From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Oct 29 03:51:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13533 for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:51:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail2.svr.freeserve.net (mail2.svr.freeserve.net [195.92.193.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA13527 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:51:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from c.raven@ukonline.co.uk) Received: from modem-78.vanadium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.11.78] helo=ukonline.co.uk) by mail2.svr.freeserve.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05iplimit-2 #4) id 0zYqbP-0005QP-00; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:50:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3638569D.C8231092@ukonline.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:50:53 +0000 From: Christopher Raven Organization: CIAN X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.7-RELEASE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Lehey CC: "Jason C. Wells" , Wes Peters , advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Let's nail some things down. References: <36375E2B.7FB07828@softweyr.com> <19981029101428.B25247@freebie.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greg Lehey wrote: > > On Wednesday, 28 October 1998 at 11:15:10 -0800, Jason C. Wells wrote: > > We will have two logos. "Works with" and "Designed for". Do we > > agree? > > No. Well, yes, in principle, but I haven't thought about it enough. > I'm not overly happy with the exact wording "designed for", but I > can't think of anything better at the moment. I think this is a point > that we can bounce around a bit. Also, I'm not sure that three > wouldn't be better, as discussed. > > > The test for "Works with" should be a simple "can it run under some sort > > of emulation?" (E.G acroread) > > OK. > > > The test for "Designed for" should be "can we build it from source?" > > or "did the developer build FreeBSD native > > binaries?". (E.G. netscape and all source available ports) > > Maybe. I'm certainly expecting native FreeBSD binaries to be the > predominant case. > > > Do the above statements seem reasonable? If so, let's set them in > > stone so we can reduce the number of degrees of freedom in this > > problem and work toward a solution. > > It's too early to cast them in stone. In addition, we haven't looked > at the third category, the "not FreeBSD, but vendor supplies > installation aids for FreeBSD users". > > > I think Wes' concerns about "giant infrastructure" are valid. I > > think the KISS principle should apply. Do we agree? > > Yes, finally :-) > > Greg When the end user aquires the software/hardware, labels and all, how do they know what the label really means? Is there going to be some sort of brief description of the 2(3?) labels, or an expansion saying something like .... designed for FreeBSD this product has been designed since conception for use with FreeBSD type of thing? Just a thought, CR -- Christopher Raven E-mail: c.raven@ukonline.co.uk & ICQ: 2254369 http://www.FreeBSD.org/ "The Power To Serve" http://www.unmetered.org.uk/ "A PC is for life, not just for Xmas" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message