Getting in touch with development teams...
Hi, I've been using Linux on and off for some time now, and have been looking to get involved in development/testing on the distribution level. Anyway, after looking at many distros and reading about them, it is obvious that the ones that are most appealing to me are Ubuntu and Debian - which obviously share a common heritage (Ubuntu is based on Debian sid). In using Ubuntu, I've actually come up with a few ideas/suggestions involving the core system (i.e. - not MOTU material). In particular, I've been looking into a few laptop-specific issues (power management, odd issues with C-states, etc), and additionally some issues with multimedia support and how it works on Ubuntu. I know about Launchpad and have filed bugs on there, but would like to get directly in touch with the teams working on these issues. I've noticed with Debian that the development is mostly done out in the open on the mailing lists and the bug tracking system with direct contact between developers and users. However, I haven't noticed this so much with Ubuntu. I know that the Core Development Team exists - do they have their own, closed mailing list? Is this development done in house (i.e. physically) at Canonical offices? Could somebody fill me in on this? I'd like to help/offer suggestions on these issues directly with the teams involved. I've tried e-mailing a few people (in particular, those responsible for laptop issues and multimedia), but have not received a response. Tim Hull -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Multipath-Tools -- Priorities to different paths?
Hi, I have got an Ubuntu Server, that sees 1 Volume over two fibre channel paths, e.g. /dev/sdd and /dev/sde. With multipath-tools I can create a device in /dev/mapper that uses both paths. Generally there is the possibility to set priorities. At the moment priorities are the same, and the first path found is used. But it varies which is found first. I would like to set different priorities to configure which path should be prefered. Does anyone know how to do this? I know, there is /usr/share/doc/multipath-tools/examples/multipath.conf.annotated.gz An Option prio_callout exists to call out a script to determine path priorities. But there is neiter an explanation how it should work nor an example prio_callout-script. Does anyone have further information how to set these path priorities? In my special case I have a dual port HBA in my server. That has one port directly connected to controller A of a storage system and the other one to controller B. Disk drives are handled by controller A and failed over to Controller B if A dies. When both controllers are alive, B can serve disk access too, but it does it by handing it over to A. So path B is much slower than A. Current output of multipath -ll: 3600d02300014a77581600f00dm-10 IFT,F16F-R4031-6 [size=195G][features=0][hwhandler=0] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][active] \_ 0:0:0:0 sdd 8:48 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][enabled] \_ 1:0:0:0 sde 8:64 [active][ready] My aim is to identify which path is the one connected to controller A and then set the other one a lower priority, in order to let the server first use path A and only in case of a failure use B. The output of multipath -ll should be something like: 3600d02300014a77581600f00dm-10 IFT,F16F-R4031-6 [size=195G][features=0][hwhandler=0] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][active] \_ 0:0:0:0 sdd 8:48 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=2][enabled] \_ 1:0:0:0 sde 8:64 [active][ready] I would be glad about your help. Best regards Christian -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:57:42PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): This provides the experience of locating the software on the web while retaining the security and maintenance characteristics of the distribution model. This is the approach of apt:// protocol. It is not extensible and it will not make Ubuntu competitive to rich software ecosystem of Windows. There _must_ be the way for third party software creators to publish their software easily. Otherwise they will not be interested in creating their apps for Linux. The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate both. One Click Installer can be used for both, providing trusted, signed installation files signed by Ubuntu and providing unsigned files for third party developers. Krzysztof Lichota signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:58:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:57:42PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: This is the approach of apt:// protocol. It is not extensible and it will not make Ubuntu competitive to rich software ecosystem of Windows. There _must_ be the way for third party software creators to publish their software easily. Otherwise they will not be interested in creating their apps for Linux. The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate both. One Click Installer can be used for both, providing trusted, signed installation files signed by Ubuntu and providing unsigned files for third party developers. It is not a question of whether the file is signed or not; it is a different abstraction. One is install package X from repository Y. (One Click seems to do this, from your description) The other is install package X from your existing, configured repositories (this is like apt:// and similar ideas) The key difference is that in the latter case, the metadata does not supply a repository, and there should be (notably) none of the usual security issues, regardless of whether the metadata is authenticated. Exactly, so how in this case you want third party developers to provide their apps? Krzysztof Lichota signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:14:01PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:58:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:57:42PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: This is the approach of apt:// protocol. It is not extensible and it will not make Ubuntu competitive to rich software ecosystem of Windows. There _must_ be the way for third party software creators to publish their software easily. Otherwise they will not be interested in creating their apps for Linux. The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate both. One Click Installer can be used for both, providing trusted, signed installation files signed by Ubuntu and providing unsigned files for third party developers. It is not a question of whether the file is signed or not; it is a different abstraction. One is install package X from repository Y. (One Click seems to do this, from your description) The other is install package X from your existing, configured repositories (this is like apt:// and similar ideas) The key difference is that in the latter case, the metadata does not supply a repository, and there should be (notably) none of the usual security issues, regardless of whether the metadata is authenticated. Exactly, so how in this case you want third party developers to provide their apps? We are talking past each other. There are two distinct use cases here, and I am a) saying they could both be fulfilled by the same software mechanism, and b) asking whether your system does both. From the sound of it, it only addresses the explicitly third-party repository case, and not the case where the application is implicitly available from Ubuntu. Yes, there are third-party developers who could make use of such a system to publish their applications, but there are also developers who are well served by the existing system and would benefit from having a web-oriented way to indicate that their software is included in the Ubuntu repositories, delegating all decisions about repository location and authentication to the package manager. -- - mdz -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
Matt Zimmerman napisał(a): We are talking past each other. There are two distinct use cases here, and I am a) saying they could both be fulfilled by the same software mechanism, and b) asking whether your system does both. From the sound of it, it only addresses the explicitly third-party repository case, and not the case where the application is implicitly available from Ubuntu. Yes, there are third-party developers who could make use of such a system to publish their applications, but there are also developers who are well served by the existing system and would benefit from having a web-oriented way to indicate that their software is included in the Ubuntu repositories, delegating all decisions about repository location and authentication to the package manager. OK, now I understand what you mean. Yes, you can provide One Click Installer installation file which has only information which package to install and does not contain any repository information. This should cover the second case. Krzysztof Lichota signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:19:23PM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: OK, now I understand what you mean. Yes, you can provide One Click Installer installation file which has only information which package to install and does not contain any repository information. This should cover the second case. Oh, that's excellent then. Thank you. -- - mdz -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:09 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate both. I can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. Its a really ill conceived idea that is either not explained very well, or has evolved during this thread. First of all, the OP wants a one click install. But we already have that in GDebi, and the upcoming apt:// protocol. If you publish software and use the software out of the Ubuntu repositories, both protocols will use the underlying APT system to pull dependencies, and install in a safe and sane manner. If you are not building based upon the Ubuntu core, you are more likely to brick your system than to get any great functionality... so why would we encourage that behavior because Microsoft does? Can we find a better one? Microsoft does not have to worry about different distros and the OP is all upset that Linux can not reach it full potential until some high school kid from Tallahassee, Rio, or Queensland can simply compile there software, post it on the web, and allow it to be installed on all the distros. The problem is that this is not possible. The impossibility does not come from a technical problem, but instead a political one. Technical problems can be overcome with hard work and technology. Political problems will tie you up in knots for decades without any resolution. The real problem is that not all system use LSB nor do all system distribute their software as binaries. Those distros that don't follow LSB will surely break if you install software that does. Due to the nature of Linux, you can not enforce LSB. Heck, LSB even leaves vague where several key items should be placed (lets start with /opt vs /usr/local or /usr/games vs /usr/shared/games) Therefore, any one size fits all installer will surely only serve a small portion of the install base. As an example, I saw talk of re-inventing alien. But a better Alien is only solving the RPM-DEB or DEB-RPM issue. Lets not forget Gentoo's portage system and all its descendants like T2, Rock, Puppy, etc. If one size truly fit all, ever woman in America should be walking around in a Muumuu. Ladies? Guys want to suggest this to your lady? The reason is that women are not all walking around in muumuus is the same reason this idea will fail... One size does not fit all, and different systems will require different solutions. Viva la difference! While the dream is nobble, and probably worth while, this is not the solution. A better solution would be from the compilation and tools side. A better solution would be to provide a single tool that takes the code, and packages it for deb, rpm, ipkg, tar.gz, and an ebuild all in one command. Then package it up with a solid testing and approval process that makes it easy to get it into the approved repositories for each distro. Maybe a clearing house system for packages. Once an independent developer builds their new nifty widget generator, the nwg project could be posted easily to all the major (and even minor) projects all at once. Without running software though the various testing processes to insure it is safe, we will have the same problem that has Microsoft in the situation they are in right now. Microsoft has such a commanding lead, and there market share is slowly dwindling. The battle is being lost in Redmond, and stability, viruses, bloat, and cost are all playing their part. Linux has MS on all these parts. Linux is more popular than ever. Why would we ever want to begin copying Microsoft's bad habits. One step installer sounds great, but it can not be done safely. As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base. I know this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic, and the gnome installer. If more geeks like us did this with their favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why Windows does not install as nicely as Linux. Want proof? http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/ Has anyone stopped to think that in our quest to solve bug #1, that the answer is not to make Linux behave like Windows, but instead, show Windows users a taste of what Linux does well. Linux already does package management well... very well. Now can we get onto other problems -- Kevin Fries Senior Linux Engineer Computer and Communications Technologies, Inc. a division of Japan Communications, Inc. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
I agree with all of this. Except that I think what MS does is just fine., and I've love to provide that ability for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu alone. And so I will. Hence why I wrote wiki.ubuntu.com/ThirdPartyApt, and am just now getting motivated to finish it (after this conversation.) On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 12:10 -0600, Kevin Fries wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:09 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate both. I can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. Its a really ill conceived idea that is either not explained very well, or has evolved during this thread. First of all, the OP wants a one click install. But we already have that in GDebi, and the upcoming apt:// protocol. If you publish software and use the software out of the Ubuntu repositories, both protocols will use the underlying APT system to pull dependencies, and install in a safe and sane manner. If you are not building based upon the Ubuntu core, you are more likely to brick your system than to get any great functionality... so why would we encourage that behavior because Microsoft does? Can we find a better one? Microsoft does not have to worry about different distros and the OP is all upset that Linux can not reach it full potential until some high school kid from Tallahassee, Rio, or Queensland can simply compile there software, post it on the web, and allow it to be installed on all the distros. The problem is that this is not possible. The impossibility does not come from a technical problem, but instead a political one. Technical problems can be overcome with hard work and technology. Political problems will tie you up in knots for decades without any resolution. The real problem is that not all system use LSB nor do all system distribute their software as binaries. Those distros that don't follow LSB will surely break if you install software that does. Due to the nature of Linux, you can not enforce LSB. Heck, LSB even leaves vague where several key items should be placed (lets start with /opt vs /usr/local or /usr/games vs /usr/shared/games) Therefore, any one size fits all installer will surely only serve a small portion of the install base. As an example, I saw talk of re-inventing alien. But a better Alien is only solving the RPM-DEB or DEB-RPM issue. Lets not forget Gentoo's portage system and all its descendants like T2, Rock, Puppy, etc. If one size truly fit all, ever woman in America should be walking around in a Muumuu. Ladies? Guys want to suggest this to your lady? The reason is that women are not all walking around in muumuus is the same reason this idea will fail... One size does not fit all, and different systems will require different solutions. Viva la difference! While the dream is nobble, and probably worth while, this is not the solution. A better solution would be from the compilation and tools side. A better solution would be to provide a single tool that takes the code, and packages it for deb, rpm, ipkg, tar.gz, and an ebuild all in one command. Then package it up with a solid testing and approval process that makes it easy to get it into the approved repositories for each distro. Maybe a clearing house system for packages. Once an independent developer builds their new nifty widget generator, the nwg project could be posted easily to all the major (and even minor) projects all at once. Without running software though the various testing processes to insure it is safe, we will have the same problem that has Microsoft in the situation they are in right now. Microsoft has such a commanding lead, and there market share is slowly dwindling. The battle is being lost in Redmond, and stability, viruses, bloat, and cost are all playing their part. Linux has MS on all these parts. Linux is more popular than ever. Why would we ever want to begin copying Microsoft's bad habits. One step installer sounds great, but it can not be done safely. As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base. I know this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic, and the gnome installer. If more geeks like us did this with their favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why Windows does not install as nicely as Linux. Want proof? http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/ Has anyone stopped to think that in our quest to solve bug #1, that the answer is not to make Linux behave like Windows, but instead, show Windows users a taste of what Linux does well. Linux already does package management well... very well. Now can we get onto other problems -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
Kevin Fries napisał(a): As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base. I know this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic, and the gnome installer. If more geeks like us did this with their favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why Windows does not install as nicely as Linux. Want proof? Yeah, and then they go into Synaptic and want to install Firefox 2.0 (or 3.0, 4.0, etc.) and it is not there. So they go to Firefox website and download source tarball or RPM, or whatever. And run away scared, because Linux is too difficult. Krzysztof Lichota signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcement: One Click Installer
This is 90% a political problem. In the case of Firefox, you need to to have Firefox upstream support Ubuntu in the same way they support Windows: Create a proper Ubuntu compliant installer (.deb) file, provide proper documentation on how to run it (double click). To do this, upstream has to care enough. The task is then to make them care enough. When I wrote ThirdPartyApt, I was thinking more about companies like VMware, who would not likely desire to be beholden to Ubuntu's release schedule, but would still like to support VMware on Ubuntu as a first-class citizen. That is, putting VMware in Canonical's repositories is a non-starter. They won't play by our 6 month rules. But having a button on their web site Install VMware Workstation 6 for Ubuntu! might be attractive. Again, political. On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 21:12 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Kevin Fries napisał(a): As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base. I know this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic, and the gnome installer. If more geeks like us did this with their favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why Windows does not install as nicely as Linux. Want proof? Yeah, and then they go into Synaptic and want to install Firefox 2.0 (or 3.0, 4.0, etc.) and it is not there. So they go to Firefox website and download source tarball or RPM, or whatever. And run away scared, because Linux is too difficult. Krzysztof Lichota -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: One Click Installer
Hi all, A user perspective. Somebody had theorized about having a better packaging method which would make users install more software. I disagree with that. Users install stuff when they come to know about them, for e.g. I use http://debaday.debian.net/ as well as www.getdeb.net to know about what new packages are there what different functionalities it provides. Most users looks always for some short blurb about some product/project some screenshots if possible then make it a point to see from how/where to source it and do the needful. There was a rumor about Linspire's now GPL'ed (CNR) service being available on Ubuntu by Q4 2k7 but nothing after that. Can somebody shed a light if something is happening on that front? Looking forward to comments, additions, flames on the above. Cheers! -- Shirish Agarwal This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
