Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
GNewSense isn't an active project from what I could tell the last time I checked out their site. Trisquel's more up-to-date. Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com wrote: On 10 June 2010 17:32, David Schlesinger le...@access-company.com wrote: Having gotten that authoritative answer, I'm _still_ not sure it would have the slightest bit of relevance here. Go create a FSF-Buntu or something, if you feel the burning need. gNewSense http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html http://www.gnewsense.org/ -- 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: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
I would assume that he's referring to the fact that some people wouldn't want to have or care about MP3 playback because it's a patented format. I've seen Ubuntu users whose entire music library exists in non-patented formats like Vorbis and FLAC. Guthro gut...@earthlink.net wrote: Travis, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. Could you explain why anyone thinks that? hanks. PB - On 6/9/2010 4:59 PM, Travis Beaty wrote: Hello. I'm usually a lurker on the list, but I feel a bit compelled to jump into the fray here. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:49 -0400, John King wrote: Ubuntu is targeted at a more mainstream user; that user more than likely wants his computer to just work, even if that means proprietary software and/or binary blobs. One of those driver blobs could mean the difference between 'Happy Ubuntu Convert' and 'Failed Ubuntu Convert'. Trisquel is aimed at a user who is uncompromising in his/her pursuit of complete software freedom; IMO a great goal and one that we should all work towards, but not one that really encompasses the average computer user at this point. I'm the guy he's talking about here. Although I've now been using Linux long enough that I feel myself to be somewhere on the low side of intermediate in terms of what goes on under the hood, I feel that I'm a bit rare in that I didn't come to Linux because it was open source software, but rather because it was free as in beer. And actually, believe it or not, it wasn't technically free from a wallet perspective. I bought a copy of Mandrake from the clearance rack at Walmart for, I want to say, US$10 for something like that. In fact, I didn't even know (or care at the time) about open source software, GPL, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or anything else about the open source or Linux world. But what I did know was the Windows ME on the machine I had bought was an epic fail, and I couldn't find Windows 98 anywhere. So, to be blunt, I said what the hell, grabbed the box with the penguin on it, and the rest is history. UNTIL I found Ubuntu, I had a love/hate relationship with Linux, where I would use it, go back to Windows, back to another distro, back to Windows, lather, rinse, and repeat. Ninety percent of the time, each of these iterations in the cycle was caused by something that just didn't work. Graphics didn't work right. Network card wouldn't be seen. And it wouldn't play mp3s. Now, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. But ... for the mainstream user just coming over from the Windows world, not being able to play mp3s, or not being able to play DVDs equals *broke*. After all, they worked in Windows, but not Linux. To them, it is not a matter of free vs. proprietary, nor is it a matter of closed source vs. open source. It's a matter of works vs. broke. And as a mainstream user, I went through a ton of broke distros. I was even more frustrated with SuSE, when, in order to listen to mp3s, I had to add another independently maintained repo to yast, which completely hosed yast. And so, I went back to Windows. Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Ubuntu works, and I've stuck with it ever since. It works. I can't repeat that enough. IT. WORKS. In my experience with Linux, I've noticed that over time, open source solutions to close sourced problems pop up, given enough eyeballs. Perhaps those are eyeballs like mine, the folks that see Ubuntu as a shining star because it works, and are coaxed into realizing the advantages of open source software. I believe you attract a lot more people if you give them something that works, but say We believe this is a problem because it works, but it's closed source. Can you help? It's better to walk along the fence line with folks who are new to Linux, as opposed to pelting them with rocks from fifty feet away and saying If you want this to work, throw rocks with us. And honestly, I think one of the greatest issues that Linux, as an operating system, is struggling with right now is not the proprietary developers in front of it, but the wild fanatics behind it shooting it in the back of the head, yelling Give me free or give me death. So, yes, I am committed to free software. But I also know the carrot works better than the stick, and the better it works out of the gate, the more eyeballs you have to open things up even more. Just my twelve cents. Your mileage may vary. And so forth. - Travis. No virus found
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Once again, the issue is basically that the Mp3 format is patented, nothing else really that I know of. Travis Beaty twbe...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm. This confuses me, then. Because I know it was a problem at one point, at least with SuSE. I had to get different packages from plf in order to play them. - Travis. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:25 -0400, Martin Owens wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:59 -0500, Travis Beaty wrote: Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Mp3 playback isn't closed source, it's not a problem because it's licensed under the LGPL. You can play back MP3s and still be completely free as in speech... patents aren't copyright, the owners of the code actually want you to use these things as open source. Martin, -- 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 r...@infinityos.net 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
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 danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com 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
