this also means that we have pretty much also given up on getting any meaningful contribution from you. Dealing with you has gotten tiresome to the point that a response of yours is currently informally avoided amongst the developers that still frequent the forum. That being the case, do not be surprised if we do not pay any further attention to your proposals, requests, or inquiries.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest