On a free repacker

On a free repacker

[mjt]

Hi

There was an IRC discussion earlier today, a short one, about the repacker.

It appears that Reiser4 does not fragment much in normal use, but it can
get badly fragmented with fsstress for example?

Now, the idea is to sell the repacker.

Basically:

1) It could be binary-only
   Enough buyers will open the source like with Blender
   There would be online statistics which describe how much to go
   before this happens.
  
2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
   except redistribute it.

There was the point that Blender had gained some popularity before
the source release, which Reiser4 does not yet have. That may make
this difficult to push through. A free repacker would make the situation
better, but I see it as one of those annoying chicken-and-egg problems.

The pricing must be ok too. Not so high that regular people won't buy it
but not so cheap that it doesn't generate revenue.

If the source code is sold, people may want to develop it further, but
I'm sure if they pay 1000000000e for it, they will expect perfection
and not contribute.

Then there's some copy-protection issues. I hope it will not be too
heavily laid with license keys and stuff like that, because it makes
usage harder and doesn't stop anyone from being an asshole.

I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
module? It may be the easiest method.

Hans, what's your take on this?
Maybe a real donations page would be required to get the baby up and
running, maybe some really basic repacker but one that's so rock-solid
that people would buy it and know they'll get free updates and in
the end it'll be all open...

Just my two cents worth of rambling again :)

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Hans Reiser]

flx, please create the donations acceptance wording for our website.

Hans

On Wednesday 19 May 2004 12:28, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> There was an IRC discussion earlier today, a short one, about the repacker.
>
> It appears that Reiser4 does not fragment much in normal use, but it can
> get badly fragmented with fsstress for example?
>
> Now, the idea is to sell the repacker.
>
> Basically:
>
> 1) It could be binary-only
>    Enough buyers will open the source like with Blender
>    There would be online statistics which describe how much to go
>    before this happens.
>
> 2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
>    except redistribute it.
Yes, I think this.
>
> There was the point that Blender had gained some popularity before
> the source release, which Reiser4 does not yet have. That may make
> this difficult to push through. A free repacker would make the situation
> better, but I see it as one of those annoying chicken-and-egg problems.
>
> The pricing must be ok too. Not so high that regular people won't buy it
> but not so cheap that it doesn't generate revenue.
I think 5% of the cost of the storage hardware (including raid cards), which 
is about $5 for most people.
>
> If the source code is sold, people may want to develop it further, but
> I'm sure if they pay 1000000000e for it, they will expect perfection
> and not contribute.
>
> Then there's some copy-protection issues. I hope it will not be too
> heavily laid with license keys and stuff like that, because it makes
> usage harder and doesn't stop anyone from being an asshole.
No copy protection.  We will make money from large corporations and not worry 
about individual pirates.
>
> I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
> module? It may be the easiest method.
only user space portion will be non-gpl.
>
> Hans, what's your take on this?
> Maybe a real donations page would be required to get the baby up and
> running, maybe some really basic repacker but one that's so rock-solid
> that people would buy it and know they'll get free updates and in
> the end it'll be all open...
>
> Just my two cents worth of rambling again :)
thanks for your thoughts.

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:28:13AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> 2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
>>    except redistribute it.
>Yes, I think this.

Hopefully people will send in features, then.

>I think 5% of the cost of the storage hardware (including raid cards), which 
>is about $5 for most people.

I'm not sure I follow. Buyers will tell you what hardware they have and
you will price it accordingly?
Good for large customers, bad for individuals...

Maybe user and corporate licenses separately?

>> I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
>> module? It may be the easiest method.
>only user space portion will be non-gpl.

What about the ransomware idea, gpl when enough money is gained?

At the price of five bucks, I won't mind paying even if it isn't
ransomware, but I think ransomware will be more widely accepted...

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Hans Reiser]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:28:13AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>>2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
>>>   except redistribute it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, I think this.
>>    
>>
>
>Hopefully people will send in features, then.
>
>  
>
>>I think 5% of the cost of the storage hardware (including raid cards), which 
>>is about $5 for most people.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure I follow. Buyers will tell you what hardware they have and
>you will price it accordingly?
>Good for large customers, bad for individuals...
>  
>
Don't understand the last sentence.

We will throw in full reiser4 support, with cell phones of developers 
for persons spending at least $500.

>Maybe user and corporate licenses separately?
>
>  
>
>>>I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
>>>module? It may be the easiest method.
>>>      
>>>
>>only user space portion will be non-gpl.
>>    
>>
>
>What about the ransomware idea, gpl when enough money is gained?
>
>At the price of five bucks, I won't mind paying even if it isn't
>ransomware, but I think ransomware will be more widely accepted...
>
>  
>
I don't think the need for more reiserfs features whose development 
needs to be paid for is finite....

but hey, if some distro comes along and offers to sponsor us in return 
for a free resizer, they know where to email me.....

I need a business model that works well enough to pay the bills.  The 
resizer is just one more experiment towards finding it.

-- 
Hans

Re: On a free repacker

[Redeeman]

On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 04:32, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:28:13AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>>2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
> >>>   except redistribute it.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Yes, I think this.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Hopefully people will send in features, then.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I think 5% of the cost of the storage hardware (including raid cards), which 
> >>is about $5 for most people.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure I follow. Buyers will tell you what hardware they have and
> >you will price it accordingly?
> >Good for large customers, bad for individuals...
> >  
> >
> Don't understand the last sentence.
> 
> We will throw in full reiser4 support, with cell phones of developers 
> for persons spending at least $500.
> 
> >Maybe user and corporate licenses separately?
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
> >>>module? It may be the easiest method.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>only user space portion will be non-gpl.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >What about the ransomware idea, gpl when enough money is gained?
> >
> >At the price of five bucks, I won't mind paying even if it isn't
> >ransomware, but I think ransomware will be more widely accepted...
> >
> >  
> >
> I don't think the need for more reiserfs features whose development 
> needs to be paid for is finite....
> 
> but hey, if some distro comes along and offers to sponsor us in return 
> for a free resizer, they know where to email me.....
> 
> I need a business model that works well enough to pay the bills.  The 
> resizer is just one more experiment towards finding it.
i believe it will be extremely hard to find that. i think the best way
to go, is to make presentations and documents on what THIS company will
gain from using your products, and sponsor features.

-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments

Re: On a free repacker

[Hans Reiser]

Redee

>i believe it will be extremely hard to find that. i think the best way
>to go, is to make presentations and documents on what THIS company will
>gain from using your products, and sponsor features.
>
>  
>
not a lot of money from that so far....

-- 
Hans

Re: On a free repacker

[Redeeman]

On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 04:57, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Redee
> 
> >i believe it will be extremely hard to find that. i think the best way
> >to go, is to make presentations and documents on what THIS company will
> >gain from using your products, and sponsor features.
> >
> >  
> >
> not a lot of money from that so far....
no :( sadly.
but i dont think there are better methods.
maybe contacting firms using linux, and tell me what you can do for them

-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:02:39PM +0200, Redeeman wrote:

>but i dont think there are better methods.
>maybe contacting firms using linux, and tell me what you can do for them

One thing that tangents closely to this is to have some proprietary
closed product which would benefit enough to sponsor a free product.

Of course one can see that as betraying principles. Then there's the
problem of coming up with a separate proprietary closed-source
revenue-generating product that one has time to develop, maybe even
primarily...

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:32:00PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>>I'm not sure I follow. Buyers will tell you what hardware they have and
>>you will price it accordingly?
>>Good for large customers, bad for individuals...
>Don't understand the last sentence.
>
>We will throw in full reiser4 support, with cell phones of developers 
>for persons spending at least $500.

So let's say the average guy has 100GB of hard drive at the cost of $5.
The pricing starts to suck if it's too closely tied to drive capacity
for private people. "Yeah, you pay 2.50 for it, you 10" and so on.

Doesn't work.

However, large customers should be able to see that there's a corporate
pricing as well. If someone from a major ISP wants to buy a private
license for $5, it's a warning that they may abuse this :)

I just hope it stays affordable and simple for private people and
profitable for corporations :)

>>At the price of five bucks, I won't mind paying even if it isn't
>>ransomware, but I think ransomware will be more widely accepted...
>I don't think the need for more reiserfs features whose development 
>needs to be paid for is finite....

I'm just thinking along the lines of making enough profit from the
repacker to cover expenses and then some, releasing it and having
the next feature as ransomware.

Basically some friends and I have had long talks about that as a
business model, but have reached no better concensus than "might work"
This has never been talked about for a project that has wages to pay,
though...

>but hey, if some distro comes along and offers to sponsor us in return 
>for a free resizer, they know where to email me.....

Or a distro buys the resizer (with source code, as I hope is always the
case) and develops it with you, and everyone who bought it is entitled
to an upgrade, yes? no?

That's probably the next best thing after money ;)

>I need a business model that works well enough to pay the bills.  The 
>resizer is just one more experiment towards finding it.

Hope one evolves and other people may use it too.

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:44:51 +0300, Markus =?UNKNOWN?Q?T=F6rnqvist?= said:

> However, large customers should be able to see that there's a corporate
> pricing as well. If someone from a major ISP wants to buy a private
> license for $5, it's a warning that they may abuse this :)
> 
> I just hope it stays affordable and simple for private people and
> profitable for corporations :)

Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
>Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....

I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
I don't think I'll look into it yet).

All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as subversion
and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't use BK.
And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me.

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> 
>>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
>>Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....
> 
> 
> I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
> I don't think I'll look into it yet).
> 
> All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as subversion
> and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't use BK.
> And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me.

Oh, that is interesting. I think we agree that CVS is not simple to use.
But I'm interested in how subversion can be simpler than bitkeeper.

# bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
and you have a directory "project"
# cd project
# ./configure; make; make install
for updates:
# cd project
# bk pull
some projects may have a default of source not checked out, do it now
# bk -r get

Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes
my life simpler.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>
># bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
>and you have a directory "project"
># cd project
># ./configure; make; make install
>for updates:
># cd project
># bk pull
>some projects may have a default of source not checked out, do it now
># bk -r get

I think this script is pretty much fubar :)
Oh, and mjt.nysv.org is down, don't even try to download this or anything
else, it will fail.[1]

>Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes
>my life simpler.

Lots of switches which affect what is transferred. That may be versatility
but I think it's useless. SVN is just svn update and there you have it.

That is achieved with clone, pull and -r get in BK.
How does BK do diffs? SVN is svn diff -r145:146 and it's there.

SVN's bigger problem seems to be that files are actually copied when
they're tagged. I love that, but I could see it flooding the hard drive.
Apparently they're just tagged in the server-side database, but it's
transparent copying.

That's a fair trade-off for anything CVS can throw at me ;)

I have to admit, though, that I lack experience in BK, and may find the
options, switches and knobs simpler if I got into it. But I don't see
the need...

[1]
Damn how much I hate computers sometimes. Like I wouldn't have more pressing
matters than some broken python cgi...

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

Note: Lines starting with "user@linux:~>" are lines you have to type in
into your shell.

To get a local copy of a repository not yet on your disk:
user@linux:~> bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
and you have a directory "project" containing all the files you need.

To get the latest revision from the upstream repository, just issue
user@linux:~> bk pull
inside the project directory and your sources will be updated to the
latest version available upstream.

For consistency it might be advisable to add the following line to your
/etc/BitKeeper/etc/config file:
checkout: get


> I think this script is pretty much fubar :)

That was not a script. It was a collection of the most needed commands if
you want to follow a development tree. And it is definitely not python.
I'm used to mark commands with a leading "#" and not tag comments at all.
I now have tried to make the above more clear. Better?


> Oh, and mjt.nysv.org is down, don't even try to download this or anything
> else, it will fail.[1]
> 
> 
>>Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes
>>my life simpler.
> 
> 
> Lots of switches which affect what is transferred. That may be versatility
> but I think it's useless. SVN is just svn update and there you have it.

Wait. If I do not have the repository on my disk, svn update will get me
the whole repository fully checked out?


> That is achieved with clone, pull and -r get in BK.
> How does BK do diffs? SVN is svn diff -r145:146 and it's there.

That depends. I do not know what svn diff does. Assuming it takes file
revision numbers, the following command in bk will work:
bk diffs -r1.45..1.46

If you want a diff of two different tree revisions against each other:
bk export -tpatch -r1.45,1.46


> SVN's bigger problem seems to be that files are actually copied when
> they're tagged. I love that, but I could see it flooding the hard drive.

That is a cool feature.

> Apparently they're just tagged in the server-side database, but it's
> transparent copying.
> 
> That's a fair trade-off for anything CVS can throw at me ;)

Hey, everything is better than CVS. It was so complicated that after
having tried it (and having invested days into learning it properly), I
decided to go back to regular diffs and tarballs. And that was for a
project which was already managed inside CVS, but it had to track the
kernel (back when the kernel existed only as tarballs and patches). The
mantenance headache for me was big enough to give up on CVS.


> I have to admit, though, that I lack experience in BK, and may find the
> options, switches and knobs simpler if I got into it. But I don't see
> the need...

You're right about the need. Time can be spent better than learning yet
another revision control system.


Regards,
Carl-Daniel
-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:23:00PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

>To get a local copy of a repository not yet on your disk:
>user@linux:~> bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
>and you have a directory "project" containing all the files you need.

svn co svn://host/repository/project

>To get the latest revision from the upstream repository, just issue
>user@linux:~> bk pull
>inside the project directory and your sources will be updated to the
>latest version available upstream.

co checkouts everything, svn update updates

>That was not a script. It was a collection of the most needed commands if

It looked a bit like the script I posted the url for here :)

>you want to follow a development tree. And it is definitely not python.

Hmm! Everything should be python ;)

>I now have tried to make the above more clear. Better?

Yeah

>> but I think it's useless. SVN is just svn update and there you have it.
>Wait. If I do not have the repository on my disk, svn update will get me
>the whole repository fully checked out?

I expressed myself badly, sorry.
Of course one has to make an initial checkout to get all the .svn
directories and all...

>That depends. I do not know what svn diff does. Assuming it takes file
>revision numbers, the following command in bk will work:
>bk diffs -r1.45..1.46

Ok, that's fairly equal.

>If you want a diff of two different tree revisions against each other:
>bk export -tpatch -r1.45,1.46

I think, but I can't check it now, svn supports recursive diffs by
default. svn diff -r 100:HEAD dev/ stable/ where dev and stable
are svn copied trees.

>> SVN's bigger problem seems to be that files are actually copied when
>> they're tagged. I love that, but I could see it flooding the hard drive.
>That is a cool feature.

It truly is. Tagging a new stable release is like this:
svn cp stable stable-1.1
svn ci

>Hey, everything is better than CVS. It was so complicated that after
>having tried it (and having invested days into learning it properly), I

I tried investing days into it, but I just broke the repositories :)

>You're right about the need. Time can be spent better than learning yet
>another revision control system.

Sure. Like working code that goes into the revision control system ;)

-- 
mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[Michael Milverton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2100 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:41 am, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to
> >> follow. Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....
> >
> > I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
> > I don't think I'll look into it yet).
> >
> > All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as
> > subversion and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't
> > use BK. And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me.
>
> Oh, that is interesting. I think we agree that CVS is not simple to use.
> But I'm interested in how subversion can be simpler than bitkeeper.
>
> # bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project
> and you have a directory "project"
> # cd project
> # ./configure; make; make install
> for updates:
> # cd project
> # bk pull
> some projects may have a default of source not checked out, do it now
> # bk -r get
>
> Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes
> my life simpler.
I realise that this may have been a rhetorical question but I still can't 
resist answering. This is really a note to those people who would like an RCS 
similar to BK but want something that is GPL free. I recommend giving DARCS a 
try.

David's Advanced Revision Control System
http://abridgegame.org/darcs/

It seems as simple to use ( I have not used BK so I am only looking at the 
steps above and they seem similar ) and its GPL. It is a distributed RCS with 
some original ideas behind it, eg a theory of patches etc. It is still 
reaching maturity, nearly at the big 1.0 release,  but I already use it and I 
love it a lot.

P.S I know this subject is offtopic but I have found useful links to programs 
that others have recommended so I hope that someone finds this useful.   
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel

Thankyou
Michael Milverton
-- 
GNU/Linux: Secure, Stable, Free
Michael <camel78@iprimus.com.au>

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 307 bytes --]

Re: On a free repacker

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1373 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:30:16 +0300, Markus =?UNKNOWN?Q?T=F6rnqvist?= said:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> >Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
> >Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....
> 
> I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
> I don't think I'll look into it yet).

BitKeeper is a licensed package that companies have to shell out
money to use - but Larry has a "no-cost for open-source development" license:

http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Overview.html

Basically, if you use it for free, you have to participate in their OpenLogging
project, which basically forces open-sourcing the package being maintained via BitKeeper...

Intel has a similar restricted no-cost license for their C/C++ compiler
suite: http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/noncom.htm
(basically, you may not get the same instant liveware support that paying
customers do, and you can't use it to build binaries for resale or commercial
use)....

QT's dual license is interesting too - "Pay us the bucks for a license, unless
your package is GPL'ed".

You might want to see if a "free for personal-use, academic, and non-profit
organization use, but use on any machines in a for-profit requires a paid license"
works for you....


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: On a free repacker

[Hans Reiser]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow.
>>Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought....
>>    
>>
>
>I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since
>I don't think I'll look into it yet).
>
>All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as subversion
>and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't use BK.
>And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me.
>
>  
>
we just follow linus....

Re: On a free repacker

[Mike Benoit]

Maybe its just me, but I almost look at paying $5 as costing me MORE
then paying $15-25. Paying $5 just comes across as being barely worth
the effort, and considering that PayPal takes a cut, or the Credit Card
company takes a cut of that as well, how much is the company really
getting? I guess I could always donate the extra money. ;) Of course
this is all from a personal, home user point of view.

From a business point of view, 5% of the total disk capacity seems
reasonable for a few machines. But not for 10 or more machines. 
And how would you handle situations where the disk capacity grows often.
Backup servers and such where your constantly adding more disks. 

Tracking all that would be a nightmare, and obviously companies don't
want to put themselves in a situation where there software may not be
licensed properly. Sometimes tracking all the software/hardware and just
making sure your properly licensed is more costly (in human resources)
then the license itself.

Hans, would you offer a reasonably priced flat rate "site license" for
an unlimited amount of machines, and disk capacity?


On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 21:44 +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:32:00PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> 
> >>I'm not sure I follow. Buyers will tell you what hardware they have and
> >>you will price it accordingly?
> >>Good for large customers, bad for individuals...
> >Don't understand the last sentence.
> >
> >We will throw in full reiser4 support, with cell phones of developers 
> >for persons spending at least $500.
> 
> So let's say the average guy has 100GB of hard drive at the cost of $5.
> The pricing starts to suck if it's too closely tied to drive capacity
> for private people. "Yeah, you pay 2.50 for it, you 10" and so on.
> 
> Doesn't work.
> 
> However, large customers should be able to see that there's a corporate
> pricing as well. If someone from a major ISP wants to buy a private
> license for $5, it's a warning that they may abuse this :)
> 
> I just hope it stays affordable and simple for private people and
> profitable for corporations :)
> 
> >>At the price of five bucks, I won't mind paying even if it isn't
> >>ransomware, but I think ransomware will be more widely accepted...
> >I don't think the need for more reiserfs features whose development 
> >needs to be paid for is finite....
> 
> I'm just thinking along the lines of making enough profit from the
> repacker to cover expenses and then some, releasing it and having
> the next feature as ransomware.
> 
> Basically some friends and I have had long talks about that as a
> business model, but have reached no better concensus than "might work"
> This has never been talked about for a project that has wages to pay,
> though...
> 
> >but hey, if some distro comes along and offers to sponsor us in return 
> >for a free resizer, they know where to email me.....
> 
> Or a distro buys the resizer (with source code, as I hope is always the
> case) and develops it with you, and everyone who bought it is entitled
> to an upgrade, yes? no?
> 
> That's probably the next best thing after money ;)
> 
> >I need a business model that works well enough to pay the bills.  The 
> >resizer is just one more experiment towards finding it.
> 
> Hope one evolves and other people may use it too.
> 
> -- 
> mjt
-- 
Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca>

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:15:43PM -0700, Mike Benoit wrote:
>Maybe its just me, but I almost look at paying $5 as costing me MORE
>then paying $15-25. Paying $5 just comes across as being barely worth
>the effort, and considering that PayPal takes a cut, or the Credit Card
>company takes a cut of that as well, how much is the company really
>getting? I guess I could always donate the extra money. ;) Of course
>this is all from a personal, home user point of view.

I do assume $5 profit for Namesys per each private person.
Price whatever the middle-men want for their service above and beyond
that.

And I don't know what's up with the $15 argument. I would much sooner
cough up $5 than $15, but I guess that's because I don't have enough
money not to think about it. Be it $5 plus expenses over $15 and expenses.

>licensed properly. Sometimes tracking all the software/hardware and just
>making sure your properly licensed is more costly (in human resources)
>then the license itself.

Mmmyeah, that's a good point, also the ones I snipped.
People probably tend to use linux because they don't have to worry
about licenses. That's one of my main issues.[1]

>Hans, would you offer a reasonably priced flat rate "site license" for
>an unlimited amount of machines, and disk capacity?

This may not be such a bad idea...

[1]
The computer is a tool and I want it to work and not cause me things
to worry about. Except when I want to. Like testing the early versions
of Reiser4 and seeing things like the archaelogical umount race condition
bug in action ;)

-- 
mjt

RE: On a free repacker

[Burnes, James]

Maybe do what Blender did and sell it as ransomware.  That netted $100k I think.

jim burnes
security engineer
great-west, denver
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Törnqvist [mailto:mjt@nysv.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:29 PM
> To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com
> Subject: On a free repacker
> 
> Hi
> 
> There was an IRC discussion earlier today, a short one, about the
> repacker.
> 
> It appears that Reiser4 does not fragment much in normal use, but it can
> get badly fragmented with fsstress for example?
> 
> Now, the idea is to sell the repacker.
> 
> Basically:
> 
> 1) It could be binary-only
>    Enough buyers will open the source like with Blender
>    There would be online statistics which describe how much to go
>    before this happens.
> 
> 2) You could sell the sources and the rights to do whatever you want,
>    except redistribute it.
> 
> There was the point that Blender had gained some popularity before
> the source release, which Reiser4 does not yet have. That may make
> this difficult to push through. A free repacker would make the situation
> better, but I see it as one of those annoying chicken-and-egg problems.
> 
> The pricing must be ok too. Not so high that regular people won't buy it
> but not so cheap that it doesn't generate revenue.
> 
> If the source code is sold, people may want to develop it further, but
> I'm sure if they pay 1000000000e for it, they will expect perfection
> and not contribute.
> 
> Then there's some copy-protection issues. I hope it will not be too
> heavily laid with license keys and stuff like that, because it makes
> usage harder and doesn't stop anyone from being an asshole.
> 
> I understood that a binary-only model would be in the form of a kernel
> module? It may be the easiest method.
> 
> Hans, what's your take on this?
> Maybe a real donations page would be required to get the baby up and
> running, maybe some really basic repacker but one that's so rock-solid
> that people would buy it and know they'll get free updates and in
> the end it'll be all open...
> 
> Just my two cents worth of rambling again :)
> 
> --
> mjt

Re: On a free repacker

[mjt]

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:57:51PM -0600, Burnes, James wrote:
>Maybe do what Blender did and sell it as ransomware.  That netted $100k I think.

Ransomware, gotta love that term :)

Sure, but they had it binary-only, whereas namesys may consider selling the
sources instead, if there's any hope for getting patches that make it
better. Thus more worthwile for the next buyers. Thus more money into the
hat. Thus a sooner open release.

It also requires a fixed price and the possibility to donate money above
and beyond purchase.

-- 
mjt