25 Feb
2004
25 Feb
'04
7:06 p.m.
Hello all,
I've been talking to a couple of companies about loan hardware for
libre software developers. Does anyone have suggestions about how we
might distribute this fairly, given that members are geographically
distributed? The best two options I can think of are:
1. Set up a 'centre of excellence' which builds up a good collection
of hardware - this might be at a university, or in part of a
commercial studio complex perhaps.
2. Loan the hardware for a fixed period of time, after which it gets
sent on to the next person who needs it.
I think the drawbacks to each option are fairly obvious. What do you
lot think?
Cheers
Daniel
25 Feb
25 Feb
7:45 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 05:19:04 +0000, Daniel James wrote:
I think the drawbacks to each option are fairly
obvious. What do you
lot think?
The obvious place for soundcards to go is SUSE (I assume thats where
they go now), individual developers (eg. Thomas or Paul) allready have
arrangements with the manufacturers.
How to deal with other things is less obvious.
- Steve
26 Feb
26 Feb
9:27 a.m.
>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel James
<daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> writes:
2. Loan the hardware for a fixed period of time, after
which it
gets sent on to the next person who needs it.
I think the drawbacks to each option are fairly
obvious. What
do you lot think?
I prefer (2), provided that people on the receiving hand agree to pay
for the transport of the material. We could probably set up a section
of the website on which to keep track of the material and the
estimated time for the next-hop.
bye,
andrea
9:33 a.m.
I prefer (2), provided that people on the receiving
hand agree to pay
for the transport of the material. We could probably set up a section
of the website on which to keep track of the material and the
estimated time for the next-hop.
Hmm, I get the feeling it might be easier for LinuxAudio.org to just have a
list of organisations and contacts for getting loan hardware - perhaps make
this a "members only" list for the consortium if you like. That way
individuals and orgs can get to the people they need directly and therefore
potentialy get straight to the hardware. Passing about bits of hardware
between individuals isn't IMO a good way of keeping track of any of it -
you'd think any company that'd agree to that would be wondering if they'd
ever see it again.
R
11:24 a.m.
I get the feeling it might be easier for
LinuxAudio.org to just
have a list of organisations and contacts for getting loan hardware
- perhaps make this a "members only" list for the consortium if you
like. That way individuals and orgs can get to the people they
need directly and therefore potentialy get straight to the
hardware.
Rather than have centralised co-ordination, you mean? Sounds like a
bit of a free-for-all. I think a donor company would rather be
working with a single contact who would take responsibility for the
hardware.
Passing about bits of hardware between individuals
isn't
IMO a good way of keeping track of any of it - you'd think any
company that'd agree to that would be wondering if they'd ever see
it again.
Here I think the consortium could have a role in making the hardware
to the people who could make the best use of it.
Perhaps instead of rotating the hardware, we could set up a scheme
whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the maintainer of
support for device 'Y', and other developers who want to test their
software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That way, 'X' gets the
benefit
of having the loan hardware on-site, but also has the responsibility
to work with the community on support for it.
Where 'Y' is a soundcard or usb/pcmcia/firewire audio interface, I
agree it makes sense to ask the ALSA project first. But I was also
thinking of external controllers and complete hardware systems. In
the latter circumstance I figure the hardware should be available to
whoever makes the best case for becoming 'maintainer' of support for
it.
Cheers
Daniel
11:30 a.m.
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:37, Daniel James wrote:
Rather than have centralised co-ordination, you mean?
Sounds like a
bit of a free-for-all. I think a donor company would rather be
working with a single contact who would take responsibility for the
hardware.
But coordinating between counties and projects is a lot of work for a single
person. What about saying that each project/company uses their nominated
person on the board of LinuxAudio to do all this discussion? Then everyone
involved is recognised and seen as being "responsible" at least.
Here I think the consortium could have a role in
making the hardware
to the people who could make the best use of it.
Perhaps instead of rotating the hardware, we could set up a scheme
whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the maintainer of
support for device 'Y', and other developers who want to test their
software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That way, 'X' gets the
benefit
of having the loan hardware on-site, but also has the responsibility
to work with the community on support for it.
I don't think you'll get much joy trying to impose a structure on how either
the hardware or the work could be distributed. It's up to people to work as
they feel like it - if they can get their hands on the hardware then and
there then that'll help it out. I think the approach here has to be
pragmatic as in many cases if the interested developer wants some hardware
they can always buy it if they can afford it or just approach the vendor
directly for loan stuff. It'd be nice if LinuxAudio.org helped with this
process rather than tried to impose a regime to it - that's probably not what
you meant but that's what it sounds like.
R
11:42 a.m.
But coordinating between counties and projects is a
lot of work for
a single person.
I meant one named person per piece of hardware, rather than one person
for all hardware - the latter approach could cause problems if a
third party did not return the hardware.
I don't think you'll get much joy trying to
impose a structure on
how either the hardware or the work could be distributed. It's up
to people to work as they feel like it
Sure - I meant that people would volunteer to be responsible for a
particular device, not some kind of centralised allocation system.
I'd guess that some devices would suit certain developers' skills and
interests more than others - there's not much point sending a
controller keyboard to a developer who isn't working on MIDI stuff,
for example.
I
think the approach here has to be pragmatic as in many cases if the
interested developer wants some hardware they can always buy it if
they can afford it
Quite - but potentially these could be expensive pieces of hardware
loaned to developers releasing 'free as in beer' software. They may
also be pre-production models unavailable in the shops, or equipment
bartered for software support.
or just approach the vendor directly for loan
stuff.
I think that would be unlikely to succeed if lots of different
developers were making competing claims for the same kit.
It'd be nice if LinuxAudio.org helped with this
process
rather than tried to impose a regime to it
I did mean the hardware that the consortium was offered as a group,
not to interfere with relationships that individual members have (or
would like to have) with manufacturers.
Cheers
Daniel
12:14 p.m.
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:55, Daniel James wrote:
Ah, ok.
Actually, I think maybe we're coming at it from two sides here. Perhaps
you're talking about hardware which might just turn up on spec at the
consortium for usage by development teams, rather than the developers
themselves driving a particular request through to the manufaturer (which is
more my angle).
Anyway, the point was that in the case that a team has a particular need which
another member could service it would be useful for the consortium to act on
the behalf of the little guys to get their voices heard and at least get them
an answer if they can't get the kit. Of course someone has to decide what is
a reasonable request in this case but it might be annoying if individual
teams or small companies (ahem) went to the bigger companies for hardware
help only to be told that the consortium has already been given X or Y. In
this case there has to be a distinction between specific task-driven work and
just general freebies for people to share and play around with. Non?
R
But
coordinating between counties and projects is a lot of work for
a single person.
I meant one named person per piece of hardware, rather than one person
for all hardware
12:28 p.m.
In
this case there has to be a distinction between specific
task-driven work and just general freebies for people to share and
play around with.
Absolutely - we'll have to be very clear about what the expectations
of the donor are before accepting the hardware.
I hope people will use this list to co-ordinate approaches to
manufacturers.
Cheers
Daniel
27 Feb
27 Feb
10:18 p.m.
>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel James
<daniel(a)linuxaudio.org> writes:
Perhaps instead of rotating the hardware, we could set
up a
scheme whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the
maintainer of support for device 'Y', and other developers who
want to test their software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That
way, 'X' gets the benefit of having the loan hardware on-site,
but also has the responsibility to work with the community on
support for it.
I support this.
bye,
andrea
7358
days inactive
7360
days old
consortium@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrea Glorioso -
Daniel James -
Richard Bown -
Steve Harris