| Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] CodeEnvy continues to use deceptivewording that's harmful to Eclipse |
> I do not believe the foundation as such should restrict a specific projects
> ability to market it self as long as it is not directly deceiving nor outright lying.
I contend that the wording is used expressly for the purpose of deceiving Eclipse user base into thinking that Che is the future roadmap for the traditional Eclipse IDE.
People wouldn’t object if Che marketed itself based on merits of it’s features or even if it had a slogan, such as:
“Eclipse Che, the next generation IDE”
Since “IDE” is understood to be a generic term, everyone in the industry would read that statement as a marketing promotion.
Since “Eclipse IDE” is not understood by vast majority of people familiar with the brand to be a generic term, the wording is easily interpreted as a statement of technical roadmap and seeds confusion in the marketplace.
I understand that there are some that wish “Eclipse IDE” to be a generic term, but wishes don’t make fishes.
Just like Ford wouldn’t get away with marketing itself as the next generation Chevy, Che shouldn’t be allowed to promote itself in this manner.
Of course, continued investment in the desktop IDE is paramount, but that doesn’t mean that we should let the brand that some of us invested close to a decade into deteriorate.
Thanks,
- Konstant
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:37 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] CodeEnvy continues to use deceptivewording that's harmful to Eclipse
Hi Konstantin,
Below is my opinon as an Eclipse community member (not speaking on behalf of the foundation nor my employer)
I recognize the wording CodeEnvy or rather the Eclipse Che project is bold and for some maybe even directly threatining - but I do not believe the foundation as such should restrict a specific projects ability to market it self as long as it is not directly deceiving nor outright lying.
And Che stating it is a next generation Eclipse IDE is not false, neither was it when the similar wording was used by the press when Eclipse Orion was starting off.
If we (the desktop Eclipse IDE community) want desktop Eclipse IDE to survive and grow we should not be scared about words stated by other communities inside or outside Eclipse.
We should be encouraged to show show the desktop Eclipse IDE also can grow and not stay stagnated as it have done for a while now.This really is nothing new and sure we can "blame" IBM and other companies for retracting its original people investement into desktop Eclipse IDE - but that are those companies choice, not the Foundation. We'll either need to replace those people or change how we do things. I've helped where I can from my role in Red Hat but just like IBM couldn't pull it of forever alone, neither can Red Hat.
This is why I've done what I can and will continue to do in future on the desktop Eclipse platform features, and I encourage everyone to do what you can too. Talk to your companies, talk to your contributors and encourage collaboration and more contributions to grow the desktop Eclipse IDE.
And in that, we cannot ignore there are other markets where a cloud IDE like Eclipse Che has its major advantages over desktop Eclipse - just like desktop Eclipse IDE has advantages over cloud IDE's.
We are entering a world where there no longer will be a "single" IDE, the community both inside and outside Eclipse foundation have spoken stating that one IDE does not fit all. Some don't even want a full IDE, just a fancy editor.As a long time contributor to desktop Eclipse IDE and other tools out there, I understand that there are limited number of people who will actually be able to contribute to a single platform. Thus the "multi-IDE" world do scare me, mainly since it means more work for me and my team ;/
Backing the language service protocol is my way to try and build the technical bridges between these multiple IDE's - if it works, all will grow. If not, one will grow stronger faster and win.
This is how opensource works. This is how (almost) anything works and evolves.
I encourage you and everyone else to help grow the world of Eclipse IDE's to be a player in the world of next gen IDE's - it is together we win. No individual person or single company will carry this.
Thank you,
/max
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was just reading the latest Microsoft/RedHat/Codenvy press release and came across the problematic wording that we’ve seen before.
Microsoft Visual Studio Code and Eclipse Che, the next-generation Eclipse IDE, have added support for the protocol.
I think it’s great that Eclipse Foundation is getting more technologically diverse, but I find it very concerning that Eclipse Foundation is allowing Codenvy/Che to continue to use wording like this. Current Eclipse users will read this statement as an official statement of the roadmap for the desktop Eclipse IDE or whatever the hell we are supposed to call it now that Eclipse IDE doesn’t mean anything, apparently.
I understand why Codenvy would use wording like this as it helps them to promote Che. What I don’t understand is why Eclipse Foundation, through inaction, is allowing this to continue.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--/max
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev