From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Making DPDK.org more vendor neutral Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 22:20:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4503715.e93PdNNrNX@xps13> References: <20150131204710.2bf9f5fa@uryu.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150131204710.2bf9f5fa-CA4OZQ/Yy2Lykuyl+CZolw@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Stephen, 2015-01-31 20:47, Stephen Hemminger: > I think that DPDK.org should be as neutral in all public communications. I agree and thought it was already OK. > This bothers me: > "If you need some specific drivers or networking stacks, you should contact a company that provides such extensions." > > This tag line is a link to page describing 6wind and other vendors leaves a biased taint > on the initial impression. It would be best to only put in historical data > about the contributing companies and a vague reference to commercial support being > available. Maybe that these words leave a biased taint, as you say. The goal is to show that DPDK ecosystem can offer some services and support if needed. It's an important information when choosing to use a software. We can try to reword it as you suggest. > It is not like kernel.org has links to SUSE and RHEL. We need to make DPDK.org > independent. Linux is very well known and its ecosystem is really huge. I hope that one day, everybody will be confident enough to not hesitate choosing DPDK. We made huge progress for 2 years by opening the development process but I feel it's too early to be compared with kernel.org ;) Thank you for your report, we'll try to fix it at best. -- Thomas