el bandido
Active member
Thank you for clarifying which receivers were removed in OpenBH 6.0. I understand that resources are limited and that it is not practical to support every receiver indefinitely.
My concern is whether full-image download counts alone provide an accurate picture of actual use? Many existing users flash an image once and then update online, so a receiver may have relatively few new image downloads while still having an active installed user base. Others download an image, dress it up and redistribute it as a backup. And the real kicker is receivers with a precious few downloads may contain users that contribute monies, thus cutting some of your financial support when the image is dropped.
It would also help to clarify which resource is actually limiting support, such as:
Developer and testing time;
Unavailable test hardware;
Build failures and maintenance;
Server storage or bandwidth.
These are very different problems. Storage and bandwidth can sometimes be reduced through feed cleanup, de-duplication and retaining fewer historical images. For example, I was able to reduce a mirrored OBH receiver feed for the SF8008 from approximately 5.3 GB to 1.8 GB by using a simple script that removes development, debug, static-development, test and meta packages while retaining runtime, source and documentation packages. I recognize that shared architecture feeds mean this does not translate directly into 3.5 GB saved for every receiver, but it does show that there may be efficiencies available before support is removed.
If developer time and testing are the real limitations, that is entirely understandable, but it would be better to say so directly rather than presenting server resources or image-download counts as the whole explanation, which to many users or supporters makes little or no sense. For the most part, renting disk space is cheap --even if you are bloating 60+ GB spread out over 28 receivers.
A published receiver retirement policy would make these decisions easier for everyone to understand. It could include:
The period over which downloads are measured;
Whether online-update activity is considered;
The minimum activity needed to retain support;
Whether suitable test hardware is available;
Whether the manufacturer still provides usable drivers;
How users could sponsor continued support, with a stated amount and defined deliverable for the stated amount.
This thread can still be useful as a way of measuring demand. The people requesting support are not always merely asking for free work; they are also potential testers, contributors, equipment donors and financial supporters. Clear criteria and respectful communication would give those members a better opportunity to understand the situation and possibly more incentive to help the project.
I do not object to difficult decisions being made. I am asking that the measurements, actual limitations and available alternatives be made clear before a receiver is retired. Every OBH member or user of the OBH image is a potential donor of money or other resources. The more they know, or the better they understand, the more likely they are to participate in a positive way.
