On Thursday 09 July 2009 8:17:32 am Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 07:49 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 July 2009 6:34:18 am Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Are we really in a position where we are forced to accept advertising
> > > from a company because they run what we consider to be a critical part
> > > of the project? Is that the only alternative?
> > >
> > > So you are confirming that EDB has said that it will pull the
> > > installers if we remove the link?
> > >
> > > I think there is likely to be a reasonable alternative, if we seek it.
> > > If you do not wish to seek it personally, then we should arrange for
> > > somebody else to enquire after the options and find a solution.
> >
> > I am failing to see the issue here. There is a need for an installer, it
> > was not being met, so EDB stepped up and fulfilled the need.
>
> There was an installer and it was quietly discontinued. If EDB stepped
> up, many people were unaware of it. Most people thought that Dave was
> working on the installers on behalf of the project, as he used to do,
> and were unaware that advertising deals had been agreed to as conditions
> of further work.
In either case EDB was picking up the tab.
>
> I have no particular objection to the existence of an installer and
> haven't asked for it to be discontinued. There is a strong majority in
> favour of removing the link to an external website, which doesn't seem
> to be too big a deal to me. Why does that imply that a whole new
> installer needs to be written?
Did you include in your votes all the people that have downloaded the installers
and not complained where they got it?
>
> I'll assume you're voting -1.
--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver@comcast.net
