Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Thu May 6 05:37:30 +, wrote: >Thinking you need to say "no offense" is generally a good sign to avoid saying >what you are considering saying if you ?>actually care to avoid offense. > >My experience is rather the opposite. Most upstreams care about developing >their computer programs (as they should). >Packaging for a distro is rather >different and specialized. Having upstream involvement is great (and in in >some cases >essential), but upstream developers are not usually the best >distro maintainers. > >Where I'm upstream I don't attempt to insert myself in packaging for RPM >distros, but am glad to answer questions if >their maintainers have them. > >Scott K The idea of developers being better maintainers is a bit of economic theory. My goal is to make the Linux distribution more scalable. If developers concentrate on their packages and distributions concentrate on the core operating system, this make for a much more efficient system there is much less duplicated work. The cost of adding more software to a distribution under this system would rapidly approach zero, as the distribution would just run a minimal check and do minimal testing. Ryan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
>On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 05:54 +, Mario Vukelic wrote: >Many companies are switching their internal phone systems to VoIP. The >company I work for (15,000 seats, half of the users mobile with laptops) >just finished this transition, and the next step will be a migration to >PC-based phones for those who prefer it. Bluetooth headsets, certainly. > >Also, there is this little application called Skype that I hear people >are using. > >I don't see the point of the false dichotomy "either bluetooth headset >support *or* proper game support", either. I do not own a traditional phone and use Skype to make all of my calls. The $3 a month plan is god send compared to traditional POTS service for a starving student. Skype will work on infinityOS and on any audio system that I propose Ubuntu should adopt. Skype works fully on the pure ALSA system employed currently by infinityOS as I use it personally. However, Bluetooth headsets are a giant mess. I bought a Nokia one to use with my computer and it was always a pain to get working and connected (this was on Mac OS X and Windows). I highly suggest, based on my own personal experience, that you do not deploy Bluetooth headsets at your workplace. Bluetooth is a half-baked technology that barely works when it does work. Hell, half the time your headset will randomly decide to connect to your phone instead of your computer for an arbitrary reason. Bluetooth support will be in what ever audio layer infinityOS uses (or anything I support Ubuntu to use) or at the very least be on the roadmap. Game support is, however, just a plain higher priority, as it is required by home users while you can choose to use a different headset (such as USB or RF wireless) to work better on Linux (or just plain work better in general, Bluetooth is nothing but problems). Ryan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Daniel Chen wrote: > Such is the pain of new code. We face this continually in ALSA and > PulseAudio alike, and I don't see how any new framework can be devoid > of such pain. Until the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested, infinityOS will continue to use pure ALSA. > What are your test plans for forward compatibility (which is the > single largest pain for ALSA)? We will track Ubuntu and Debian development and make changes to our implementation to maintain compatibility. If this is determined to not be possible, we will stick with ALSA. > Leaving aside the nontrivial decision of selecting which PPAs to > maintain compatibility with, it's worth noting that you'll be facing a > moving target. Which Ubuntu releases do you intend to support in terms > of compatibility? Right now, infinityOS 1.0 Marvin is binary compatible with Karmic. We will be looking to move over to the Lucid codebase in two months with infinityOS 2.0 Zaphod. Maverick will likely be skipped because of the late release schedule with Zaphod and that Ubuntu will likely be moving to Gnome 3.0 with Maverick, a move that will likely comprise stability in upstream for the short-term. We are seriously considering only maintaining binary compatibility with every other Ubuntu release (including each LTS), but we'll see how things go. Thanks, Ryan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ryan Oram wrote: > I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it > does not always work with existing code. Such is the pain of new code. We face this continually in ALSA and PulseAudio alike, and I don't see how any new framework can be devoid of such pain. > Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that > everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. It will be What are your test plans for forward compatibility (which is the single largest pain for ALSA)? > subject to a considerable amount of testing. This is partly to > maintain 100% binary compatibility with Ubuntu. I wish for infinityOS > to continue to work with the Ubuntu repos and PPAs as I feel > duplication of effort is unnecessary. Leaving aside the nontrivial decision of selecting which PPAs to maintain compatibility with, it's worth noting that you'll be facing a moving target. Which Ubuntu releases do you intend to support in terms of compatibility? Finally, maintaining 100% compatibility is unrealistic. By virtue of using OSS instead of ALSA, you've already increased the test surface enormously such that you'll need to modify certain base packages (if you intend to do things in a manner consistent with Debian Policy). Best, -Dan -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:49 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > End users don't want to have to add PPAs or download .deb files off of > websites. These end users don't want constantly changing applications (and bugs) all the time either, in my experience. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still >> completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the >> last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. > > I feel I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this subject, > having been involved in the (ill?) integration of PA in Ubuntu many > releases ago and for x86 driver quirking many years prior and since. > > "Zero progress" really is stunningly ill-informed. Yes, there remain > problems with BIOS vendors, mainboard integrators, audio drivers, > alsa-lib, PulseAudio, application integration, and so on, but to claim > zero progress for any part of the audio stack is quite off the mark. > The fact of the matter is that audio deficiencies in any popular Linux > distribution raise polemics, none of which is truly on-mark. Perhaps I > can do a better job of documenting efforts to combat deficiencies, so > this thread is as good a place as any to continue. > > Put another way: there are plenty people who decry the sinkhole, but > who's actually fixing the structural problems that led to the > sinkhole? > > For the past ten years I have seen similar cycles of specifications > being published (along with errata) and OEMs leaping to implement > attractive features at the expense of doing a good job documenting > their quirks (much less implementing standard quirk interfaces -- and > vendors of usb components are only slightly less worse than pci > components). This leads to spaghetti code in audio drivers, some of > which are marginally less hair-loss-inducing than others. The > traditional ALSA driver semantics are interrupt-based. PulseAudio, > with its emphasis on preventing excessive power consumption through > timer-based buffering, expects the underlying driver to duly provide > precise and accurate information. For the past three years this > approach has utterly destroyed any semblance of "stability" in the > audio stack -- for good reason: the drivers incorrectly assumed the > underlying hardware duly acted precisely and accurately. We've been > fixing these drivers as such symptoms appear, and we're by no means > finished -- nor do I expect we'll ever reach such a milestone. > > What happens when you have hardware or a driver that acts imprecisely > and/or inaccurately? You get some utterly disappointing results as > exposed through PulseAudio's glitch-free (standard in Karmic and > Lucid) mode. Does this mean that PA is faultless? Of course not; we > should do a better job, among many things, by reverting to the > traditional interrupt mode. Does this mean that the driver should be > fixed? Absolutely. Does replacing ALSA wholesale with OSS resolve the > issue? No; we'd only replace one problem domain with another, and we'd > still need to maintain all versions with ALSA support *and* continue > forward with hardware enablement. This means that you now have to sets > of mouths to feed. Various upstream developers of programs > incorporated in Ubuntu don't necessarily address the complexities of > having *supported* derivatives that deviate from Ubuntu's base, and > this issue is particularly telling with respect to the audio stack. > > Canonical has/will recently brought/bring on board knowledgeable audio > hackers. I expect the situation to improve, not worsen. While I > applaud your efforts to bring a more usable audio experience > out-of-box to casual users, I cannot help but muse that our > (volunteer) efforts are better spent improving parts of the stack that > most need help: ALSA driver and either PulseAudio or Jack Audio > Connection Kit. > >> Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same >> with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as >> most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency >> nature of PulseAudio messes up. > > PA is happy to grant high latency by default because doing so is more > friendly to lower power consumption. Various pulse clients (whether > frameworks like SDL or OpenAL-soft) have been fixed to properly > specify latency requirements and act accordingly. > > I cannot emphasize enough the need to fix the underlying drivers. > >> A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an >> audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is >> much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which >> would likely made this an easier task. > > Your distribution seems like a great place to test such a hypothesis. > Please test backward compatibility with native ALSA and PulseAudio > applications, too! > > Best, > -Dan > I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it does not always work with existing code. Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. It will be subject to a
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:49 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or > mute their browsers? > > I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files > or install alternate packages is much important to the average user > then the above features. > > Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute > browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. Many companies are switching their internal phone systems to VoIP. The company I work for (15,000 seats, half of the users mobile with laptops) just finished this transition, and the next step will be a migration to PC-based phones for those who prefer it. Bluetooth headsets, certainly. Also, there is this little application called Skype that I hear people are using. I don't see the point of the false dichotomy "either bluetooth headset support *or* proper game support", either. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: > It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still > completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the > last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I feel I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this subject, having been involved in the (ill?) integration of PA in Ubuntu many releases ago and for x86 driver quirking many years prior and since. "Zero progress" really is stunningly ill-informed. Yes, there remain problems with BIOS vendors, mainboard integrators, audio drivers, alsa-lib, PulseAudio, application integration, and so on, but to claim zero progress for any part of the audio stack is quite off the mark. The fact of the matter is that audio deficiencies in any popular Linux distribution raise polemics, none of which is truly on-mark. Perhaps I can do a better job of documenting efforts to combat deficiencies, so this thread is as good a place as any to continue. Put another way: there are plenty people who decry the sinkhole, but who's actually fixing the structural problems that led to the sinkhole? For the past ten years I have seen similar cycles of specifications being published (along with errata) and OEMs leaping to implement attractive features at the expense of doing a good job documenting their quirks (much less implementing standard quirk interfaces -- and vendors of usb components are only slightly less worse than pci components). This leads to spaghetti code in audio drivers, some of which are marginally less hair-loss-inducing than others. The traditional ALSA driver semantics are interrupt-based. PulseAudio, with its emphasis on preventing excessive power consumption through timer-based buffering, expects the underlying driver to duly provide precise and accurate information. For the past three years this approach has utterly destroyed any semblance of "stability" in the audio stack -- for good reason: the drivers incorrectly assumed the underlying hardware duly acted precisely and accurately. We've been fixing these drivers as such symptoms appear, and we're by no means finished -- nor do I expect we'll ever reach such a milestone. What happens when you have hardware or a driver that acts imprecisely and/or inaccurately? You get some utterly disappointing results as exposed through PulseAudio's glitch-free (standard in Karmic and Lucid) mode. Does this mean that PA is faultless? Of course not; we should do a better job, among many things, by reverting to the traditional interrupt mode. Does this mean that the driver should be fixed? Absolutely. Does replacing ALSA wholesale with OSS resolve the issue? No; we'd only replace one problem domain with another, and we'd still need to maintain all versions with ALSA support *and* continue forward with hardware enablement. This means that you now have to sets of mouths to feed. Various upstream developers of programs incorporated in Ubuntu don't necessarily address the complexities of having *supported* derivatives that deviate from Ubuntu's base, and this issue is particularly telling with respect to the audio stack. Canonical has/will recently brought/bring on board knowledgeable audio hackers. I expect the situation to improve, not worsen. While I applaud your efforts to bring a more usable audio experience out-of-box to casual users, I cannot help but muse that our (volunteer) efforts are better spent improving parts of the stack that most need help: ALSA driver and either PulseAudio or Jack Audio Connection Kit. > Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same > with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as > most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency > nature of PulseAudio messes up. PA is happy to grant high latency by default because doing so is more friendly to lower power consumption. Various pulse clients (whether frameworks like SDL or OpenAL-soft) have been fixed to properly specify latency requirements and act accordingly. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fix the underlying drivers. > A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an > audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is > much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which > would likely made this an easier task. Your distribution seems like a great place to test such a hypothesis. Please test backward compatibility with native ALSA and PulseAudio applications, too! Best, -Dan -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
"Ryan Oram" wrote: >It seems like a good site, but I ultimately feel it should be the >developer themselves who package the applications, as the developers >will have a much greater incentive to make working and tested packages >then the maintainers (no offense to the great work of the maintainers >of Ubuntu and Debian). > Thinking you need to say "no offense" is generally a good sign to avoid saying what you are considering saying if you actually care to avoid offense. My experience is rather the opposite. Most upstreams care about developing their computer programs (as they should). Packaging for a distro is rather different and specialized. Having upstream involvement is great (and in in some cases essential), but upstream developers are not usually the best distro maintainers. Where I'm upstream I don't attempt to insert myself in packaging for RPM distros, but am glad to answer questions if their maintainers have them. Scott K-- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
I want my distribution to work out of the box with existing code. PulseAudio does not, so it will not be included. It is Ubuntu/Canonical's choice which path they wish to take. This is not the first difference between infinityOS and Ubuntu. infinityOS uses a hybrid of Gnome and Xfce. I will keep in contact with upstream. There is no hard feelings. ;P Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonathan Blackhall wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> I am seriously considering implementing OSS4 as an alternative to >> PulseAudio/ALSA in the next major version of infinityOS. I would like >> it if users of Ubuntu could have the same benefits in terms of >> functionality, but at the very least my users will have (and do have) >> a sound system that works out of the box for games. >> > > I have to reiterate what other people are saying. PA has been working > well for me at LEAST since Karmic, if not Jaunty or before. I was able > to buy World of Goo (for linux) and Portal (via Wine), and the sound > worked for both of them without any configuring. Not to mention that > I can chat on Skype with a bluetooth headset now. As Ben said, if > you're having a problem it sounds like there's a good chance it's on > the game's end. Just because one or a few games that you want aren't > working right, it doesn't mean we should throw out the whole system. > > Jonathan > -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
I am seriously considering implementing OSS4 as an alternative to PulseAudio/ALSA in the next major version of infinityOS. I would like it if users of Ubuntu could have the same benefits in terms of functionality, but at the very least my users will have (and do have) a sound system that works out of the box for games. Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:52:25 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: >> Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and >> frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. >> > If they do not work, it is more likely that the game is broken in its > usage of the underlying hardware than PulseAudio. PulseAudio does things > with audio that older (i.e. broken) applications do not expect. If there > are issues, this is probably the result of applications making invalid > assumptions about the nature of the underlying device (now > PulseAudio). > > Audio has worked perfectly on all my hardware with day-to-day > applications for the last several (>= 2) releases. Certainly, the > transition to PulseAudio was a little rough (which distributions deserve > a little blame for), but almost all of the issues have since been fixed, > even on broken hardware. Without PulseAudio, Ubuntu would be entirely > unable to compete with Windows or OS X on the basis of its audio > subsystem. > >> Besides, do I have to configure my sound system to play a game on >> Windows or Mac OS X? No. >> > No, if you have issues, bring it up with the game's/library's > upstream. If your game needs to be working today, use pasuspender as a > temporary workaround. But please, this discussion has been had dozens of > times before in various forms; PulseAudio is here to stay for the > benefit of us all. If you have issues, stop whining and help fix them. > > - Ben > -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:52:25 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and > frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. > If they do not work, it is more likely that the game is broken in its usage of the underlying hardware than PulseAudio. PulseAudio does things with audio that older (i.e. broken) applications do not expect. If there are issues, this is probably the result of applications making invalid assumptions about the nature of the underlying device (now PulseAudio). Audio has worked perfectly on all my hardware with day-to-day applications for the last several (>= 2) releases. Certainly, the transition to PulseAudio was a little rough (which distributions deserve a little blame for), but almost all of the issues have since been fixed, even on broken hardware. Without PulseAudio, Ubuntu would be entirely unable to compete with Windows or OS X on the basis of its audio subsystem. > Besides, do I have to configure my sound system to play a game on > Windows or Mac OS X? No. > No, if you have issues, bring it up with the game's/library's upstream. If your game needs to be working today, use pasuspender as a temporary workaround. But please, this discussion has been had dozens of times before in various forms; PulseAudio is here to stay for the benefit of us all. If you have issues, stop whining and help fix them. - Ben -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
This is intentional as I am a economics/computer science major, currently writing my thesis on the economics behind the open source development model. To be frank, I feel that the current Ubuntu development model is unsound as it simply does not scale. Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Martin Owens wrote: > You mean "Publishing Model" not "Development Model" > > There are people thinking about development models, economics, > community, tools etc and this thread is not about any of it. > > Martin, > > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 18:44 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: >> Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a >> development model where only the core operating system, userland, core >> libraries, and desktop environment are frozen every 6 months. The >> applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at >> all times. Package maintenance and support for the end-user >> applications would be provided by the developers themselves. >> >> This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling >> release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS. >> >> Thanks, >> Ryan Oram >> > > > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
You mean "Publishing Model" not "Development Model" There are people thinking about development models, economics, community, tools etc and this thread is not about any of it. Martin, On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 18:44 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a > development model where only the core operating system, userland, core > libraries, and desktop environment are frozen every 6 months. The > applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at > all times. Package maintenance and support for the end-user > applications would be provided by the developers themselves. > > This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling > release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS. > > Thanks, > Ryan Oram > -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 01:34 +0100, > ubuntu-devel-discuss-request at lists.ubuntu.com wrote: > Pulseaudio has become considerably better since Ubuntu 8.04. Most > people's first exposure to Pulseaudio was in 8.04 and it was not a > pleasant experience. My experiences are from Karmic not Hardy. It is pathetic that these problems were still there after a year and a half. The fact that the OpenSonic FAQs have removing PulseAudio as a recommandation (though there is an involved workaround involving editing text files if you want to keep PulseAudio) suggests that this is a wide-spread problem. It is likely faced mostly by new users, the very people who won't speak up, as most Linux developers and long time users have likely given up on running games (including emulators) on Linux. I know this is the case with several users I have spoken too. They have accepted that it just does not work, and that is sad. I would be happy if these issues were solved in Lucid, as I have not given Lucid extensive testing, but this is highly unlikely as these problem seem to stem from design. Games need lower-level access to the sound hardware then PulseAudio ever can provide. This is the case with many apps as PulseAudio only support 70% of ALSA functions and routines by design. The library that was supposed implement the other 30%, Libsydney, never became more than vapourware. Games are one of the core applications used by your average user. If Ubuntu and furthermore Linux is ever adopted by the masses, games would have to work out of the box as on Windows and Mac OS X. No configuration should be necessary. Games should just work and currently they do not on distributions with PulseAudio. -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:44:02 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > Ubuntu needs a change in direction. Is that so? Now back up your claim with something substantial and maybe, just maybe, someone might buy your argument. I will say, however, that you have an up-hill battle. If you are going to propose sweeping changes to the release model of a distribution with a user-base as large as Ubuntu's, please spend more than five minutes preparing your argument. > I propose that Ubuntu adopt a development model where only the core > operating system, userland, core libraries, and desktop environment > are frozen every 6 months. The applications would then be freely > updated to the newest versions at all times. Package maintenance and > support for the end-user applications would be provided by the > developers themselves. In my view, this is exactly what we don't need. We have enough trouble keeping bug reports straight with only a couple versions of applications and libraries in active circulation at a time. What you just proposed sounds like a close approximation of hell. > This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling > release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS. Wonderful. InfinityOS can enjoy it. We, however, like to maintain our sanity. - Ben -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 01:34 +0100, ubuntu-devel-discuss-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote: > A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: > http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l > > It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still > completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the > last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. Pulseaudio has become considerably better since Ubuntu 8.04. Most people's first exposure to Pulseaudio was in 8.04 and it was not a pleasant experience. > Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same > with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as > most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency > nature of PulseAudio messes up. Since when? I haven't played Lincity-ng, but I do play OpenSonic and it works fine with Pulseaudio. Come to think of it, I've been playing quite a few native Linux games without any audio problems. > I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution > because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback > and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many > of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not > include PulseAudio. The fact that I hadn't heard of your distribution before today indicates that Pulseaudio is not as common a problem as you think. Perhaps you can't remember how bad sound was for EVERYBODY before Pulseaudio came along? I've also been on Ubuntu Forums and seen the people there with sound troubles - someone always suggests removing Pulseaudio, the person tries it, and reports back that they are still having issues even on pure ALSA. -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
I apologize for the top posting. Gmail is not the best client for this. :P The devs on Launchpad often don't have the most recent versions as the fact that users have to go through hoops to add PPA (I do not expect my dad to be able to add a PPA) limits their userbase. Increase the number of people who will use the packages and the developer will be encouraged to keep their PPAs better up to date. I expect that any packages that are not done properly (which is VERY hard to do with Launchpad) would be caught by the minimal testing. It would be very easy to spot a package that made from a binary blob tarball. Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Answer: It broke the flow of reading > . > Question: Why is top posting bad? > > Please stop that. > > The high-quality ppa's are done by Ubuntu&Debian developers and not > upstream authors. Those that are fixing bugs in Ubuntu are targetted > at ubuntu archive after sufficient testing is done and uploaded. > > PPAs bitrot: it fixes one thing but ubuntu archive moves on and you > are stuck either with old version with one fix from ppa or newer > version from archive which has these after cool features but not this > one fix. > > Plus I've been hit personally when ppa's don't provide versions for > the current release. > > As for building on launchpad it is theoretically possible to make a > binary blob tarball upload it and just run dpkg-deb* > > * I haven't tried it myself & possibly there are auto-rejection > scripts on launchpad to detect this. -- 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: "Next thing for Ubuntu to learn: how to pay their engineers well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream issues"
Haha, is there a list canonical monitors? Perhaps ubuntu-devel? On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 19:18, John King wrote: > > This is true on so many levels, Canonical, are you paying attention?! > > Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > >I came across this on reddit, thought it would be worth bringing here. > >http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/c090v/next_thing_for_ubuntu_to_learn_how_to_pay_their/ > > > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/543617/comments/20 > > > >Subject:Re: [Bug 543617] Re: very slow filesystem I/O > > > >From:Theodore Ts'o > > > >Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:56:12 - > > > > > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:13:49PM -, Phillip Susi wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/2010 4:30 PM, Launchpad Bug Tracker wrote: > > > >> > * SAUCE: sync before umount to reduce time taken by ext4 umount > > > >> > - LP: #543617 > > > >> > > > >> This sounds more like a temporary workaround than a fix of the real bug. > > > >> Is that the case and why? Just can't find the real problem, or it will > > > >> take too long to fix? > > > > > >> I recommended doing a sync in userspace (i.e., in various shutdown > > > >scripts and GNOME/KDE desktops) as a temporary workaround because I > > > >didn't have time to poke at this before the Lucid release deadlines > > > >(which is coming quite rapidly, yes). I guess the Ubuntu kernel team > > > >decided it was easier drop a forced sync into the kernel. I haven't > > > >examined the patch that they ultimately chose, but presumably it's low > > > >risk to be inserted less than two weeks before the final release date > > > >of Lucid if it was coded correctly. Me, I'd probably would have stuck > > > >the sync in userspace, but I'm super paranoid this close to a > > > >"enterprise-quality" release date, which is what the Lucid LTS release > > > >purports to be. > > > > > >> As far as "trying to find the real problem", if Ubuntu was paying my > > > >salary I'd give it more time to find the root cause of this bug, but > > > >this is a low priority bug given other things on my plate. Red Hat > > > >employs several very high powered file system developers, so they fix > > > >a lot more of their own distro-specific bugs. Interestingly, this is > > > >something that hasn't shown up as a complaint on Fedora systems. I'm > > > >not sure why; the test case Kees provided shows that this is > > > >definitely an upstream problem, but apparently something about their > > > >choice of desktop components or how they are configured or something > > > >about their init/hal scripts means that it's not showing up for their > > > >users in practice for some reason. > > > > > >> My problem is I'm incredibly and busy at the moment, and I've already > > > >done Ubuntu a huge favor by spending ten minutes to do a quickie > > > >investigation. Ubuntu needs to learn that it can't rely on upstream > > > >developers to jump through flaming hoops on short notice before a LTS > > > >release deadline as a cost-saving mechanism to avoid hiring their own > > > >senior kernel engineers. So hiring Surbhi is definitely a step in the > > > >right direction. (One step on a journey of ten thousand, but a step > > > >in the right direction nonetheless. :-) > > > > > >> Surbhi will eventually have the experience of folks like Eric Sandeen > > > >and Josef Bacik, or Jan Kara at SuSE, and eventually hopefully she'll > > > >be able to fix bugs like this quickly. Someone who is an ext4 expert > > > >probably could localize this down in less than a day, especially given > > > >my "ten minute investigation" to point them in the right direction. > > > >The fact that "sync" on the command line causes the right thing to > > > >happen, and "umount" with dirty inodes extant, doesn't, is a pretty > > > >strong hint of where to look, and no, the root cause is probably not > > > >the jbd2 layer as Surbhi has suggested. > > > > > >> - Ted > > > > > >> P.S. Next thing for Ubuntu to learn --- how to pay their engineers > > > >well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream > > > >issues, that once they gain that experience on Ubuntu's dime and > > > >become well known in the open source community, they don't end jumping > > > >ship to companies like Red Hat or Google. :-) > > > > > >> On the other hand, if Ubuntu management doesn't learn, that's also OK. > > > >Google is hiring. :-) > > > > > >-- > >.danny > > > >☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo > >Every (in)decision matters. > > > >-- > >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 -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 02:38, Ryan Oram wrote: > All the packages I have pulled from dev PPAs have been of high > quality. In fact, most of them fix problems present in the Ubuntu > packages. > > Really only a minimal amount of review and testing should be needed. > Ubuntu would just need to require that developers build their packages > on Launchpad before review. Launchpad is an excellent filter in > itself. We all know how much of a pain signing up for a Launchpad > upload privileges is, in addition to the effort required to get > something to even build on Launchpad (pbuilder is awesome, but boy > getting something to build in a chroot environment can be a hassle). > > Ryan > Answer: It broke the flow of reading . Question: Why is top posting bad? Please stop that. The high-quality ppa's are done by Ubuntu&Debian developers and not upstream authors. Those that are fixing bugs in Ubuntu are targetted at ubuntu archive after sufficient testing is done and uploaded. PPAs bitrot: it fixes one thing but ubuntu archive moves on and you are stuck either with old version with one fix from ppa or newer version from archive which has these after cool features but not this one fix. Plus I've been hit personally when ppa's don't provide versions for the current release. As for building on launchpad it is theoretically possible to make a binary blob tarball upload it and just run dpkg-deb* * I haven't tried it myself & possibly there are auto-rejection scripts on launchpad to detect this. > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs > wrote: >> Upstream developers build from trunk and they don't care on how to >> package it cause they personally do not need it. >> >> Upstreams don't usually have a clue in packaging and spend quite a bit >> of time trying to make it build and ignoring all lintian warnings >> because someone asked them to & there is no real package available in >> the archive. >> >> These upstream debanisations are usually of poor quality and can do >> nasty things to your machine (static libs, auto-updating and pinging >> upstream about userbase => google chrome & they do know how to package >> btw so this was on purpose and not to make it fit into the system) >> >> >> If some project doesn't have a package it is either new, unnoticed, or >> half-broken code that it cannot justify packaging effort. > > -- > 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 > -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. Besides, do I have to configure my sound system to play a game on Windows or Mac OS X? No. Why should I have to on Linux? Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 6 May 2010 02:31, Ryan Oram wrote: >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs >> wrote: >>> Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not >>> know how to edit *plain* text files. >> >> In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what > > what is an emulator? i play games on facebook & xbox. > >> people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work > > yofrankie works fine so does skype here. > >> on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the >> emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have >> timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the >> Allegro library/toolkit). >> >> It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you >> remove PulseAudio when installing. >> http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 >> > > you lost me at installing "emulator" i play games & listen music in my > kitchen. > >>> I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. >>> Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without >>> editing any textfiles. >>> >>> I would not be able to do this without PA. >> >> Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? >> > > In US & Canada a lot of people do. > >> I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work >> out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and >> emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets >> (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a >> corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. >> > > > We got streaming audio & bluetooth audio for free. I don't see any > "emulators" in ubuntu main so I don't understand why should it be a > focus for ubuntu. As for games the default set of games & more > advanced like yofrankie work fine. > > >> Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. > > For me "emulators" is a niche situation. And so is for all of my > hosemates and family. Only a few of us are gamers and they use xbox. > >> Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a >> bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and >> help anyways. >> > > On Mac & Windows streaming audio and using bluetooth headsets is dead > simple using manufacturer cd (which everyone installs) and using > iTunes for streaming. > > Why should one look up documentation & help on Ubuntu when it's > painlessly done on a Mac? > > > How *easy* is it to setup "emulators" on windows? > >> A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play >> games. He will expect it to work by default. >> > > Default games work. > > > You have operating system already. Work on, it make it unique, profit. > >> Ryan >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On 6 May 2010 02:31, Ryan Oram wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs > wrote: >> Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not >> know how to edit *plain* text files. > > In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what what is an emulator? i play games on facebook & xbox. > people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work yofrankie works fine so does skype here. > on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the > emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have > timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the > Allegro library/toolkit). > > It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you > remove PulseAudio when installing. > http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 > you lost me at installing "emulator" i play games & listen music in my kitchen. >> I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. >> Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without >> editing any textfiles. >> >> I would not be able to do this without PA. > > Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? > In US & Canada a lot of people do. > I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work > out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and > emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets > (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a > corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. > We got streaming audio & bluetooth audio for free. I don't see any "emulators" in ubuntu main so I don't understand why should it be a focus for ubuntu. As for games the default set of games & more advanced like yofrankie work fine. > Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. For me "emulators" is a niche situation. And so is for all of my hosemates and family. Only a few of us are gamers and they use xbox. > Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a > bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and > help anyways. > On Mac & Windows streaming audio and using bluetooth headsets is dead simple using manufacturer cd (which everyone installs) and using iTunes for streaming. Why should one look up documentation & help on Ubuntu when it's painlessly done on a Mac? How *easy* is it to setup "emulators" on windows? > A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play > games. He will expect it to work by default. > Default games work. You have operating system already. Work on, it make it unique, profit. > Ryan > > -- > 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 > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
All the packages I have pulled from dev PPAs have been of high quality. In fact, most of them fix problems present in the Ubuntu packages. Really only a minimal amount of review and testing should be needed. Ubuntu would just need to require that developers build their packages on Launchpad before review. Launchpad is an excellent filter in itself. We all know how much of a pain signing up for a Launchpad upload privileges is, in addition to the effort required to get something to even build on Launchpad (pbuilder is awesome, but boy getting something to build in a chroot environment can be a hassle). Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Upstream developers build from trunk and they don't care on how to > package it cause they personally do not need it. > > Upstreams don't usually have a clue in packaging and spend quite a bit > of time trying to make it build and ignoring all lintian warnings > because someone asked them to & there is no real package available in > the archive. > > These upstream debanisations are usually of poor quality and can do > nasty things to your machine (static libs, auto-updating and pinging > upstream about userbase => google chrome & they do know how to package > btw so this was on purpose and not to make it fit into the system) > > > If some project doesn't have a package it is either new, unnoticed, or > half-broken code that it cannot justify packaging effort. -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 02:16, Tom H wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs > wrote: >> On 6 May 2010 01:38, Brandon Holtsclaw wrote: >>> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:34 -0400, Daniel Hollocher wrote: I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy most cravings for rolling releases. >>> >>> And Debian sid and/or Testing for that matter >> >> And of course ubuntu+1 > > Except that there is a period of a few weeks after a release where > there is no ubuntu+1 > Similar for debian but stretched a bit timewise for testing & sid and even experimental in someways. How about going fedora style and openening ubuntu+1 for toolchain & debian package autoimport at rc such that at day 0 we have ubuntu+1? This will put pressure on toolchain hackers we love you =) don't hate us for suggesting this. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not > know how to edit *plain* text files. In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what people are going to be using to play games) and native games to work on Ubuntu, you have to remove PulseAudio, install aoss and, if the emulator/games uses SDL, libsdl1.2debian-oss as SDL seems to have timing problems with ALSA (especially with games made using the Allegro library/toolkit). It is broken to the point that the OpenSonic FAQ recommends that you remove PulseAudio when installing. http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FAQ#The_game_has_no_sound.21_.28Linux.29 > I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. > Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without > editing any textfiles. > > I would not be able to do this without PA. Is your average user is going to be streaming audio to his kitchen? I think Ubuntu should be focusing on getting its audio system to work out of the box for common usage situations. Playing native games and emulators is much more common usage situation then Bluetooth headsets (hell I gave mine up as it was much more of a pain on any OS then a corded/RF headset) and streaming audio to another computer. Less common situations can be addressed by FAQs and documentation. Chances are if a user wants to stream audio to his kitchen or use a bluetooth headset, he will be looking online for documentation and help anyways. A user will not expect to have to configure his audio system to play games. He will expect it to work by default. Ryan -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 02:09, Ryan Oram wrote: > It seems like a good site, but I ultimately feel it should be the > developer themselves who package the applications, as the developers > will have a much greater incentive to make working and tested packages > then the maintainers (no offense to the great work of the maintainers > of Ubuntu and Debian). > > Ryan > Upstream developers build from trunk and they don't care on how to package it cause they personally do not need it. Upstreams don't usually have a clue in packaging and spend quite a bit of time trying to make it build and ignoring all lintian warnings because someone asked them to & there is no real package available in the archive. These upstream debanisations are usually of poor quality and can do nasty things to your machine (static libs, auto-updating and pinging upstream about userbase => google chrome & they do know how to package btw so this was on purpose and not to make it fit into the system) If some project doesn't have a package it is either new, unnoticed, or half-broken code that it cannot justify packaging effort. > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Daniel Hollocher > wrote: >> Hey there, have you thought about just working more closely with >> getdeb.net? They are doing the same thing, except it isn't restricted >> to just multimedia packages. Regardless, good luck. >> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >>> End users don't want to have to add PPAs or download .deb files off of >>> websites. >>> >>> With infinityOS, users never have to leave their package management >>> system (or Software Center really) to get programs or update them to >>> the latest versions. This includes drivers. It works so well that I am >>> now suggesting that downloading packages from a third-party website is >>> a security hazard and that users should stick only to the packages >>> provided by default in the infinityOS and Ubuntu repos. This >>> completely eliminates the possiblity of spyware, as end-users would >>> only download packages that have been authenticated, peer-reviewed, >>> and tested. >>> >>> I would be more than happy to bring such functionality upstream to >>> Ubuntu. I want my ideas to be used by as many people as possible. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ryan Oram >>> >>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Hollocher >>> wrote: I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy most cravings for rolling releases. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> In science and in mind, the impossible and the hasn't-happened-yet are >> indistinguishable. >> > > -- > 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 > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
It seems like a good site, but I ultimately feel it should be the developer themselves who package the applications, as the developers will have a much greater incentive to make working and tested packages then the maintainers (no offense to the great work of the maintainers of Ubuntu and Debian). Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Daniel Hollocher wrote: > Hey there, have you thought about just working more closely with > getdeb.net? They are doing the same thing, except it isn't restricted > to just multimedia packages. Regardless, good luck. > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> End users don't want to have to add PPAs or download .deb files off of >> websites. >> >> With infinityOS, users never have to leave their package management >> system (or Software Center really) to get programs or update them to >> the latest versions. This includes drivers. It works so well that I am >> now suggesting that downloading packages from a third-party website is >> a security hazard and that users should stick only to the packages >> provided by default in the infinityOS and Ubuntu repos. This >> completely eliminates the possiblity of spyware, as end-users would >> only download packages that have been authenticated, peer-reviewed, >> and tested. >> >> I would be more than happy to bring such functionality upstream to >> Ubuntu. I want my ideas to be used by as many people as possible. >> >> Thanks, >> Ryan Oram >> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Hollocher >> wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy >>> most cravings for rolling releases. >>> >> > > > > -- > In science and in mind, the impossible and the hasn't-happened-yet are > indistinguishable. > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 6 May 2010 01:38, Brandon Holtsclaw wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:34 -0400, Daniel Hollocher wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy >>> most cravings for rolling releases. >> >> And Debian sid and/or Testing for that matter > > And of course ubuntu+1 Except that there is a period of a few weeks after a release where there is no ubuntu+1 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On 6 May 2010 01:49, Ryan Oram wrote: > How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or > mute their browsers? > This one time in bandcamp when you fool around with a cool cellphone accessories > I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files > or install alternate packages is much important to the average user > then the above features. > Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not know how to edit *plain* text files. > Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute > browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. > I don't know how to configure Linux to do that. I use the PA sliders. Thanks to avahi I was able to stream music to my kitchen without editing any textfiles. I would not be able to do this without PA. > Thanks, > Ryan Oram > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >>> A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: >>> http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l >>> >>> It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still >>> completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the >>> last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. >> >> I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio >> systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot >> from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end >> users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated >> at this point. >> >> Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have >> (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy >> required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be >> better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application >> developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of >> these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different >> subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we >> want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful >> because of all those libraries. >> >> You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but >> does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an >> excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny >> issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit >> has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether >> it's being used (or useful to begin with). >> >> Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) >> >> >> Dylan >> > > -- > 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 > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 01:38, Brandon Holtsclaw wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:34 -0400, Daniel Hollocher wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy >> most cravings for rolling releases. > > And Debian sid and/or Testing for that matter > And of course ubuntu+1 -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
How many users actually use Bluetooth headsets with their computers or mute their browsers? I feel that being able to play games without having to edit text files or install alternate packages is much important to the average user then the above features. Chances are people who want to use Bluetooth headsets and to mute browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: >> http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l >> >> It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still >> completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the >> last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. > > I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio > systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot > from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end > users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated > at this point. > > Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have > (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy > required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be > better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application > developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of > these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different > subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we > want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful > because of all those libraries. > > You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but > does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an > excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny > issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit > has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether > it's being used (or useful to begin with). > > Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) > > > Dylan > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
End users don't want to have to add PPAs or download .deb files off of websites. With infinityOS, users never have to leave their package management system (or Software Center really) to get programs or update them to the latest versions. This includes drivers. It works so well that I am now suggesting that downloading packages from a third-party website is a security hazard and that users should stick only to the packages provided by default in the infinityOS and Ubuntu repos. This completely eliminates the possiblity of spyware, as end-users would only download packages that have been authenticated, peer-reviewed, and tested. I would be more than happy to bring such functionality upstream to Ubuntu. I want my ideas to be used by as many people as possible. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Hollocher wrote: > I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy > most cravings for rolling releases. > -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:34 -0400, Daniel Hollocher wrote: > I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy > most cravings for rolling releases. And Debian sid and/or Testing for that matter -- Brandon Holtsclaw m...@brandonholtsclaw.com http://www.brandonholtsclaw.com 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and the ppa's on launchpad satisfy most cravings for rolling releases. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: > A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: > http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l > > It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still > completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the > last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I fail to see how diverging from upstream Gnome and switching audio systems AGAIN would solve any problems. As it is we have gained a lot from PulseAudio (eg: Bluetooth audio that we can actually expect end users to use), it is quite widely adopted and it is neatly integrated at this point. Now, granted, most things (gstreamer, canberra) are flexible and have (or could have) OSS4 support, but there is some significant energy required to swap these kinds of components. I think energy would be better spent sorting out the higher level APIs that application developers are actually meant to be using. We seem to have hundreds of these bouncing around, and they are all compatible with a different subset of audio frameworks. We can change underlying systems all we want, but those diagrams of the audio stack will still look awful because of all those libraries. You mention PulseAudio's high latency. I haven't followed this, but does anyone know what became of rtkit? Personally I've had an excellent audio experience in Lucid thus far (except for that funny issue with the balance slider and indicator-sound) and I believe rtkit has been merged into the kernel, but I could be mistaken about whether it's being used (or useful to begin with). Disclaimer: I'm also quite attached to positional event sounds :) Dylan -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Hm, i brought this up last year: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-June/008813.html After reading this post on Insane Coding< > http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-of-sound-in-linux-not-so-sorry.html>(via > Slashdot< > http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1937210/State-of-Sound-Development-On-Linux-Not-So-Sorry-After-All?from=rss>) > it seems that PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due > to horrible latency and lower sound quality, and that we should work to use > OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think > about this? On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 19:13, Ryan Oram wrote: > A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: > http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l > > It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still > completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the > last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. > > Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same > with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as > most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency > nature of PulseAudio messes up. > > I am greatly concerned that the non-functionality of PulseAudio is > hampering the beginning of a commercial game industry on Linux. > Developers need working APIs to make applications. They will not > tolerate game development using a half-working API. I feel that there > never be a wide spread game industry on Linux as long as PulseAudio is > in widespread use. > > I have nothing against the ideals and theories behind PulseAudio. It > is just their implementation does not work and it seems it will never > actually work as intended. Libsydney has never come to be. It is time > we look at alternatives. > > A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an > audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is > much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which > would likely made this an easier task. > > I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution > because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback > and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many > of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not > include PulseAudio. > > Let's not waste any more effort on a failure. > > Thanks, > Ryan Oram > > -- > 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 > -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- 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: "Next thing for Ubuntu to learn: how to pay their engineers well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream issues"
This is true on so many levels, Canonical, are you paying attention?! Danny Piccirillo wrote: >I came across this on reddit, thought it would be worth bringing here. >http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/c090v/next_thing_for_ubuntu_to_learn_how_to_pay_their/ > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/543617/comments/20 > >Subject:Re: [Bug 543617] Re: very slow filesystem I/O > >From:Theodore Ts'o > >Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:56:12 - > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:13:49PM -, Phillip Susi wrote: > >> On 4/13/2010 4:30 PM, Launchpad Bug Tracker wrote: > >> > * SAUCE: sync before umount to reduce time taken by ext4 umount > >> > - LP: #543617 > >> > >> This sounds more like a temporary workaround than a fix of the real bug. > >> Is that the case and why? Just can't find the real problem, or it will > >> take too long to fix? > > >> I recommended doing a sync in userspace (i.e., in various shutdown > >scripts and GNOME/KDE desktops) as a temporary workaround because I > >didn't have time to poke at this before the Lucid release deadlines > >(which is coming quite rapidly, yes). I guess the Ubuntu kernel team > >decided it was easier drop a forced sync into the kernel. I haven't > >examined the patch that they ultimately chose, but presumably it's low > >risk to be inserted less than two weeks before the final release date > >of Lucid if it was coded correctly. Me, I'd probably would have stuck > >the sync in userspace, but I'm super paranoid this close to a > >"enterprise-quality" release date, which is what the Lucid LTS release > >purports to be. > > >> As far as "trying to find the real problem", if Ubuntu was paying my > >salary I'd give it more time to find the root cause of this bug, but > >this is a low priority bug given other things on my plate. Red Hat > >employs several very high powered file system developers, so they fix > >a lot more of their own distro-specific bugs. Interestingly, this is > >something that hasn't shown up as a complaint on Fedora systems. I'm > >not sure why; the test case Kees provided shows that this is > >definitely an upstream problem, but apparently something about their > >choice of desktop components or how they are configured or something > >about their init/hal scripts means that it's not showing up for their > >users in practice for some reason. > > >> My problem is I'm incredibly and busy at the moment, and I've already > >done Ubuntu a huge favor by spending ten minutes to do a quickie > >investigation. Ubuntu needs to learn that it can't rely on upstream > >developers to jump through flaming hoops on short notice before a LTS > >release deadline as a cost-saving mechanism to avoid hiring their own > >senior kernel engineers. So hiring Surbhi is definitely a step in the > >right direction. (One step on a journey of ten thousand, but a step > >in the right direction nonetheless. :-) > > >> Surbhi will eventually have the experience of folks like Eric Sandeen > >and Josef Bacik, or Jan Kara at SuSE, and eventually hopefully she'll > >be able to fix bugs like this quickly. Someone who is an ext4 expert > >probably could localize this down in less than a day, especially given > >my "ten minute investigation" to point them in the right direction. > >The fact that "sync" on the command line causes the right thing to > >happen, and "umount" with dirty inodes extant, doesn't, is a pretty > >strong hint of where to look, and no, the root cause is probably not > >the jbd2 layer as Surbhi has suggested. > > >> - Ted > > >> P.S. Next thing for Ubuntu to learn --- how to pay their engineers > >well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream > >issues, that once they gain that experience on Ubuntu's dime and > >become well known in the open source community, they don't end jumping > >ship to companies like Red Hat or Google. :-) > > >> On the other hand, if Ubuntu management doesn't learn, that's also OK. > >Google is hiring. :-) > > >-- >.danny > >☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo >Every (in)decision matters. > >-- >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 -- 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: Ubuntu needs a new development model
Personally, I've been thinking about suggesting an 'updates'/'main-updates' repo, for at least commonly used applications. It would be implemented in a way in which apt wouldn't auto upgrade the program (or at least ask first), but it would be accessed by an addon maybe, to the Ubuntu Software Center. That way the user can go there, click 'install newest version', and easily have the newest version of say, Firefox along with his/her Windows friends, without having to add potentially unstable PPAs or wrestling with how to get the official app working (personally, I was a noob at one point. So when I downloaded the *.tar.gz for Firefox on Linux, I assumed that meant I'd have to compile the program. I spent a half hour trying to find 'make, make install' instructions for it before realizing that it was precompiled xD I wouldn't wish that on a user who just wants to have the newest Firefox so he can keep up with his Windows friends (at least in that regard).) Ryan Oram wrote: >Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a >development model where only the core operating system, userland, core >libraries, and desktop environment are frozen every 6 months. The >applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at >all times. Package maintenance and support for the end-user >applications would be provided by the developers themselves. > >This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling >release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS. > >Thanks, >Ryan Oram > >-- >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 -- 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
Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. I am greatly concerned that the non-functionality of PulseAudio is hampering the beginning of a commercial game industry on Linux. Developers need working APIs to make applications. They will not tolerate game development using a half-working API. I feel that there never be a wide spread game industry on Linux as long as PulseAudio is in widespread use. I have nothing against the ideals and theories behind PulseAudio. It is just their implementation does not work and it seems it will never actually work as intended. Libsydney has never come to be. It is time we look at alternatives. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not include PulseAudio. Let's not waste any more effort on a failure. Thanks, Ryan Oram -- 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
"Next thing for Ubuntu to learn: how to pay their engineers well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream issues"
I came across this on reddit, thought it would be worth bringing here. http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/c090v/next_thing_for_ubuntu_to_learn_how_to_pay_their/ https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/543617/comments/20 Subject:Re: [Bug 543617] Re: very slow filesystem I/O From:Theodore Ts'o Date:Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:56:12 - > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:13:49PM -, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 4/13/2010 4:30 PM, Launchpad Bug Tracker wrote: > > * SAUCE: sync before umount to reduce time taken by ext4 umount > > - LP: #543617 > > This sounds more like a temporary workaround than a fix of the real bug. > Is that the case and why? Just can't find the real problem, or it will > take too long to fix? > I recommended doing a sync in userspace (i.e., in various shutdown scripts and GNOME/KDE desktops) as a temporary workaround because I didn't have time to poke at this before the Lucid release deadlines (which is coming quite rapidly, yes). I guess the Ubuntu kernel team decided it was easier drop a forced sync into the kernel. I haven't examined the patch that they ultimately chose, but presumably it's low risk to be inserted less than two weeks before the final release date of Lucid if it was coded correctly. Me, I'd probably would have stuck the sync in userspace, but I'm super paranoid this close to a "enterprise-quality" release date, which is what the Lucid LTS release purports to be. > As far as "trying to find the real problem", if Ubuntu was paying my salary I'd give it more time to find the root cause of this bug, but this is a low priority bug given other things on my plate. Red Hat employs several very high powered file system developers, so they fix a lot more of their own distro-specific bugs. Interestingly, this is something that hasn't shown up as a complaint on Fedora systems. I'm not sure why; the test case Kees provided shows that this is definitely an upstream problem, but apparently something about their choice of desktop components or how they are configured or something about their init/hal scripts means that it's not showing up for their users in practice for some reason. > My problem is I'm incredibly and busy at the moment, and I've already done Ubuntu a huge favor by spending ten minutes to do a quickie investigation. Ubuntu needs to learn that it can't rely on upstream developers to jump through flaming hoops on short notice before a LTS release deadline as a cost-saving mechanism to avoid hiring their own senior kernel engineers. So hiring Surbhi is definitely a step in the right direction. (One step on a journey of ten thousand, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. :-) > Surbhi will eventually have the experience of folks like Eric Sandeen and Josef Bacik, or Jan Kara at SuSE, and eventually hopefully she'll be able to fix bugs like this quickly. Someone who is an ext4 expert probably could localize this down in less than a day, especially given my "ten minute investigation" to point them in the right direction. The fact that "sync" on the command line causes the right thing to happen, and "umount" with dirty inodes extant, doesn't, is a pretty strong hint of where to look, and no, the root cause is probably not the jbd2 layer as Surbhi has suggested. > - Ted > P.S. Next thing for Ubuntu to learn --- how to pay their engineers well enough, and how to give them enough time to work on upstream issues, that once they gain that experience on Ubuntu's dime and become well known in the open source community, they don't end jumping ship to companies like Red Hat or Google. :-) > On the other hand, if Ubuntu management doesn't learn, that's also OK. Google is hiring. :-) -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- 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
Ubuntu needs a new development model
Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a development model where only the core operating system, userland, core libraries, and desktop environment are frozen every 6 months. The applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at all times. Package maintenance and support for the end-user applications would be provided by the developers themselves. This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS. Thanks, Ryan Oram -- 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: Window controls: minimise and maximise icons are confusing?
On 5 May 2010 18:58, wrote: > Hey, just a thought: > > On Lucid, after I've maximised a window and I then want to unmaximise it I > keep finding myself pressing the minimise button instead. I think it's > because of the icons: minimise is a down arrow and maximise is an up > arrow, which suggests that minimise is the reverse of maximise, but it > isn't, the reverse of maximise is unmaximise. > Thank you for bringing up User Experience related Issue. Ayatana team is managing User Experience in Ubuntu. Please join https://edge.launchpad.net/~ayatana and subcribe to their mailing list and post your proposal there =) Thanks. -- 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
Window controls: minimise and maximise icons are confusing?
Hey, just a thought: On Lucid, after I've maximised a window and I then want to unmaximise it I keep finding myself pressing the minimise button instead. I think it's because of the icons: minimise is a down arrow and maximise is an up arrow, which suggests that minimise is the reverse of maximise, but it isn't, the reverse of maximise is unmaximise. -- 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
