Topic: The perception of Hyperbola OSs
Hi all,
already for some time I have been thinking about Hyperbola, the community and the long term perspective.
I have been using 'free software' for more than 20 years, and I have been supporting different projects for many years also. Some of those projects collapsed, few of them progresses maintaining their principles and most progressed by adapting — or by abandoning — their original ideals.
Over time I’ve become more selective. Does not matter how interesting a project sounds, in case it is not going anywhere I do not support anymore. Sometimes it is clear it will be wasted money, I could have helped more sustainable efforts.
So I have to ask myself, what makes a project to progress long-term? Common answers include gaining traction early, large volunteer continuity, being community-driven, or having backing from a foundation or business. Some would say 'attach to their principles' but others 'being flexible'. After all these years, forgetting ideals, what I would definitely highlight of successful projects is to 'show activity' and 'demonstrating utility'. Unfortunately, today, visibility often means appearing in Phoronix or similar sites a couple of times a month, or at least in own site. At certain point I was a bit concern about Hyperbola, until I started monitoring 'https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … ;do=recent'. May I suggest to highlight it somewhere?
Demonstrating utility: for me the basic act of utility is a OS release, what transforms all the hard work behind the scenes into something real for the community (by the way, targeting distrowatch).
Please, do not get me wrong, this post is not about being fair, it is about project sustainability, contributors and money. The perception, real or fictitious, is relevant.
Hyperbola is a project that attaches closely to my free software ideals. I am even fine supporting a 'niche' system, but to have it also in the future I hope I can do a bit more on the perception out there.