The free software tarballs are now difficult to find

[windowsrefund]

Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and download.

Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-free "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an option.

Personally, I'd like to see the site reverted so users have the option.

FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:

http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet

Best,
Adam Kosmin

[Nigel Kersten]

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:

I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to collect information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall (personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem to be in the spirit of free software[1].

There are lots of ways people get open source Puppet, and not many people actually grab them in tarball form from the website from the stats we have.

Apart from being in the distributions, most of you seem to be getting software from the apt/yum repos, which don't require a paywall:

http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html

If you're hitting the main page, yes, the "Download" link goes to PE by default, with a link to the OSS download page at the bottom.

The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page takes you here:

http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/

where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs directly from us.

The reasoning has generally been that if you want to use Puppet, the best way of consuming it is via packages, and if you want to get the source, the best way of consuming it is via Git.

That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is simpler for developers.

[R.I.Pienaar]

On 15 Oct 2012, at 01:26, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:23:57 AM UTC-7, Paul Belanger wrote:

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:10:54 AM UTC-4, windowsrefund wrote:

Recently, there have been some changes made to the Puppetlabs website which result in the free software releases being difficult to locate and download.

Visitors using the download links are taken directly to the non-free "Enterprise" option rather than being presented with an option.

Personally, I'd like to see the site reverted so users have the option.

FYI, the wiki section still provides this useful content here:

http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/downloading_puppet

Best,
Adam Kosmin

I was asking this on IRC the other day.  I understand the need to collect information for prospective customers, however requiring a pay wall (personal information) to access the open source tarballs does not seem to be in the spirit of free software[1].

There are lots of ways people get open source Puppet, and not many people actually grab them in tarball form from the website from the stats we have.

Apart from being in the distributions, most of you seem to be getting software from the apt/yum repos, which don't require a paywall:

http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html

If you're hitting the main page, yes, the "Download" link goes to PE by default, with a link to the OSS download page at the bottom.

The survey/user info page you get for the open source version used to have a bypass and go str8 to the downloads link, doesn't have it anymore. 

[windowsrefund]

That way updates are simpler for users, and development from source is simpler for developers.

And yet, I haven't heard a single user say anything to the affect of "please make us jump through additional hoops in order to download the Free Software releases. In fact, this thread exists because users are speaking out against the change made to the traditional download path. It would be nice to see the site reverted back to the previous behavior. Believe me, users who want PE will get it without having it pushed on them.

Best,
Adam Kosmin

[Jeffrey Watts]

My view on the matter has always been this.  Most people already know how to find Puppet (it's usually in their distribution already).  This change might inconvenience people slightly, but it's not a big deal for the technically adept.  The folks who aren't technically adept should use their distribution provided version or they ought to be buying PE.

PuppetLabs is a company that makes its money off of Puppet Enterprise.  I see nothing wrong with them promoting it or making it the easiest download.  They want new folks to see PE first, get it, love it, and not want to leave it.  Making the Open Source version more prominently featured on their site doesn't help their business model.  I feel that their business model is a good one, and good for everyone - companies that want a more bundled product with support can pay for a product that pays the salaries of developers who make the Open Source version better.

Jeffrey.

P.S.  I don't use Puppet Enterprise.

[windowsrefund]

This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with PL's business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself, the software and it's community is far more important. It was bad enough to see the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now we're seeing the free software version treated like a red headed step-child. We've seen this trend play itself out hundreds of times over the years and it's starting to look like PL is turning out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. We'll see...

[Jeffrey Watts]

I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have done a similar thing and it's only been good for the community.  Perhaps you don't use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many innovations that were funded by dollars that came from RHEL subscriptions.

I also think you're being overly dramatic and exaggerating when you say that it's "treated like a red headed step-child".  We disagree but I think what's changed is pretty minor in the big scheme of things.

Jeffrey.

[Nigel Kersten]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:39:07 AM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:

This has nothing to do with being adept and also has nothing to do with PL's business model. For a Free Software zealot such as myself, the software and it's community is far more important. It was bad enough to see the business agenda decide to switch to a non-copyleft license and now we're seeing the free software version treated like a red headed step-child. We've seen this trend play itself out hundreds of times over the years and it's starting to look like PL is turning out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. We'll see...

We've hired and dedicated an experienced community manager for the community. 

In the last quarter we've released Puppet 3.0, PuppetDB 1.0, Hiera 1.0, and multiple MCollective releases, all great open source projects. 

Don't you think "treated like a red headed step-child" is rather hyperbolic?

[windowsrefund]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:02:00 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

I admire your conviction but keep in mind that Red Hat and others have done a similar thing and it's only been good for the community.  Perhaps you don't use RHEL, but you certainly use one of the many innovations that were funded by dollars that came from RHEL subscriptions.

Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.
 

I also think you're being overly dramatic and exaggerating when you say that it's "treated like a red headed step-child".  We disagree but I think what's changed is pretty minor in the big scheme of things.

I don't think I'm being dramatic at all. I'm simply pointing out my observations when I consider PL's change of direction lately. Again, the move from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license kicked things off. This was followed by catering to the Windows crowd and now the front-end is pushing PE on the community. Look, if it's no big deal and such a minor change, why hasn't the download link just been reverted? In other words, I'm thinking PL does in fact see this as a big deal.

I'm simply voicing my distaste.

Adam Kosmin

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund <window...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.

Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model.  I think it's a very germane comparison.  Both are commercial companies that sell support for Open Source programs and also sell proprietary products.  Both contribute considerably to FOSS.  But apparently you disagree that it's a relevant comparison - though you decline to state why.

 

I don't think I'm being dramatic at all. I'm simply pointing out my observations when I consider PL's change of direction lately. Again, the move from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license kicked things off. This was followed by catering to the Windows crowd and now the front-end is pushing PE on the community. Look, if it's no big deal and such a minor change, why hasn't the download link just been reverted? In other words, I'm thinking PL does in fact see this as a big deal.

I'm simply voicing my distaste.

Well then perhaps I ought to point out that your "distaste" reeks of drama and isn't very constructive.  One thing I learned a long time ago is that hyperbole and hostility, while certainly making one feel self-righteous, in the end is pretty worthless as an instrument of change.

But perhaps somehow, things will be different this time and your efforts will bear fruit.  Good luck!

Jeffrey.

[windowsrefund]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:38:47 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, windowsrefund <window...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing about RHEL has anything to do with this thread.

Well, I used it as an example of a similar business model.  I think it's a very germane comparison.  Both are commercial companies that sell support for Open Source programs and also sell proprietary products.  Both contribute considerably to FOSS.  But apparently you disagree that it's a relevant comparison - though you decline to state why

Well for starters, this isn't a RHEL mailing list and we're not talking about the RHEL solution. If we're going to just start comparing things in order to find justification for any and all actions, why stop there? Let's compare to Apple, Microsoft, the bagel I had for breakfast this morning, the outcome of the election and anything else totally irrelevant
 

I'm simply voicing my distaste.

Well then perhaps I ought to point out that your "distaste" reeks of drama and isn't very constructive.  One thing I learned a long time ago is that hyperbole and hostility, while certainly making one feel self-righteous, in the end is pretty worthless as an instrument of change.

Look, don't start trying to paint me in a negative light here. I'm not the one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software community. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously made the decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?

Best,
Adam Kosmin

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM, windowsrefund <window...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well for starters, this isn't a RHEL mailing list and we're not talking about the RHEL solution. If we're going to just start comparing things in order to find justification for any and all actions, why stop there? Let's compare to Apple, Microsoft, the bagel I had for breakfast this morning, the outcome of the election and anything else totally irrelevant 

If you're going to disregard arguments that don't support your conclusions then you're not interested in a serious discussion.

 

Look, don't start trying to paint me in a negative light here. I'm not the one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software community. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously made the decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?

Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing.  Your responses have been disproportionate to the discussion.  Right now it's my opinion that you're more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet behind a dubious nom de plume than having a real discussion on this issue.  Please prove me wrong.

Jeffrey.

[windowsrefund]

Windows (may I call you by your first name?), you seem to forget that I complimented your ideals before politely disagreeing.  Your responses have been disproportionate to the discussion.  Right now it's my opinion that you're more interested in ranting and raving on the Internet behind a dubious nom de plume than having a real discussion on this issue.  Please prove me wrong.

Jeff,

Not sure if it's your browser settings but my name is Adam Kosmin. If you scroll up and review, you'll see no nom, no de, and no plume. Also, I'm not here to prove anything to you. As you can see, I've raised a serious discussion and have kept it on track despite your obvious attempts to derail the thread into something petty and personal.

So, if you can answer the outstanding questions (see above), fee free to contribute. Otherwise, please find another thread to hijack.

Thanks,
Adam Kosmin 

Jeffrey.

[Daniel Pittman]

Hi.

I am going to have to ask both of you to stay polite, and avoid personal attacks, if you want to continue to discuss this as part of the Puppet mailing list.

Adam, for better or worse, all your messages show up to me as being from "windowsrefund".

Jeffrey, Adam had used his name several times in the body of the messages you responded to.

As a company we welcome debate, and disagreement, around how we run our business.  They often mirror internal discussions that we have had about exactly the same set of topics.

We do require that they remain polite, and impersonal.

Thank you. 

[windowsrefund]

Daniel,

Thanks for stepping in. Do you have insight into the questions I've submitted?

All the best,
Adam Kosmin

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: [Puppet Users] Re: The free software tarballs are now...:

> The "Products -> Puppet Open Source" link on the main page takes you here:
>
> http://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-open-source/
>
> where we promote getting the source from GitHub rather than tarballs
> directly from us.
>
> The reasoning has generally been that if you want to use Puppet, the best
> way of consuming it is via packages, and if you want to get the source, the
> best way of consuming it is via Git.

There are certainly some benefits to GitHub, but my recurring gripe is
that most software that's hosted on GitHub no longer seems to follow
any notion of "versions" or "releases". This makes packaging and local
version tracking a bit more tricky.

I see that you PuppetLabs folks are continuing to do a good job of tagging
release versions, though. That's great news, and I certainly hope it
continues.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.M...@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

[James Turnbull]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:05:41 PM UTC-7, windowsrefund wrote:

Look, don't start trying to paint me in a negative light here. I'm not the one who has taken specific actions designed to alienate the free software community. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Someone obviously made the decision to make the community jump through yet another hoop in order to obtain and therefore, use, the free software version over PE. Who made that decision and how was that justified? More importantly, who is making the call to not revert the page now that objections have been raised?

Adam

Firstly, we're not going to revisit the discussions around the change of Puppet and Facter's license. We stated our reasoning at that time (see this blog post - http://puppetlabs.com/blog/relicensing-puppet-to-apache-2-0/). We accept that some members of the community (a very small number from the feedback we've received) have an issue with the change but it has been largely well received.

Secondly, describing Puppet Lab's open source software as a "red-headed step child" is not only hyperbolic but it's also incorrect. We produce far more open source software than we do commercial software. The flurry of releases this year reflect this continued focus on the community and our commitment to open source software. 

Thirdly, as stated earlier, very few of our customers acquire the open source version of Puppet via the website. They use distribution provided packages or our own repositories. We agree we've removed the previously available bypass but we've also provided numerous other channels (that we've certainly not hidden from the community in any way) where you can get Puppet. 

Lastly, we freely admit that we're trying to feature Puppet Enterprise because it pays for us to continue to develop Puppet. That's our business model and we've been very clear now and in the past about that model and how commercial and open source software interact at Puppet Labs. As a result of our need to fund Puppet development we're clearly not going to meet the expectations of every member of the community but we've chosen a path we think, and feedback from the community reflects this, delivers to the needs of both the open source community and allows us to maintain a viable business.

Kind Regards

James Turnbull

[jcbollinger]

For what it's worth, I always prefer to get source for third-party software, and my absolute least favorite way to do so is from a source-control repository.  I particularly like source RPMs, but tarballs generally work just fine for me.  More generally, I want one file, associated with a specific release of the software and so labeled, and accessible via a general purpose network protocol such as HTTP or FTP from a location sponsored by the project.

I don't see any dark conspiracy behind PL's website changes, but I am a bit surprised by some of the responses from PL personnel.  The tone, if not the actual content, seems in some cases to say "there's nothing wrong, why are you bothering us with this?"  Clearly something is wrong as far as Adam is concerned.  PL is certainly not obligated to cater to any individual user's preferences -- or even to the whole community's preferences -- but it is not helpful to anyone to try, as some of the responses seemed to do, to deny their validity.

Given a complaint that the source tarballs are hard to find, I would have expected a response more along the lines of

We're sorry the changes to our web site have inconvenienced you.  We assure you that our intent is not to hide or block access to open-source Puppet.  We will consider whether the site can be changed further to better serve both PE and our open-source Puppet users.

I might even have expected a suggestion to file a ticket or a solicitation for further community comment.


John

[James Turnbull]

On Oct 16, 6:12 am, jcbollinger <John.Bollin...@stJude.org> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I always prefer to get source for third-party

> software, and my absolute *least* favorite way to do so is from a

> source-control repository.  I particularly like source RPMs, but tarballs

> generally work just fine for me.  More generally, I want *one file*,

> associated with a specific release of the software and so labeled, and
> accessible via a general purpose network protocol such as HTTP or FTP from
> a location sponsored by the project.

It is available from GitHub, tagged for each release, for example:

https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/zipball/3.0.0

It's also available via Source RPM from our repos.

> I don't see any dark conspiracy behind PL's website changes, but I am a bit
> surprised by some of the responses from PL personnel.  The tone, if not the
> actual content, seems in some cases to say "there's nothing wrong, why are

> you bothering us with this?"  Clearly something *is* wrong as far as Adam

> is concerned.  PL is certainly not obligated to cater to any individual
> user's preferences -- or even to the whole community's preferences -- but
> it is not helpful to anyone to try, as some of the responses seemed to do,
> to deny their validity.

I'm not denying their validity of the issue. I am questioning what
exactly the issue being raised is and the extent that it's a key issue
for the community.

>
> Given a complaint that the source tarballs are hard to find, I would have
> expected a response more along the lines of
>
> > We're sorry the changes to our web site have inconvenienced you.  We
> > assure you that our intent is not to hide or block access to open-source
> > Puppet.  We will consider whether the site can be changed further to better
> > serve both PE and our open-source Puppet users.
>
> I might even have expected a suggestion to file a ticket or a solicitation
> for further community comment.

My analysis of the situation was that this was less about the location
of tarballs or access to software (given the numerous other ways you
can get the software) but rather about the definition of "free". Here
some members of the community and Puppet Labs clearly differ. I
believe, no matter what changes we make to our website, that the only
way they will be satisfied is we return to a GPL-esque license. A
change we're not going to make for a number of legitimate, documented,
transparent business reasons. That limits our ability to have a
productive conversation about these issues.

That being said we are discussing internally whether to continue with
this approach. We've not yet made a decision but I will communicate
that decision either way when it's made.

Kind Regards

James Turnbull