Re: cvs commit: squid3 configure.in

On lör, 2007-09-08 at 01:48 +0300, Tsantilas Christos wrote:

> I am watching closely squid at least the last 2 years and I had see
> how difficult is for squid to get funds for its developments. I think it
> is easier for the squid project to get money from people/companies which
> creating/sell solutions based on squid than from the end users (Adrian
> try hard every day in squid-users mailing list but ...).

I'd like to adjust that picture a little. It's not that there has been
zero funding after the NLANR grants. Over the years there has been quite
noticeable directed funding for developing new features. This generally
comes from just that group of people you mention above: People selling
solutions where Squid is one component, or people selling an online
service where they use Squid in the delivery of that service.

But what the project is missing is funding for the day to day activities
of fixing bugs etc.

And secondly to enable significant steps in the development, but I
suspect that's at large a marketing problem. We know pretty well where
we want to take Squid and what it requires, but very poor at marketing
those projects or how interested parties can contribute with money, time
or knowledge. More over being a such loosely connected group of people
that we are the answer is likely to differ significantly depending on
who in the developer group gets the question adding to the confusion..

Squid-2 has worked reasonably well over the years with a reasonable
amount of inflow in directed projects, both in funding and contributed
code. This despite the paralyzing caused by the way overdue Squid-3 for
which there for a long time was not even a project plan but which still
froze all other development. Luckily this has changed with Squid-3
getting some of the same attention, and we now have a reasonably clear
path forward even if it's likely to be somewhat of a bumpy road for the
next year or so while the transition is being made..

Regards
Henrik