Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

helsinkiharbour
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:40 am

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by helsinkiharbour » Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:30 pm

Well, was the media campaign now finally started? I'm a little bit concerned here... for example not much buzz for example on reddit ...

wildschwein
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:13 pm

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by wildschwein » Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:42 am

I am also not happy with Thorium. Why not us ReactOS as it is ? ReactOS is not well known at the moment, but it's on the way to be well known.

Thorium sounds - in my opinion - different from ReactOS. Yes ReactOS is menshioned, but this is too weak.

Why not make a kickstarter project: " We wanna make a Windows compatibel OS, that keeps the same even in 20 years, it's robust, works and can run all those good old Windows and DOS application. It will be maintained from a big worldwide community. For sure, you can go online, use cloud apps and so long. It's old and modern at once !"

Thorium in my ears, sounds something other, that has a little bit to do with ReactOS.

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by EmuandCo » Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:55 am

Its way more than just a bit ReactOS. Its ReactOS with a task it should do. A task which takes a big amount of work in components like memory manager, shell, network, FSD, real hardware support, USB and waaay more. Everything mentioned is a big help for us and will be worked on by a commercial sideproject. I like the idea.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

gonzoMD
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:49 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by gonzoMD » Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:22 pm

Also many people ask "Why ReactOS if there is Windows?" With Thorium, specialized in only one thing, this question will not come up because it is stated right from the start what for and why it is there.

Stakhanov
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:46 pm

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Stakhanov » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:32 pm

EmuandCo wrote:Its way more than just a bit ReactOS. Its ReactOS with a task it should do. A task which takes a big amount of work in components like memory manager, shell, network, FSD, real hardware support, USB and waaay more. Everything mentioned is a big help for us and will be worked on by a commercial sideproject. I like the idea.
Yeah I guess its a major help to the project we have here, I hope this won't die or get bad things on its way to improve ReactOS...

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Z98 » Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:13 pm

ReactOS the trademark is the property of the ReactOS Foundation. While Aleksey sits on the Foundation's board, he can't just arbitrarily use it for a business venture. And let's be clear here, Thorium is a business venture. It attempts to boost ReactOS development, but to do so in a way that generates a revenue stream that can be plowed back into continuous development, not do a one-shot money appeal that will eventually run out. That's a big reason why the project has always resisted just trying to "sell" ReactOS on crowd sourcing sites. There is no such thing as the project ever being done, there will always be things to improve upon. As such, there needs to be a constant input of resources. You can't rely on crowd sourcing for that on any reliable level, but you can try to use crowd sourcing to seed the capital necessary to get the ball rolling.

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Webunny » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:35 pm

Z98 wrote:ReactOS the trademark is the property of the ReactOS Foundation. While Aleksey sits on the Foundation's board, he can't just arbitrarily use it for a business venture. And let's be clear here, Thorium is a business venture. It attempts to boost ReactOS development, but to do so in a way that generates a revenue stream that can be plowed back into continuous development, not do a one-shot money appeal that will eventually run out. That's a big reason why the project has always resisted just trying to "sell" ReactOS on crowd sourcing sites. There is no such thing as the project ever being done, there will always be things to improve upon. As such, there needs to be a constant input of resources. You can't rely on crowd sourcing for that on any reliable level, but you can try to use crowd sourcing to seed the capital necessary to get the ball rolling.

Well, a steady income is better than a single one-shot income, true. But then again, a one-shot income is still better than nothing at all. I must say I see this sort of argumentation a lot, but I hope people do realise this sort of argument, while true as a general statement on itself, has no real argumental value in the discussion at hand.

I would like to see the arguments used analysed in a logical context a bit more. It's NOT because Haiku is successful and yet is not using a macot/slogan/whatever, that this is an indication that there is no worth in having a mascot. I'm not even saying one can doubt the level of worth of it, just that the reasoning doesn't fit: the one does NOT lead to the other, and implying that it does is just faulty reasoning. Equally, it's NOT because a steady income is better than a sporadic one, that a sporadic one isn't good or welcome neither. Does one source of income inhibit the other, mayhaps? Not in this case. Nothing impedes Aleksey of continuing his business project and providing a steady stream of money to invest in the development of ROS, AND someone to put a more typical kickstarter for ROS itself on there. Where is the dichotomy, or diametrical opposition? There is none.

In fact, does one even HAVE such 'reliable level' of income? As far as I'm aware, we have no such thing. So what are we talking about anyway? It's like saying that a hungry kid in Myanmar is better off with a stable foodsupply than with a sporadic delivery of food. Well, sure. But as long as you don't have that stable foodsupply, it would be mindboggling if such a kid would argue that he doesn't need the ad-hoc help neither, then.

You should get what you can, and a one-time kickstarter that brings in, say, 100000 bucks, would still be better than nothing at all. Is there actually anyone who would argue differently? I've seen others debate this too, and it's clear the devs don't see any value or have any interest in actually trying this out. I find this incomprehensible, to be frank, but I also know it's no use debating it in the hope anyone of the devs who is against it, will change his mind about it. It's just bafflingto me, because, in essence, you don't risk much, while the potential gain can be considerable, even as a one-time income. Even if you don't reach your goal, it's not like you're going to end up more broke than before.

So, in essence, I don't get that 'big reason' you're talking about. It's better to have some money than nothing at all, so how can there be a reason that it's better to not do it, because it doesn't deliver a steady supply? Besides, it doesn't have to be an actual one-shot neither. Just like others have successfully done on Kickstarter (sometimes gathering several millions, even), one can limit the goal you want to reach for that particular Kickstarter. So, you don't say 'ROS will be finished if we reach that or that amount', no, you say: the goal is to reach 100% binary compatibility with XP/windows server 2003. And when you reach that goal, you have perfectly done what you promised. Next, you can again place it on Kickstarter: "now the goal is full compatibility with vista". Next: "with win7", etc. So you limit our goals at what you can achieve, and then let people donate on Kickstarter. Get it mentioned on slashdot, and it's pretty much a given you could at least haul in double as much as one did with the donationbar on the site, in 2012. And you could do it every time your promised goal is met and you want to set a new one, in fact.

So, I'm sorry, but there really is no rational reason not to try this; the refusal to do so is mostly based on irrational feelings and arguments, imho. You risk nothing, and you can gain, at least potentially, a considerable amount. So what is the problem? It's not stable? Well, it better than nothing. And, even if you had a stable income, it would still be a welcome addition.

So one is left wondering at why it has 'always been resisted'. "We don't feel like it" seems a more plausible reason then any logical reasoning not to do it, as of yet. As said, the arguments thusfar are misrepresenting or confusing the issue. The issue here, is NOT a stable income versus an unstable one, but no income versus a potential income. It also does not explain why even if we had a stable income, it's deemed worthless not to try to get additional funding of Kickstarter with set goals anyway.

PS.To make things clear: while being critical, I'm not attacking anyone as a person, I just have critique on the reasoning used, and conclusions made, that seem to make little sense to me. So no-one should take this personal, it's merely an issue of debate.

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Z98 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:34 pm

My interpretation of your position is that you don't want to bother considering what happens after the initial chunk of money runs out, that you prefer expending effort in a short term boost instead of working on a longer term fix.

A lot of people have insisted that "selling" ReactOS on kickstarter is a simple affair, without ever grasping the full extent of work getting ReactOS to a product ready state would be. We cannot present the endgoal of a kickstarter as a "completely working Windows compatible OS" because delivery of that goal is too complex and vague. People have differing opinions on what constitutes completely working and what constitutes compatible. We could spell it out, but any minimum level of functionality the team would be willing to guarantee would almost certainly fall short of what backers would consider acceptable, and this is assuming potential backers understood enough about software to be able to grasp such details. Furthermore, there is a risk that shortcuts would be taken to meet the specified goals which cause problems in the long term when work is done to make things work properly.

The team has access to historically the amount of money coming in via donations. We know exactly how much money is in the reserves. We also know how much money is necessary to pay for full time development work and we have rough projections for how many years of work are ahead of us, at a minimum, before ReactOS can be considered in a production state, if we had full time developers. The conclusion, based on those numbers, is that an actual revenue stream (and we're talking about much more than could be made via merchandising due to the small potential market here) is necessary if we want to actually fund ReactOS development beyond having one or two developers on short term contracts. Since that conclusion was made, work has gone to trying to establish that revenue stream, even if it means not doing work the community thinks might offer a short term fix.

Finally, please stop bringing up Amine's mascot comment. You're misinterpreting him as badly as he failed to properly articulate his point. Continuously bringing it up only confuses the current subject.

milon
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by milon » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:29 pm

wildschwein wrote:I am also not happy with Thorium. Why not us ReactOS as it is ? ReactOS is not well known at the moment, but it's on the way to be well known.

Thorium sounds - in my opinion - different from ReactOS. Yes ReactOS is menshioned, but this is too weak.

Why not make a kickstarter project: " We wanna make a Windows compatibel OS, that keeps the same even in 20 years, it's robust, works and can run all those good old Windows and DOS application. It will be maintained from a big worldwide community. For sure, you can go online, use cloud apps and so long. It's old and modern at once !"

Thorium in my ears, sounds something other, that has a little bit to do with ReactOS.
I see this idea coming up over and over again. ReactOS just is not a good candidate for Kickstarter or any other crowd sourcing platform. Why? Because every crowd source platform is effectively a "Buy This Early" advertisement to aid the development of the product to be sold. ReactOS is not being sold, so we have no product to sell when ReactOS is "done". All crowd sourcing platforms are quid pro quo, and as a free download ReactOS is something for nothing.

People would be mad if they tried to fund ReactOS on Kickstarter and got nothing for it. That's why Thorium (a premium service) was created.

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Webunny » Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:59 am

Z98 wrote:My interpretation of your position is that you don't want to bother considering what happens after the initial chunk of money runs out, that you prefer expending effort in a short term boost instead of working on a longer term fix.

A lot of people have insisted that "selling" ReactOS on kickstarter is a simple affair, without ever grasping the full extent of work getting ReactOS to a product ready state would be. We cannot present the endgoal of a kickstarter as a "completely working Windows compatible OS" because delivery of that goal is too complex and vague. People have differing opinions on what constitutes completely working and what constitutes compatible. We could spell it out, but any minimum level of functionality the team would be willing to guarantee would almost certainly fall short of what backers would consider acceptable, and this is assuming potential backers understood enough about software to be able to grasp such details. Furthermore, there is a risk that shortcuts would be taken to meet the specified goals which cause problems in the long term when work is done to make things work properly.

The team has access to historically the amount of money coming in via donations. We know exactly how much money is in the reserves. We also know how much money is necessary to pay for full time development work and we have rough projections for how many years of work are ahead of us, at a minimum, before ReactOS can be considered in a production state, if we had full time developers. The conclusion, based on those numbers, is that an actual revenue stream (and we're talking about much more than could be made via merchandising due to the small potential market here) is necessary if we want to actually fund ReactOS development beyond having one or two developers on short term contracts. Since that conclusion was made, work has gone to trying to establish that revenue stream, even if it means not doing work the community thinks might offer a short term fix.

Finally, please stop bringing up Amine's mascot comment. You're misinterpreting him as badly as he failed to properly articulate his point. Continuously bringing it up only confuses the current subject.
Well, there were others, but that one just is just the easiest to remember, and I didn't feel like searching all the posts to find the other examples of others. And while the subject on itself is different (as is any new subject that is brought forward), the point of the examples was that faulty reasoning is being used to make a point where the initial reasoning just doesn't lead to the conclusion that is implied, like with the stance that it's better to have a steady revenue stream than none at a periodic one. That's true, but that's not the issue here. It's not the subject on itself, thus, but the kind of reasoning used behind it that is similar, and thus can't really confuse this point, rather substantiates it.

"My interpretation of your position is that you don't want to bother considering what happens after the initial chunk of money runs out, that you prefer expending effort in a short term boost instead of working on a longer term fix."

How did you come to that conclusion? I explicitly mentioned the fact that both projects aren't diametrically opposed. There is no reason why anyone has to stop looking for a continuous revenue, if one puts it on Kickstarter. So I don't understand the argument. First of all, with all due respect, but I think it will be a long time off in any case, before we get a stable continuous income that makes it possible to hire loads of devs full-time.

Meanwhile, and during all that time, we leave an option laying to waste to get additional income. 'Bother consider what happens after the initial chunk of money runs out'? Why would that bother me or anyone else more than NOT having that chunk of money at all? Is there a law somewhere that says one can't continue with your other trials to get money? Even if we ran out of that money; wouldn't we at least have had the opportunity of hiring some devs for some time, and thus speed up the development progress regardless? As opposed to...not having that money, and thus no additional progress that it might bring?

After all what I said, you still seem to think about things in a way that it's either a sustainable income, or (a bunch of) one-shots. As I've repeatedly said by now, this is NOT the issue. It's about no money (at least no additional money) and that potential chunk of money. And even if Aleksey is successful with his Thorium project in the long run, and gets a stable income - would it than suddenly become worthless if additional money is brought in by Kickstarter in the future, or has been brought in in the past? I just don't think that particular argument makes sense, unless you start with the premise that whenever we would place it on Kickstarter, all our chances to have a steady income are completely destroyed after that. I do not see a rational argument for that, however.

This also makes the reasoning of "omg, what are we going to do after the money is spend, then?!" a completely irrelevant question. In the worst case, you do as you're doing now, nothing more, nothing less - but you'll have had that Kickstarters-money, at least, to help things out a bit. As for the 'expending effort'; you're always going to suspend SOME effort, though I think you'll be expending a lot less effort, with a lot more chance to get some money in with placing it on Kickstarter. Anything raising a considerable steady income will be something for the (far) future, and probably need a far more prolonged and more effort to reel in any money. But, you know what? Why not try both?

Granted, a good reason would be what you and other devs have said a few times concerning others projects: to little manpower. But I don't see you using that argument on itself. And if so, is that REALLY the argument? Meaning; if someone would put foward that he would be willing to 'do the effort' of placing it on Kickstarter, would you then consider it? (Me thinks not, why I also don't think that's the real reason. But tell me if I'm wrong in this regard).

Your second paragraph makes makes some pragmatic points: when will it be considered 'done', etc. But aren't you really making more of an issue than it is? There have been other programs, applications, etc. on Kickstarter before; did anyone think that the fact that one could consider their program not totally finished, was an insurmountable problem to put it on Kickstarter and be sucessful? What constitutes binary compatible and what not, how finished something should be to be considered finished, etc.; do you think ROS is the only program dealing with these issues? Of course not; all progs, from games to language apps on Kickstarter have similar issues and questions. It doesn't stop them from being successful, though - as long as there is interest for it. So why would it suddenly be a hurdle to big to take for ROS? You could simply say you'll make it 90% binary compatible with XP, and give a list of progs/apps you guarantee will work. There is nothing *inherently* making it impossible to come up with a goal that is possible to achieve, and will satisfy most backers - just like you have with ANY prog and app that's placed on Kickstarter. There is nothing about your questions and doubts that can't be made of almost all projects on Kickstarter ('will a backer get what he expects?'), one way or another...yet that don't seem to be something that is an insurmountable problem to overcome for most. One just needs the will to try.

As for shortcuts; that would depend on the devs themselves, in the end. That argument, is, again, always possible, which is why it has little argumentational value. The devs could be making short cuts right now. If they would make it then, why wouldn't they make it now? Unless you set an unrealistic time-restraint on it, like: "We'll finish it in one months' time.", I see no reason to assume why suddenly the devs would employ more shortcuts than they do now. It's speculation in a consistent negative light: "backers won't understand it if we try to explain it", "devs will use more shortcuts if it's on Kickstarter", etc. The basis for those assumptions aren't well substantiated, however; as said: it boils down to speculation. It could as well be that ROS would be fairly successful, the backers understand and appreciate what the devs do, and the devs themselves are not cutting corners. There, all the 'arguments' refuted.

True, I have no proof neither, and mine is also based on speculation. But the fact remains that if one doesn't try, one can't win neither. There is nothing inherently intertwined with putting ROS on Kickstarter that would lead to the more negative outcomes you describe. And no, I repeat: it doesn't mean that such a Kickstarter-project is the ONLY thing one has to rely on for income. If I may use my analogy again? It's like if that starving kid of myanmar would say: sure, I get some food to keep the hunger away for today, but...what about next day? Don't they bother considering what happens after today? What if my stomach isn't filled yet? What if they don't keep their promise to come back tomorrow? Wouldn't it be better if it was a guaranteed, sustainable foodhelp I got? Etc.

Now, that's all good and well, but is he going to refuse that slice of bread or bucket of rice because of those questions? No. That would be foolish.

Now, granted, we're not starving for money; we've done without most of the time, and we can keep going like that as we were. But the essence of the analogy is this: you don't refuse something that is potential beneficial and which you need, because you deem it not sufficient and are of the opinion there might be other ways in the far future which might or might not materialise. The objections you named are rather trivial, the effort needed modest, the risk very low, and the potential gain pretty high, even when not a continuous stream of income. If the premise is that we could use money, and there is a way of getting it, why not try it? Is it a prerequisite that money HAS to be a consistent income, or we don't want it? Thus, if someone donated 1000000 bucks, but only one time, we wouldn't want it neither? I don't think so. This means, even if it's short-term or a one-shot; compared to NOT having it, it's always beneficial.

But anyway, I have enough of argumenting this, since I'm well aware it's futile and no matter what is being said, you/the devs have made up your mind and not putting it on Kickstarter. I'm well aware of that. I've tried to demonstrate it doesn't make sense to not even try, based on the reasons (as yet) given, but in the end, it's a voluntary project, so everyone does what he wants to do, when push comes to shove. If no-one of the devs (and others aren't allowed) is willing to 'do the effort' and putting their project on Kickstarter, thinking it can't be done, while many others have done so with success (which doesn't mean we would successful, granted, but there is also no reason to think it wouldn't), then so be it. I just thought some-one had to convey and argument the other side of it, and point out certain things.

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Z98 » Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:07 am

Are you seriously proposing that asking for money on two separate goals for the same project simultaneously or immediately after one another does not cause conflicts with achieving either goal? Cause that's what it's sounding like right now. You're suggesting that the entire time we were putting together the Thorium proposal, the paperwork to get the company set up, the tech demo, and the other documentation, we should have also been preparing to launch a separate appeal for money for ReactOS? And that having two campaigns running concurrently or right after the other would not cause potential funds to be split and thus undermining any chance either had of meeting the funding goal? I mean, your entire argument is premised around the idea that we didn't have any idea of how to put together a kickstarter campaign because we regarded the community's idea for what the campaign goal should be to be too abstract. We've put ReactOS on kickstarter, we've done it in a way that presents a concrete end product and thus actually is something kickstarter backers are more used to seeing, and we've set it up so that a successful kickstarter can feed into a larger revenue generating entity. So how the hell have we been ignoring kickstarter? We've been ignoring it by being careful in what we actually put up? We've been ignoring it by considering just what type of projects and products are actually successful on kickstarter? And what the blazes is this obsession with having an abstract goal on kickstarter? How is that any different than appealing directly for donations on this site? Sure you might get wider exposure, but if enough people can't get their heads around the abstract endgoal, that wider exposure turns into negative feedback. Is there some sort of kneejerk reaction to anything but a 'pure' ReactOS objective? Or is it because we didn't expend "effort" the way you thought we should? Seriously, what is it with this "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" approach?

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Webunny » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:10 pm

Z98 wrote:Are you seriously proposing that asking for money on two separate goals for the same project simultaneously or immediately after one another does not cause conflicts with achieving either goal? Cause that's what it's sounding like right now. You're suggesting that the entire time we were putting together the Thorium proposal, the paperwork to get the company set up, the tech demo, and the other documentation, we should have also been preparing to launch a separate appeal for money for ReactOS? And that having two campaigns running concurrently or right after the other would not cause potential funds to be split and thus undermining any chance either had of meeting the funding goal? I mean, your entire argument is premised around the idea that we didn't have any idea of how to put together a kickstarter campaign because we regarded the community's idea for what the campaign goal should be to be too abstract. We've put ReactOS on kickstarter, we've done it in a way that presents a concrete end product and thus actually is something kickstarter backers are more used to seeing, and we've set it up so that a successful kickstarter can feed into a larger revenue generating entity. So how the hell have we been ignoring kickstarter? We've been ignoring it by being careful in what we actually put up? We've been ignoring it by considering just what type of projects and products are actually successful on kickstarter? And what the blazes is this obsession with having an abstract goal on kickstarter? How is that any different than appealing directly for donations on this site? Sure you might get wider exposure, but if enough people can't get their heads around the abstract endgoal, that wider exposure turns into negative feedback. Is there some sort of kneejerk reaction to anything but a 'pure' ReactOS objective? Or is it because we didn't expend "effort" the way you thought we should? Seriously, what is it with this "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" approach?

It's not about the same project. The one is for thorium (a business project, if I understood you correctly), the other is Reactos.

You, of all people, should know to separate the two. If I put up a project of something else, and I decide to donate the majority I get of it to ROS as investment, it's hardly going to be counted as being ROS. You are now acting as if it IS the same project. Well, let's be clear about this: is it, or is it not? Is thorium an official project of the Reactos Foundation? If it isn't, then all your above argumentation is non-valid. Sure, some of the devs there are also working on ROS...but that doesn't mean Thorium and ROS are the same thing. If I go to the Thorium website, I see: "Steven Edwards and Aleksey Bragin have worked together for several years on the ReactOS Project, waiting for the correct time to bring the technology to market. In late 2012, they founded the Thorium Group to develop a new Cloud Desktop platform."

So, while it says a couple of the devs that worked on Reactos now decided to create this Cloud desktop platform (and no doubt they'll invest some of it in Reactos, it's more than clear it is NOT the same project. If you now claim that any project which is related to ROS but not ROS itself counts as being the same project, and you can only have one of those...does that mean you would agree that, if anyone else would create a sideproject on Kickstarter and invest it partially in ROS, would prohibit any other project (like thorium or ROS) to be put on Kickstarter? Or does Thorium get special privileges, because it's by aleksey?


Since it are two separate projects, the whole first part of your counterargument is completely irrelevant (since it is based on the notion it IS the same project). So, unless you want to say it's a matter of too few hands to do it both. Also...wouldn't your former objections count for Thorium as well? Thorium will also never be 'finished', there is also the question of whether backers will understand, etc. Suddenly, these former objections don't seem to prohibit placing such a project on Kickstarter. Wouldn't that be, because one realises it's not really a matter of real concern? But the point is, while you speak about me saying things that confuse the matter, I think you are doing it now. You say "We've put ReactOS on kickstarter"...that's confusing the matter, indeed. You've NOT put Reactos on Kickstarter, you've put Thorium on Kickstarter. The fact that you legally separated the two is on itself already an indication Thorium can't speak for ROS and vice versa.

Ultimately, it's a private project, made by two devs. Now, I'm not saying it can't be beneficial, but I AM saying its not ROS. And, in theory, something that is privately set up by devs should not have any bearings on what ROS does. If any other people decide to put up a project based on ROS, would you then still claim one can't put it on there, even if it was for the benefit of ROS? If someone had put a similar project up BEFORE thorium, would you then have concluded neither ROS itself or Thorium could be put on Kickstarter, because it would be two goals for the 'same' project? I doubt it. Which makes the whole argument rather inconsistent. The whole premise it's based on, is on the notion the two projects are the same. They aren't. The ROS foundation is rsiding over ROS, Thorium is handled by two devs and is another entity (the Thorium Group). Even if that Thorium group would be full of ROS devs, this essential difference does not change. It is NOT the same project. If tomorrow the ROS foundation decides to put ROS on Kickstarter, than that's it; they have no obligations to Thorium, and don't need their consent (and vice versa). And if then other devs were prepared to do the paperwork and the 'effort' , it wouldn't even be affected by it. (The 'are you proposing that we do both at the same time??' is at most an argument that you're shorthanded, NOT an argument that ROS can't do it in principle.)

Would the donations be split or interfere with eachother? This is actually a good counterargument, since one can't deny that it *could* interfere. But that's why it's important to make the distinction clear (and not confuse it by implying it's the same project). Thorium is, dixit themselves, a commercial project 'targeted for cloud computing'...it thus gives another spin, and doesn't claim to be ROS, or do exactly the same things as ROS. Now, is it therefore that (most) people back Thorium, or is it the fact it is portrayed as the same project as ROS (as you do here)? To be frank, I think it's rather the latter. But if it's deemed the same, why not use it under the ROS name, and actually say it's the same? Point is, you can't have it both ways: either you diversify and make it something else than ROS (as has been done), or you claim it's the same and there is no difference between the projects (like you did here). And if the projects are presented differently enough, you can have both projects without them interfering or 'split' the funds. If they are portrayed as the same, than chances are, it would interfere with eachother. But that's a choice one makes oneself, obviously.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:52 pm

It seems that Z98 says that unfulfilled tasks, unredeemed promises, can worsen the reputation of ReactOS project…

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

Re:

Post by Webunny » Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:36 pm

hto wrote:It seems that Z98 says that unfulfilled tasks, unredeemed promises, can worsen the reputation of ReactOS project…
Only if they're actually unredeemed and remain unfulfilled - even when limiting the goal(s).

Besides, the same is true for every project, including Thorium. If one is so afraid of not being able to deliver and a loss of reputation, maybe it is preferable to distinguish clearly between Thorium and ROS, instead of implying that it's the same project....

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

Re: Thorium (ROS distribution) on kickstarter

Post by Z98 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:44 am

Where is this belief that ReactOS can be presented as an endproduct for crowd funding even coming from? I mean, I'm assuming somehow you arrived at that conclusion, otherwise you wouldn't be making these arguments. The idea with crowd funding is that people are asked to provide money up front for a potential product. While the product in question will in most instances see general availability, backers tend to get potential other rewards such as early access or swag. But ReactOS is open source, there is no such thing as early access and there is no such thing as cost of access either, which would be the only other incentive for people who want it to back it in a crowd funding environment. There might be swag, but hell if I can see people ponying up money just for some commemorative token. Setting up a product line is also non-trivial, especially since finding graphic artists willing to put in the effort to design worthwhile products is difficult. So since there is not an actual end product with ReactOS alone, what reward is there to offer backers? The fuzzy feeling of knowing they helped support ReactOS? They can already do that by donating directly to the project. This being the case, why would we attempt to shove ReactOS alone into a crowd funding platform?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests