[hydra-dev] Still confused, but at a higher level

[Terry Wilson]

> Your way of reasoning is very sound, from a very technichal perspective. I'm more focusing on the market and the community. That's my main concern.
> How do we communicate what this is and what it's not?
> 
> Everyone will immediately see Asterisk 2.0 and start assuming that. Compare it with FreeSwitch, Asterisk 1.x and other solutions and we can't possibly -as you say - fulfill those expectations.
> Which means that we will be hurting ourselves from a marketing point of view. "Shooting oneself in the foot" is a common expression.

I think this is probably why Digium has said every chance it can that "This is not Asterisk 2.0". I imagine they will continue saying that.

> On the other hand - is there any way to handle this situation differently?
> 
> Maybe not to launch it as a separate product at all - maybe something like "Asterisk Scalable Infrastructure Addon"To me, anyway, this marginalizes what Hydra actually is.

Hydra won't require Asterisk and therefor isn't really an add-on for Asterisk. It would be like me calling OpenSER an Asterisk Scalable Infrastructure Addon because that is how I personally used it. 

> Make it part of Asterisk instead of something separate. Let it take over in five years.

I think the "or something separate" is the plan. I can't imagine Digium would *ever* promote/market Hydra as Asterisk 2.0. Any time I have ever heard them talk about it, they have been very up front that it is definitely not Asterisk 2.0. With its lack of features upon launch, I don't think anyone would ever be confused on that point, either.

Terry