Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Robert Collins  writes:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 20:27 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Jeff Waugh  writes:
>> > 
>> >
>> >> Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees
>> >> got to see it.
>> >>
>> >> Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are
>> >> seen by millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.
>> >>
>> >> I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life
>> >> programming meaningless applications...
>> >
>> > Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on
>> > Daniel's very literal argumentation... :-)
>>
>> Colour me bitter, but the standard that Robert set seems a touch
>> dismissive by placing a bar that almost no software every achieves.
>
> Nearly everything in Ubuntu's default install reaches that degree of
> usage, more or less. Sure, most of the software in Ubuntu isn't in the
> default install. Heck, most of the software I've altered or written is
> almost certainly several orders of magnitude less used than say 'gdm'.
>
> Clearly, you get more feedback as you get more users, and anyone with
> a product used by thousands of users should be happy with that.

I absolutely agree with that.

> But "Mainstream" software -

Oh.  My "ah-ha!" moment.  I wasn't talking so much about the line
between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" as between "no real users" and
"real users".

> which for me is software that has crossed the divide and become
> broadly available in its chosen market rather than being available
> only if you know about it and ask the right questions - really does
> have millions of users.

For the former I can see the argument, even if I think you are at least
one and probably two orders of magnitude too high — I though you were
talking about the later, and putting anything that hadn't achieved
millions of users into the "no real users" bucket.

> And yes, I know I'm discounting niche software packages like urban
> waste planning software - for such software the entire market is
> probably only just big enough to meet 'millions of users', if that.
>
> I certainly didn't mean to diminish the contribution we make when we
> contribute to an open source project that *isn't* already used by the
> vast masses.

Well, I am also willing to own up to being, perhaps, a little grumpy at
present and so inclined to read worse intention into things than was
intended — so, thank you for saying that.

> It is important to realise that the dynamic of talking to all your
> users and getting good bug reports changes drastically as the user
> base scales out.

Absolutely.  Having worked on projects, in core and peripheral roles,
that range in size from one user through hundreds, thousands and,
occasionally, millions, I absolutely agree with that.

> With all of those caveats, I *still* wouldn't call a piece of software
> that 2000 people use as 'mainstream', particularly in a closed
> environment like in-house software:

Neither would I; I would, however, say that it has "real users".

> You've got at most $EMPLOYEES configurations to deal with, and
> typically internal IS will be trying to keep that down to a single
> digit count, as every different configuration adds to the support
> burden.

*nod*  Having worked on products that were "toolkit" level, as well as
targeting system administrators, and strictly internal things, something
strictly in-house is decidedly easier. :)


Anyway, sorry if I grabbed the wrong end of the stick in what you were
saying; I have a lot less complaint now that I understand what you meant
better.

Regards,
Daniel
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Daniel Pittman wrote:

Jeff Waugh  writes:




Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got
to see it.

Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen
by millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.

I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life
programming meaningless applications...

Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on
Daniel's very literal argumentation... :-)


Colour me bitter, but the standard that Robert set seems a touch
dismissive by placing a bar that almost no software every achieves.

Anyway, that aside, I would be interested in your answer to the question
about what level of use you consider a "real" deployment as opposed to
experimentation.


I would suggest that a useful metric of "mainstream" might be when a hardware 
vendor bundles the software with their hardware.


Then last year's eeePC with Open Office and Xandros would parallel if not match 
the IBM/PC with DOS in the 1980s, and a myriad of PC Clones and a number of WP 
and Spreadsheet package in the subsequent years.


The ultimate accolade of a piece of software - though not necessarily of the 
code but the functionality would be when it is implemented in the hardware.


Marghanita
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: (+61)0414 869202

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 20:27 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Jeff Waugh  writes:
> > 
> >
> >> Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got
> >> to see it.
> >> 
> >> Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen
> >> by millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.
> >> 
> >> I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life
> >> programming meaningless applications...
> >
> > Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on
> > Daniel's very literal argumentation... :-)
> 
> Colour me bitter, but the standard that Robert set seems a touch
> dismissive by placing a bar that almost no software every achieves.

Nearly everything in Ubuntu's default install reaches that degree of
usage, more or less. Sure, most of the software in Ubuntu isn't in the
default install. Heck, most of the software I've altered or written is
almost certainly several orders of magnitude less used than say 'gdm'.

Clearly, you get more feedback as you get more users, and anyone with a
product used by thousands of users should be happy with that.

But "Mainstream" software - which for me is software that has crossed
the divide and become broadly available in its chosen market rather than
being available only if you know about it and ask the right questions -
really does have millions of users. And yes, I know I'm discounting
niche software packages like urban waste planning software - for such
software the entire market is probably only just big enough to meet
'millions of users', if that.

I certainly didn't mean to diminish the contribution we make when we
contribute to an open source project that *isn't* already used by the
vast masses. It is important to realise that the dynamic of talking to
all your users and getting good bug reports changes drastically as the
user base scales out.

With all of those caveats, I *still* wouldn't call a piece of software
that 2000 people use as 'mainstream', particularly in a closed
environment like in-house software: You've got at most $EMPLOYEES
configurations to deal with, and typically internal IS will be trying to
keep that down to a single digit count, as every different configuration
adds to the support burden.

-Rob


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got
>> to see it.
>> 
>> Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen
>> by millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.
>> 
>> I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life
>> programming meaningless applications...
>
> Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on
> Daniel's very literal argumentation... :-)

Colour me bitter, but the standard that Robert set seems a touch
dismissive by placing a bar that almost no software every achieves.

Anyway, that aside, I would be interested in your answer to the question
about what level of use you consider a "real" deployment as opposed to
experimentation.

Your position is sensible and, clearly, reasoned, and I am interested to
better understand it; to that end I think that answer would help,
especially if you give the little details about why a simple number
isn't effective. ;)

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 18:39 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on Daniel's very
> literal argumentation... :-)

My response was to Rob wanting millions of users.  My work on OpenOffice
is not any better in numbers than my corporate work.  I worked with the
developer components, work out how, sadly, few users my parts actually
had.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Bush]

2009/4/7 Ken Foskey 

> ...
>
> Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got to
> see it.
>
> Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen by
> millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.
>
> I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life programming
> meaningless applications...
>
>
cheer up Ken.
Didn't you say you worked on open office?  I probably owe you a beer for
directly or indirectly allowing me to conduct my affairs almost exclusively
in ubuntu for the last several years.
:)


-- 
Daniel Bush

http://blog.web17.com.au
http://github.com/danielbush/sifs/tree/master
http://github.com/danielbush
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got to
> see it.
> 
> Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen by
> millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.
> 
> I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life programming
> meaningless applications...

Not sure it makes too much sense to review your life's work on Daniel's very
literal argumentation... :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
"Mr Hunt also admits he does not like the expression 'diddly squat',
 though he will not be ruling it to be unparliamentary." - ABC News
   Online
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Glen Turner]

Daniel Pittman wrote:


Out of curiosity, what number of users are you considering "real users"
here?  I agree with what you are saying, but you certainly seem to have
a much, much higher standard than I (at least) am used to for "real" use.


There's also features that don't add anything to an experiment but
are needed for the real world.  Accessibility and internationalisation
spring to mind for software, packaging and parts availability for
electronics.

And dare I say "documentation"?

--
 Glen Turner
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 16:10 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Robert Collins  writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:25 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> 
> >> Out of curiosity, what number of users are you considering "real
> >> users" here?  I agree with what you are saying, but you certainly
> >> seem to have a much, much higher standard than I (at least) am used
> >> to for "real" use.
> >
> > Millions.
> 
> *nod*  Fair enough.  In that case, indeed, I have never worked on
> software with real users.
> 
> IIRC, the peak deployment of any software package I worked on[1] was only a
> few tens of thousands of people, at a some hundreds of different
> companies around the world.
> 
> All very experimental.

Hmm discounts all my work.  In one company a mere 2,000 employees got to
see it.

Hey if my software is used by tens of people but the results are seen by
millions does that count?  Nope I guess not really.

I am wandering away depressed that I have squandered my life programming
meaningless applications...

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Robert Collins  writes:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:25 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, what number of users are you considering "real
>> users" here?  I agree with what you are saying, but you certainly
>> seem to have a much, much higher standard than I (at least) am used
>> to for "real" use.
>
> Millions.

*nod*  Fair enough.  In that case, indeed, I have never worked on
software with real users.

IIRC, the peak deployment of any software package I worked on[1] was only a
few tens of thousands of people, at a some hundreds of different
companies around the world.

All very experimental.

Regards,
Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  ...excluding things like minor contributions to Emacs and similar
 relatively peripheral bits and pieces.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:25 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> 
> Out of curiosity, what number of users are you considering "real
> users"
> here?  I agree with what you are saying, but you certainly seem to
> have
> a much, much higher standard than I (at least) am used to for "real"
> use.

Millions.

-Rob



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> This appears to diminish the experiments that do occur. I can agree with
>> your generalisation however we should not minimise any effort on FOSS,
>> even experiments. What about those scheduling experiments on the kernel,
>> ultimately led to a major performance improvement for me personally.
>
> Yeah, I don't mean to diminish the importance of experimentation... it's a
> crucial part of the Open Source (scientific) process. But there is a BIIIG
> difference between mucking around with stuff "in the lab" and producing a
> product for Real Users.

Out of curiosity, what number of users are you considering "real users"
here?  I agree with what you are saying, but you certainly seem to have
a much, much higher standard than I (at least) am used to for "real" use.

[...]

> The original point was this: it's very easy to say "that's five lines of
> code!" but it's a very rare circumstance in which a comment like that is
> actually correct (particularly in the Real World, which is far messier than
> the imagination fairy land we need to inhabit in order to innovate).

*nod*  Worse still, in the Real World(tm) you have to deal with
integration and history, which make most things much messier. :)

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> This appears to diminish the experiments that do occur. I can agree with
> your generalisation however we should not minimise any effort on FOSS,
> even experiments. What about those scheduling experiments on the kernel,
> ultimately led to a major performance improvement for me personally.

Yeah, I don't mean to diminish the importance of experimentation... it's a
crucial part of the Open Source (scientific) process. But there is a BIIIG
difference between mucking around with stuff "in the lab" and producing a
product for Real Users.

The kernel is actually a really good example... it usually takes a fairly
long time between the genesis of ideas and practical, shipping functionality
based on those experiments.

The original point was this: it's very easy to say "that's five lines of
code!" but it's a very rare circumstance in which a comment like that is
actually correct (particularly in the Real World, which is far messier than
the imagination fairy land we need to inhabit in order to innovate).

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
   "Our 20th anniversary issue, we suspect, will be about the year of the
 Linux desktop." - Jon Corbet, LWN
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> > Experimenting is fun. Reality is hard.
>>
>> I notice you omitted the section of my email where, indeed, I note that
>> this is from practical experience.
>
> Sorry, but ROX and GNUstep are experimentations. They don't have users
> or vendors or real systems they need to integrate with or previous
> version compatibility issues, etc. When I say "reality", I mean
> products shipping and an active marketplace around them (which *can*
> be said for GNOME/KDE).

Ah.  I see.  Yes, if you use that definition then, indeed, I have only
"experimental" experience.

It would have been easier to argue if you had stated that definition up
front, though, since most people (in my experience, obviously) consider
shipping software that is used by some hundreds of people "released".

Even your definition strays dangerously toward that, although perhaps
you are considering only recent years, not way back when they were
innovative and current, while GNOME and KDE were rather ... younger.

> Then the hairier issues of software support beyond "hey does this
> stuff work?" start to bite.

Yes, indeed, they do.  That said, I stand by my assertion that the
problem of AppFolders remains in integration outside the environment,
not within it.

Regards,
Daniel

...that is a pretty big caveat, though. :)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 11:55 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Experimenting is fun. Reality is hard.
> > 
> > I notice you omitted the section of my email where, indeed, I note that
> > this is from practical experience.
> 
> Sorry, but ROX and GNUstep are experimentations. They don't have users or
> vendors or real systems they need to integrate with or previous version
> compatibility issues, etc. When I say "reality", I mean products shipping
> and an active marketplace around them (which *can* be said for GNOME/KDE).
> Then the hairier issues of software support beyond "hey does this stuff
> work?" start to bite.

This appears to diminish the experiments that do occur.   I can agree
with your generalisation however we should not minimise any effort on
FOSS, even experiments.  What about those scheduling experiments on the
kernel, ultimately led to a major performance improvement for me
personally.

The problems with packaging really are not with the software but with
all the prereq management.  This is the strength of debian apt, not so
much the install code itself.  This does not minimise the complexity of
the code itself but just where the true effort was in the first place.

People often think a program is the solution, often the data feeding it
is much more important.  Think Redhat before they began merging Debian
prereq information, it was really problematic.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> > Experimenting is fun. Reality is hard.
> 
> I notice you omitted the section of my email where, indeed, I note that
> this is from practical experience.

Sorry, but ROX and GNUstep are experimentations. They don't have users or
vendors or real systems they need to integrate with or previous version
compatibility issues, etc. When I say "reality", I mean products shipping
and an active marketplace around them (which *can* be said for GNOME/KDE).
Then the hairier issues of software support beyond "hey does this stuff
work?" start to bite.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
   "People who paid for bug fixes in the 3c501 driver also bought MacIIfx
  support contracts..." - Alan Cox
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> > It's like when clients say, "it should be easy to..." and suggest
>> > something that would require major architectural changes to your
>> > product...
>> 
>> Pshaw.  AppFolders are only hard if you want integration with the Unix
>> world, outside your own environment.
>> 
>> On Linux, this is probably a goal, because otherwise you need to invent
>> the entire desktop environment, rendering you into stagnation (hi, ROX,
>> GNUStep, nice to see nothing much changes) because of the workload.
>> 
>> It doesn't make AppFolders themselves even remotely difficult, though, but
>> rather integrating them into the rest of an environment designed on
>> different assumptions.
>
> Experimenting is fun. Reality is hard.

I notice you omitted the section of my email where, indeed, I note that
this is from practical experience.

> Shipping software and supporting users means your solution has to take
> all kinds of other issues into account beyond "it should be easy
> to..."

Again, I agree with your generality, and that you omit to respond to my
actual discussion points.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> > It's like when clients say, "it should be easy to..." and suggest
> > something that would require major architectural changes to your
> > product...
> 
> Pshaw.  AppFolders are only hard if you want integration with the Unix
> world, outside your own environment.
> 
> On Linux, this is probably a goal, because otherwise you need to invent
> the entire desktop environment, rendering you into stagnation (hi, ROX,
> GNUStep, nice to see nothing much changes) because of the workload.
> 
> It doesn't make AppFolders themselves even remotely difficult, though, but
> rather integrating them into the rest of an environment designed on
> different assumptions.

Experimenting is fun. Reality is hard. Shipping software and supporting
users means your solution has to take all kinds of other issues into account
beyond "it should be easy to..."

- Jeff

-- 
Robot Parade  http://www.robotparade.com.au/
 
  m. +61 423 989 818 b. http://bethesignal.org/ p. +61 2 9043 2940  
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> I am curious about the "how to bring AppFolders..." part of your
>> comment, though: as far as I can tell, with the exception of the Rox
>> stuff[1] and the GNUStep people[2] no only really cares ... and those
>> two are pretty much a niche market...
>
> There were heaps of projects playing with the idea a few years ago,
> one of thre notably offensive ones being autopackage.

Dear Lazyweb, please also name the other two projects.  KTHXBI.

Seriously, when I looked in response to your comments I didn't track
them down, so I would appreciate if you recall the project names.


As to AutoPackage, one of their key FAQs is (still) "What's wrong with
NeXT style AppFolders?", followed by an explanation of how they suck
and, subsequently, why AutoPackage don't use them.

So, presumably they discussed this internally as part of a discussion on
changing project goals and/or technologies?

> OLPC ".xo" packages are essentially appfolders, too.

I thought they were RPM based.  Hmmm.  Anyway, thank you for those
pointers.

>> (Plus, how hard is it, seriously?  Five lines of code?)
>
> Every time you're tempted to say that, hold it in and realise you
> probably haven't thought about it very much.

Have I mentioned that I actually did some work on both ROX-Filer and
GNUStep in the past, so I actually do have a very firm technical idea of
just how much work is involved?

> It's like when clients say, "it should be easy to..." and suggest
> something that would require major architectural changes to your
> product...

Pshaw.  AppFolders are only hard if you want integration with the Unix
world, outside your own environment.

On Linux, this is probably a goal, because otherwise you need to invent
the entire desktop environment, rendering you into stagnation (hi, ROX,
GNUStep, nice to see nothing much changes) because of the workload.

It doesn't make AppFolders themselves even remotely difficult, though,
but rather integrating them into the rest of an environment designed on
different assumptions.


I grant your general point, though.

Regards,
Daniel

Plus, y'know, it isn't like ROX (at least) solved this with an automatic
wrapper script generating tool that make AppFolder contents work like
standard Unix executables...
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Morgan Storey]

I completely agree, but I doubt we are going to see any real packaging
system for a closed source OS like Mac and Windows, unless they move the
iPhone appstore to cover their Desktops. It is just to difficult for these
companies used to charging a metric load of cash for their OS to wrap their
heads around making it easy to install them.
I used to use win-get on a windows box for gigles too, now if only the guys
who made that could get it to talk to windows updates :P


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Jeff Waugh  wrote:

> 
>
> > Uhh Darwin ports... it basically gives you apt-get for mac. I am not a
> fan
> > of macs but I am pretty sure it has been around for a while:
> > http://darwinports.com/
>
> That's an add-on, not a core part of the operating system. Really,
> packaging
> doesn't count until the entire system is built with it (or you have a
> versioned, consistent API/ABI core that the packaging system can sit on).
>
> - Jeff
>
> --
> linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ
> http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
>
>"Well, you know us usability folks... We like to believe that the two
>aren't mutually exclusive." - Calum Benson on power and cleanliness
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 00:40 +1000, Daniel Bush wrote:
>  I sometimes think the converse can also be true at times - speaking from
> very modest experience.
> In the first instance, the client/boss asks offhandedly: "Can you make this
> small change?" and it ends up being a rewrite of your life's work or you end
> up founding a new branch of computer science in your basement in the wee
> hours of the morning just to solve part of the problem (I kid!).  Then they
> frown and get all tentative and worried and ask: "Can you do this? Is it
> difficult?" for something that ends up being a one-liner in a template
> somewhere.

This is always true.

I work the users of my applications to raise any complaints.   If I do
have to do a major change I can sometimes incorporate another
requirement at the same time that was previous too expensive.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Bush]

2009/4/6 Jeff Waugh 

> 
>
> > I am curious about the "how to bring AppFolders..." part of your
> > comment, though: as far as I can tell, with the exception of the Rox
> > stuff[1] and the GNUStep people[2] no only really cares ... and those
> > two are pretty much a niche market...
>
> There were heaps of projects playing with the idea a few years ago, one of
> thre notably offensive ones being autopackage. OLPC ".xo" packages are
> essentially appfolders, too.
>
> > (Plus, how hard is it, seriously?  Five lines of code?)
>
> Every time you're tempted to say that, hold it in and realise you probably
> haven't thought about it very much. It's like when clients say, "it should
> be easy to..." and suggest something that would require major architectural
> changes to your product...
>
>
 I sometimes think the converse can also be true at times - speaking from
very modest experience.
In the first instance, the client/boss asks offhandedly: "Can you make this
small change?" and it ends up being a rewrite of your life's work or you end
up founding a new branch of computer science in your basement in the wee
hours of the morning just to solve part of the problem (I kid!).  Then they
frown and get all tentative and worried and ask: "Can you do this? Is it
difficult?" for something that ends up being a one-liner in a template
somewhere.
=]


-- 
Daniel Bush

http://blog.web17.com.au
http://github.com/danielbush/sifs/tree/master
http://github.com/danielbush
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 00:19 +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:

> There was a really good document on why a stable ABI for a library is
> important and how to achieve it but I cannot find it right now.For
> example when you add a parameter to function X you create another
> function Y with the original signature and give a sensible default to
> the new parameter.  The authors name started with H from memory,
> something sounded German.  Nuts!
> 

Found it,  no H in the name...   This is a very technical document
describes how to optimise library loading speed.  This is probably too
technical (read boring details) for most programmers but I found it very
interesting.

How To Write Shared Libraries
Ulrich Drepper
 Red Hat, Inc.

http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Ken Foskey]

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 21:32 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > Uhh Darwin ports... it basically gives you apt-get for mac. I am not a fan
> > of macs but I am pretty sure it has been around for a while:
> > http://darwinports.com/
> 
> That's an add-on, not a core part of the operating system. Really, packaging
> doesn't count until the entire system is built with it (or you have a
> versioned, consistent API/ABI core that the packaging system can sit on).

I did not understand this before I started work on OpenOffice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface

There was a really good document on why a stable ABI for a library is
important and how to achieve it but I cannot find it right now.For
example when you add a parameter to function X you create another
function Y with the original signature and give a sensible default to
the new parameter.  The authors name started with H from memory,
something sounded German.  Nuts!

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> Uhh Darwin ports... it basically gives you apt-get for mac. I am not a fan
> of macs but I am pretty sure it has been around for a while:
> http://darwinports.com/

That's an add-on, not a core part of the operating system. Really, packaging
doesn't count until the entire system is built with it (or you have a
versioned, consistent API/ABI core that the packaging system can sit on).

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
   "Well, you know us usability folks... We like to believe that the two
aren't mutually exclusive." - Calum Benson on power and cleanliness
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> I am curious about the "how to bring AppFolders..." part of your
> comment, though: as far as I can tell, with the exception of the Rox
> stuff[1] and the GNUStep people[2] no only really cares ... and those
> two are pretty much a niche market...

There were heaps of projects playing with the idea a few years ago, one of
thre notably offensive ones being autopackage. OLPC ".xo" packages are
essentially appfolders, too.

> (Plus, how hard is it, seriously?  Five lines of code?)

Every time you're tempted to say that, hold it in and realise you probably
haven't thought about it very much. It's like when clients say, "it should
be easy to..." and suggest something that would require major architectural
changes to your product...

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
  "Then it hit me: What I really want is for all edit panes in all
applications to be gnuclient processes hooked to a centralized emacs
 gnuserver process!" - Gary Murphy
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Morgan Storey wrote:

> Uhh Darwin ports... it basically gives you apt-get for mac.

Thats rather a stretch.

> I am not a fan
> of macs but I am pretty sure it has been around for a while:
> http://darwinports.com/

I'd had a Mac for many years. I used to run Debian on it, but when I
replaced it I re-installed OSX. Its an old G3 PowerPC model.

I have tried Darwin ports and I was not impressed. Darwin ports compared
very poorly with Debian or Ubuntu.

The problems I faced:

 - Compiling everything from source on an old slow machine like mine
   is just horribly painful.

 - Compiling large/complex packages with lots of obscure depenadances
   (eg GNU Octave) was hellish because more than half the dependancies
   were broken.

 - Depending on upstream source tarballs to be available on hundreds or
   thousands different web servers all over the planet is plain and
   simply not reliable.

 - Darwin ports default versions of autoconf/automake/libtool were not
   compatible with each other the 2 or 3 times I tried this (all attempts
   separated by at least a couple of months). This is not an isolated
   incident, just the only one of many that I can remember now.

I'm sure Darwinports works fine for a small number of core packages (ie
git, ruby, mysql and a maybe dozen others), but anything not being used
by a large numebr of people is likely to be broken.

If you want to know what makes the Debian packages so good, look no
futher than Debian's build bot (http://buildd.debian.org/). Each and
every source package is placed in a minimal chroot environment, the
build dependancies listed in the package are installed and then the
package is built. Only packages that build successfully are uploaded
to the repository.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Morgan Storey]

Uhh Darwin ports... it basically gives you apt-get for mac. I am not a fan
of macs but I am pretty sure it has been around for a while:
http://darwinports.com/
Obviously it doesn't do OS stuff, and non-oss stuff, but it is there, I
guess it can't really compare to apt-get but I am speaking from the point of
view of a Linux/Windows user who has only ever supported Mac's as I am the
one that knows bash...


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Waugh  wrote:

> 
>
> > That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do a
> > clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
> > background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the
> software
> > update frontend manually, and it discards any partially completed silent
> > downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of updates).
> >
> > For all its faults, Linux distros still kick the crap out any other OS
> > when it comes to distributing and applying updates.
>
> Funny story: I was talking to an Apple dude at OSCON a few years ago about
> how *nix-y Mac OS X was compared to Linux, doing evil surgery underneath OS
> X, stuff like that. At one point we got onto packaging, and he started
> asking some incredibly detailed questions about how dpkg/apt worked, how
> they manage consistency and modes of failure, etc.
>
> It turns out that while a big chunk of the Linux world was trying to figure
> out how to bring "appfolders" to Linux, Apple has been trying to figure out
> how to bring sane packaging to OS X.
>
> The grass is always greener. :-)
>
> (How much greener? Each one of those OS X updates you download is a cpio
> archive which is unpacked straight onto the disk.)
>
> Mac OS X... the honey-coated monkey dung of operating systems.
>
> - Jeff
>
> --
> linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ
> http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
>
>  Self-assertive pants are filled with confidence.
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[grove]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Daniel Pittman wrote:





For all its faults, Linux distros still kick the crap out any other OS
when it comes to distributing and applying updates.


Now we just have to kick the crap out of the software developers who 
package binaries linked to specific shared object instances 
resulting in a package update dependency spiral of doom instead of allowing 
minor version releases to use existing codebases.



rachel

--
Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia
gr...@zeta.org.auhttp://www.zeta.org.au/~grove/grove.html
The price of greatness is responsibility.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff Waugh  writes:
> 
>
>> That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do
>> a clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
>> background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the
>> software update frontend manually, and it discards any partially
>> completed silent downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of
>> updates).
>>
>> For all its faults, Linux distros still kick the crap out any other OS
>> when it comes to distributing and applying updates.
>
> Funny story: I was talking to an Apple dude at OSCON a few years ago
> about how *nix-y Mac OS X was compared to Linux, doing evil surgery
> underneath OS X, stuff like that. At one point we got onto packaging,
> and he started asking some incredibly detailed questions about how
> dpkg/apt worked, how they manage consistency and modes of failure,
> etc.
>
> It turns out that while a big chunk of the Linux world was trying to
> figure out how to bring "appfolders" to Linux, Apple has been trying
> to figure out how to bring sane packaging to OS X.

Well, that later is very, very nice.  Hopefully they will wake up to the
idea that allowing random third parties essentially free access to an
integrated distribution and update system for all MacOS-X users would
benefit both sides of the equation.

I am curious about the "how to bring AppFolders..." part of your
comment, though: as far as I can tell, with the exception of the Rox
stuff[1] and the GNUStep people[2] no only really cares ... and those
two are pretty much a niche market...

(Plus, how hard is it, seriously?  Five lines of code?)

Anyway. :)

Regards,
Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  ...who are trying to bring RiscOS to Linux.

[2]  Who are trying to bring the less painful precursor to MacOS-X to
 Unix.


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Jeff Waugh]

> That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do a
> clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
> background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the software
> update frontend manually, and it discards any partially completed silent
> downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of updates).
> 
> For all its faults, Linux distros still kick the crap out any other OS
> when it comes to distributing and applying updates.

Funny story: I was talking to an Apple dude at OSCON a few years ago about
how *nix-y Mac OS X was compared to Linux, doing evil surgery underneath OS
X, stuff like that. At one point we got onto packaging, and he started
asking some incredibly detailed questions about how dpkg/apt worked, how
they manage consistency and modes of failure, etc.

It turns out that while a big chunk of the Linux world was trying to figure
out how to bring "appfolders" to Linux, Apple has been trying to figure out
how to bring sane packaging to OS X.

The grass is always greener. :-)

(How much greener? Each one of those OS X updates you download is a cpio
archive which is unpacked straight onto the disk.)

Mac OS X... the honey-coated monkey dung of operating systems.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ   http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/
 
  Self-assertive pants are filled with confidence.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Pittman]

Rick Welykochy  writes:
> Lindsay Holmwood wrote:
>
>> That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do
>> a clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
>> background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the
>> software update frontend manually, and it discards any partially
>> completed silent downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of
>> updates).
>
> Getting OT ...
>
> There is a tedious way around that. Install OS X offline. Then open up
> the Software Update preferences, and disable "Download Import Updates
> Automatically", which IMHO should be the default. You then have more
> control over when updates are downloaded.
>
> One of my Internet peeves is software that silently gobbles bandwidth
> without notifying you.

This is one of those "lesser evil" situations: you, and I, benefit
significantly from that default setting, even if we don't actually need
it ourselves.

Specifically, having automatic patching enabled by default, and easy to
use[1] means that the update rate among end users is much higher.

This, in turn, means that problems like the traditional "Windows work
exploits a security hole patched six months ago" issue are mitigated for
the average user.

That, then, means that we get to deal with less nastiness: less spam and
DDoS attacks, less "easy" Internet crime, so less people bothering, etc.


Yes, having the software download content in the background without
notification is less than perfect, but it sure beats /not/ having those
machines patched.

In the real world, sadly, it often *is* a decision between those two
options, no matter what alternatives might exist. :/

Regards,
Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  Ideally, in fact, difficult not to use automatically.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Marghanita da Cruz]

mark adrian bell wrote:


The reason that I run Ubuntu (actually Xubuntu) now is that it has a quick 
release cycle and it sets everything up for me. I can still modify the system 
to work just how I like it, but with Ubuntu I solve problems when I want to, 
usually not because I have to because something doesn't work. And when I do hit 
a problem, documentation is really easy to find on the net.




This is an important point - open source does provide an opportunity for wide
input to enhancements, bugs, work arounds.

The philosophy behind closed source applications still seems to put the onus on
customers to prove, to the vendor, who may have or may not have been aware of a
bug or a problem or enhancement - that there is one.  No doubt charging the
customer for the "development" of the enhancement. In fact I recall some
[possibly only proposed] legislation  a little while back regarding the
reporting of security holes.

Knoppix is a Debian/KDE distribution ...and from Wikipedia:

Gnoppix was originally built around its own customised Live CD environment; the 
last editions, however, were a rebranded and customised version of 
Ubuntu.[citation needed



The package repository concept also has quite useful application for schools in
education.

Marghanita
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au/linux
Phone: (+61)0414 869202




--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Rick Welykochy]

Lindsay Holmwood wrote:


That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do
a clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the
software update frontend manually, and it discards any partially
completed silent downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of
updates).


Getting OT ...

There is a tedious way around that. Install OS X offline. Then open up the
Software Update preferences, and disable "Download Import Updates 
Automatically",
which IMHO should be the default. You then have more control over when
updates are downloaded.

One of my Internet peeves is software that silently gobbles bandwidth
without notifying you.


cheers
rickw



--
_
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
 --Mark Twain
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Lindsay Holmwood]

2009/4/3 Rick Welykochy :
> Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
>
>> One of my colleagues was complaining this week that a Vista service pack
>> is something like a gigabyte (and her ISP doesn't have free mirrors) of
>> download in one hit.  Ouch.
>
> Sounds outrageous! I had a peek on the Microsoft website for the Vista
> services packs. SP1 is about 440 MB and SP2 is about 350 MB. Ouch!
>
> Apple has similar offerings, perhaps 500 MB every four months.

Generally Apple's point releases are a bit smaller than that (~80mb).

Nice thing about OS X updates is Apple roll all the point releases
into a single update, so if you clean install and do a software
update, you'll get a single big update of all the point releases up to
the latest (~500mb).

That said, their update tool is totally broken. Case in point: you do
a clean install of OS X, the software updater runs silently in the
background and starts downloading the latest updates, you run the
software update frontend manually, and it discards any partially
completed silent downloads so far (this could be up to 1gb of
updates).

For all its faults, Linux distros still kick the crap out any other OS
when it comes to distributing and applying updates.

Lindsay

-- 
http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ (me)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Tony Sceats]

>
>
> Yo. I'm with you man!
> What I meant was the way some confs etc are done in /etc. I've been using
> freebsd (just learning) and the /etc/ssh/sshd_config was done slightly
> differently and looked like it was taken from the project/openbsd with some
> modifications (I don't know for sure but it sort of says it at the top and
> spells out the rationale for the whole conf file).  At the time I was
> setting the system up I remember thinking that I preferred it.
> But this extra layer of debian-ness is also a good thing as it creates
> standardisation.  Noone inheriting a box from me has to work out the crazy
> way I structured apache if I adhere to the debian way etc etc



I'm a serious apt fan, and debian has always been my favourite, but over the
last couple of years I've found I've dealt with too many different unix(ish)
platforms and they tend to merge into a rough kind of way to guess where
something is on different systems instead of knowing one particular platform
really well.. so when you ultimately just want to change something slightly
obscure but easy and you've found you haven't used flavour x in a while for
some reason then I naturally think it's useful to just figure it out when
you need it instead of remembering everything.. so when this happens on a
debian or ubuntu system, I find doing `dpkg -L packname` quite often tells
me where I should look, and if I don't know the package name then I might
use a search with `dpkg -S /path/to/exe` to tell me.. you can do the same
kind of thing with rpm if you're on a redhat like system and indeed on most
platforms you can figure out how to do this quickly enough, but if not, from
there there's the unix rosetta stone, which you seriously need to check out
if you don't know of it (http://www.bhami.com/rosetta.html) and then always
google and slug of course ;)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Bush]

2009/4/3 Rev Simon Rumble 

> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Bush wrote:
>
> > I don't always like the way debian (and perhaps by extension ubuntu)
> modify
> > the conf files and arrange things for various software  - I don't want to
> > have to figure out the debian-way on top of figuring out the software
> itself
>
> Wait a second, you'd rather learn where every piece of software you
> install puts its config files rather than the single place you'll find
> all config files with any Debian package?
>
> This, for me, is the best thing about Debian!  Configuration is in
> /etc/.  Not /use/opt/lib/conf/ or wherever the weirdo who wrote the
> software thinks config files should go since he started using Unix on
> one of the proprietary "open" systems in the seventies and that was the
> place it put them.  If config isn't in /etc/, it's a bug.


Yo. I'm with you man!
What I meant was the way some confs etc are done in /etc. I've been using
freebsd (just learning) and the /etc/ssh/sshd_config was done slightly
differently and looked like it was taken from the project/openbsd with some
modifications (I don't know for sure but it sort of says it at the top and
spells out the rationale for the whole conf file).  At the time I was
setting the system up I remember thinking that I preferred it.
But this extra layer of debian-ness is also a good thing as it creates
standardisation.  Noone inheriting a box from me has to work out the crazy
way I structured apache if I adhere to the debian way etc etc

-- 
Daniel Bush

http://blog.web17.com.au
http://github.com/danielbush/sifs/tree/master
http://github.com/danielbush
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[mark adrian bell]

I've been running Linux as a hobbyist for more than five years now. I don't 
have a technical background. I've always used Debian because I like Apt-get, 
and because I like the non-commercial philosophy. I really enjoy learning about 
new software and how Linux works. It's a great hobby.

The reason that I run Ubuntu (actually Xubuntu) now is that it has a quick 
release cycle and it sets everything up for me. I can still modify the system 
to work just how I like it, but with Ubuntu I solve problems when I want to, 
usually not because I have to because something doesn't work. And when I do hit 
a problem, documentation is really easy to find on the net.

- mark
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/m487396/

-Inline Attachment Follows-

Regarding Martin Visser's comments in the final "Sound Problem" posting.  I 
don't want to incite a Holdens versus Faclcons type debate here, but how 
would one briefly characterize "mainstream Linux" these days?

I've been using generic Unix systems (including Bell Unix, Whitesmith's Idris, 
AIX, Solaris and Linux) since the mid-1980s.  Slackware Linux is rather in 
the old, tool-box type mould, I guess, and although it can be a bit fiddly to 
set up and can produce problems like the one I just had, I can't honestly say 
I find it all that strange or alien.  I've had a couple of bouts with Red Hat 
(the last one was the somewhat quirky RH8) and found that unsatisfactory 
because (apart from problems with the implementation) I found I was out of 
sync with many of its defaults.

All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like Ubuntu, 
and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the 
appealing differences?

Cheers,
Malcolm Johnston
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html



  Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 
optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Glen Turner]

Malcolm Johnston wrote:
All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like Ubuntu, 
and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the 
appealing differences?


In the past few years Linux has gone past the boundaries defined by
Unix. The area this is most noticeable is in the APIs used by
applications programmers (it's not xlib anymore) and in handling
the new ways hardware works (hot plug everything, suspend/resume).

The appeal of Ubuntu and Fedora is that they are now beyond trying
to develop a reasonable Unix-like operating system. They're now
trying to produce a superb operating system -- one that is easy
and pleasant to use, where new hardware Just Works, where single
machine systems administration doesn't require command line genius.

Older distros thought it was fine that I needed to be an
expert in graphics to connect a projector.  That's a fail
for me, since my expertise is in networking.

--
 Glen Turner
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Rick Welykochy]

Rev Simon Rumble wrote:

One of my colleagues was complaining this week that a Vista service pack 
is something like a gigabyte (and her ISP doesn't have free mirrors) of 
download in one hit.  Ouch.


Sounds outrageous! I had a peek on the Microsoft website for the Vista
services packs. SP1 is about 440 MB and SP2 is about 350 MB. Ouch!

Apple has similar offerings, perhaps 500 MB every four months.

Comparatively, the debian box I am caring for needs maybe several
100 MB of updates in a year.

Apples and oranges, though, since the deb box is not running X. Just plain
old shells. Bliss!


cheers
rickw


--
_
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
 --Mark Twain
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Rev Simon Rumble]

This one time, at band camp, Daniel Bush wrote:

> I don't always like the way debian (and perhaps by extension ubuntu) modify
> the conf files and arrange things for various software  - I don't want to
> have to figure out the debian-way on top of figuring out the software itself

Wait a second, you'd rather learn where every piece of software you 
install puts its config files rather than the single place you'll find 
all config files with any Debian package?

This, for me, is the best thing about Debian!  Configuration is in 
/etc/.  Not /use/opt/lib/conf/ or wherever the weirdo who wrote the 
software thinks config files should go since he started using Unix on 
one of the proprietary "open" systems in the seventies and that was the 
place it put them.  If config isn't in /etc/, it's a bug.

> The other thing is that debian and its non-commercial nature seems like an
> interesting phenomenon in itself.  It feels big, comprehensive and reliable
> (that ssh thing last year notwithstanding :) ) but it's not backed by any
> big company or an overt commercial interest.   Seems to me that there is
> definitely something valuable there in the way it brings together a lot of
> the best free/open-source software into a unified system that can be shown
> off to the world.

The amazing thing is that the project has stuck to its guns throughout, 
and that's paying off.  Nobody would consider forking their own distro 
from another source now unless they were deeply invested in another 
distro already.

> [1] it also helps that there are isp's like iinet who provide free mirrors
> for debian/ubuntu/* repositories which you can use if you are customer

One of my colleagues was complaining this week that a Vista service pack 
is something like a gigabyte (and her ISP doesn't have free mirrors) of 
download in one hit.  Ouch.

-- 
Rev Simon Rumble 
www.rumble.net

The Tourist Engineer
Just because you're on holiday, doesn't mean you're not a geek.
http://engineer.openguides.org/

 "When bankers get together for dinner they discuss art, when artists
  get together for dinner they discuss money."
- Oscar Wilde
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Daniel Bush]

2009/4/3 Malcolm Johnston 

> Regarding Martin Visser's comments in the final "Sound Problem" posting.  I
> don't want to incite a Holdens versus Faclcons type debate here, but how
> would one briefly characterize "mainstream Linux" these days?
> ...
>
> All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like
> Ubuntu,
> and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
> One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the
> appealing differences?
>
>

I don't always like the way debian (and perhaps by extension ubuntu) modify
the conf files and arrange things for various software  - I don't want to
have to figure out the debian-way on top of figuring out the software itself
-  but the thing I keep coming back to is the packaging system and
particularly apt/aptitude.  It's gold [1].

I've used yum utility with centos which does a similar thing but I had more
trouble getting what I wanted (that may be because of less experience and
the fact I was using one version below current).

The other thing is that debian and its non-commercial nature seems like an
interesting phenomenon in itself.  It feels big, comprehensive and reliable
(that ssh thing last year notwithstanding :) ) but it's not backed by any
big company or an overt commercial interest.   Seems to me that there is
definitely something valuable there in the way it brings together a lot of
the best free/open-source software into a unified system that can be shown
off to the world.

[1] it also helps that there are isp's like iinet who provide free mirrors
for debian/ubuntu/* repositories which you can use if you are customer

-- 
Daniel Bush

http://blog.web17.com.au
http://github.com/danielbush
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Malcolm Johnston wrote:

> All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like Ubuntu, 
> and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
> One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the 
> appealing differences?

Above all Ubuntu (and I believe Fedora) offers a 6 month release cycle
and the ability to upgrade from one release to the next relatively
easily. That means its relatively easy to keep up-to-date with current
developments without too much pain.

In addition, the packaging systems of all the Debian based distros
(including Ubuntu) also track dependancies so if you try to install X
that requires Y to work correctly, the packaging system will check for
Y (and if its not available install it) before installing X. Fedora
also does this. I don't know about Slackware.

FWIW, I would consider any machine running a 2.4 kernel as rather out of
date.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Malcolm Johnston wrote:
Regarding Martin Visser's comments in the final "Sound Problem" posting.  I 
don't want to incite a Holdens versus Faclcons type debate here, but how 
would one briefly characterize "mainstream Linux" these days?


I've been using generic Unix systems (including Bell Unix, Whitesmith's Idris, 
AIX, Solaris and Linux) since the mid-1980s.  Slackware Linux is rather in 
the old, tool-box type mould, I guess, and although it can be a bit fiddly to 
set up and can produce problems like the one I just had, I can't honestly say 
I find it all that strange or alien.  I've had a couple of bouts with Red Hat 
(the last one was the somewhat quirky RH8) and found that unsatisfactory 
because (apart from problems with the implementation) I found I was out of 
sync with many of its defaults.


All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like Ubuntu, 
and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the 
appealing differences?



My experience with Unix is a little older. We had to program on it in the course
of my studies circa 1980-81 - there was something called a shell - which I felt
was akin to the Java Virtual Machine.

Then in the mid 80s Solaris,AIX, Ultrix (from DEC, which was bought by Compaq,
which was subsequently bought by HP) appeared - these were vendors half hearted
attempt to standardise on an operating system.

I am not sure whether the software is/was open source - distributed shared
developer pool.

In 2003, faced with moving from an aging laptop running Windows 95 - I checked
out a few distros of Linux - Fedora, Debian and Knoppix. Ubuntu  wasn't around.

In the end I settled on Knoppix -it ran on my laptop - though the sound, power
management did not work. I upgraded to Knoppix 5.1, on the same laptop, a couple
of years back and sound and power "just worked".

It was with some trepidation that I took my laptop, shipped with some version of
windows, into a service centre, with Knoppix 3.2, when it wouldn't boot.
However, the tech showed me copies of Xandros and asked if he could have a copy
of my Knoppix Disk :-). Xandros is the distro on the eeePC. The tech did not say
anything, but returned a working computer - I think I just had a flat battery. 
:-(

Linux seems not to be hardware specific nor to suffer from the proprietary
divergence of AIX and Ultrix. My understanding is that it is just one version
packaged differently.

I documented my switch to Linux here:


The idea of customised distros has application in Schools and workplaces.
> About eduKnoppix
> eduKnoppix is an Italian educational distribution based on Knoppix, designed 
especially for teachers and pupils (age 12 up). eduKnoppix has two major 
features: it comes with a comprehensive range of various Mathematics packages, 
as well as resources to obtain the European Computer Driver's License ONLY with 
free software.



Marghanita
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: (+61)0414 869202










--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

[SLUG] Defining "Mainsteam"

[Malcolm Johnston]

Regarding Martin Visser's comments in the final "Sound Problem" posting.  I 
don't want to incite a Holdens versus Faclcons type debate here, but how 
would one briefly characterize "mainstream Linux" these days?

I've been using generic Unix systems (including Bell Unix, Whitesmith's Idris, 
AIX, Solaris and Linux) since the mid-1980s.  Slackware Linux is rather in 
the old, tool-box type mould, I guess, and although it can be a bit fiddly to 
set up and can produce problems like the one I just had, I can't honestly say 
I find it all that strange or alien.  I've had a couple of bouts with Red Hat 
(the last one was the somewhat quirky RH8) and found that unsatisfactory 
because (apart from problems with the implementation) I found I was out of 
sync with many of its defaults.

All this may be just me.  I haven't had a decent look at distros like Ubuntu, 
and this is why I ask my question.  What, in a nutshell, is their appeal?
One one level it's all Unix, of course, but, given that, what are the 
appealing differences?

Cheers,
Malcolm Johnston
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html