Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Some thoughts, frustrations, and considerations.
Hi Erich, On 09/21/2018 05:55 PM, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: > Hi everybody, > > As many of you know, Eylul stepped-down from the core leadership of > Ubuntu Studio on Saturday. With Eylul's departure, we lost one of our > key developers. She had planned on stepping-down, so this was not > completely unforseen, and she isn't the only one who wishes to depart. > He can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Len was > looking at stepping-down when the timing was right as well. This has me > rethinking some of the ideas we've had with the less-than handful of > people we have working on this project. Thanks for taking the time to write this. I was not aware of any of this. Probably because like everyone, I don't have a lot of spare time these days. If it didn't appear here, it didn't happen ;-) Anyway, that is a shame. Both will/would be missed. > > When Ubuntu Studio was born, it started as an add-on to the existing > GNOME-based Ubuntu install. Those that were there can correct me if I'm > wrong, but as I understand it, the first ISO came about with Xfce as the > desktop when Ubuntu went to Unity. With Unity no longer a major factor, > I asked the team to explore other desktops, and, with Len's > recommendation, Plasma was chosen as a viable alternative to Xfce. > > Unfortunately, getting an ISO spun-up with Plasma as the desktop has > proven to be more of a pain than previously thought because we'd > essentially be creating a new "flavor" of Ubuntu which has to go through > all of the steps necessary to make that happen. With our dwindling > numbers and lack of time to dedicate to a project that got too tedious, > I recommend we abandon this project. Why is it a new flavour? I thought it would just involve updating the seeds and meta packages to use the kubuntu defaults instead of xubuntu. > > Also, creating Ubuntu Studio Welcome and the boutique to replace > -installer have proved to be nearly impossible without help that I > simply don't have. > > Another frustration is that it is nearly impossible to get packages > updated, and if they're synced from Debian it is even more difficult. > For example, I worked on and got the new version of Calf (0.90.0 which > has been out since November with a point release to 0.90.1 in July) > updated, and since it gets pulled-in from Debian, I had to go to the > Debian Multimedia Team to get it updated, only to find that there was > someone already working on it without the point release (0.90.0), but it > hadn't yet made its way into Debian Testing or Unstable. The upstream > developers had released it in November and it's STILL not in Debian > Testing or Unstable. It shouldn't take 10 months to update a major > release of a project. Fedora doesn't have this problem because they > don't have an upstream project from which to pull as they ARE the > upstream, and already have the 0.90.1 package! Updating a project > shouldn't have so many hoops through which to jump! I am a member of the Debian Multimedia Team. The activity in the team is pretty low at the moment. Especially Jaromir who was the last person to start updating Calf. Everyone is pretty busy. Unfortunately, the packaging uses CDBS instead of debhelper, which I am not very familiar with. Have you pinged Jonas if he has time to upload the latest? Otherwise, I will try and learn CDBS and give it a go over the next few weeks. > > The biggest roadblock we have is the lack of active MOTUs on the team. I > would apply, but I don't feel as though I'm qualified since I've had > nobody to mentor me in package development. Additionally, we've been > unable to attract any dedicated MOTUs. Yes - this has been a pain. At least in the past Kai had upload rights for the ubuntustudio-* packages. I have tried twice to get upload rights to some limited number of packages (not MOTU), but no developer will endorse me, because I have not had enough sponsored uploads. My sponsorship request for ubuntustudio-look has been sitting there since the 4th August. http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/index.html I suppose I should be sitting on IRC pinging people, but I don't have time for that. Like I don't have the time to prepare lots of other uploads. :-) If we have the packages ready, but nobody to upload them, why don't we put them in a team ppa, and put some instructions on the wiki for users to install manually? In the meantime, the packages can sit in the sponsorship queue until they get a sponsor. > > If Ubuntu Studio is to survive, I believe it might be time for another > approach which would bring Ubuntu Studio closer to its roots. My > proposal is to keep Ubuntu Studio's ISO as Xfce, but to develop > metapackages that bolt Ubuntu Studio on to an existing install of > another flavor. There are a couple of different approaches to this: 1) > the metapackage pulls-in the required configureation files to simply add > some essential configuration such as the lowlatency kernel selection in >
[ubuntu-studio-devel] Happy to test
I have Ubuntu Studio installed on the following machines: Supermicro X7DAE dual Xeon, 3ware 9550 controller, M-Audio sound, Radeon video HP Envy 17T laptop, Intel i7 CPU and Intel and nVidia video controllers Dell E6230 laptop Server back end in the house is all FreeBSD including a 1U firewall/router, 4U Opteron file server, 4U Opteron backup server, and an HP tape library. My primary machine, the X7DAE, is fitted with a pluggable carrier for the boot device so I can do installations without bothering my production system. With the other systems there is sufficient space to do Clonezilla backups before test installations. My real interest in Ubuntu Studio is as an amateur recordist using Zoom H2N, H4N, and a Focusrite interace with 2 Samson small format condensers (so far connected to a Macbook Pro but will be trying out Studio soon). All recording so far is two channel so Audacity works fine. I'm also doing rudimentary video editing using OpenShot (easy) and looking at Cinelerra-CV (much harder). I started with a Radio Shack 16B running XENIX/68K in 1985 (...!ncoast!siralan!mikes) and then migrated to SCO UNIX, 386BSD, and FreeBSD. When beginning with open source operating systems I was the PC specialist for the Indiana University Computer Science department, and the systems staff had a very low opinion of the early versions of LINUX, thus the FreeBSD focus. I am a competent system administrator and have rudimentary programming skills, but am quite experienced in installations, including those from source (for a long time all FreeBSD installations after the initial install were from source so compiler optimizations optimized for the user's system could be used). Thanks for the work on Ubuntu Studio; if it has to be laid down I'll be sorry but understand the problems of working in a volunteer system. Mike Squires -- Michael L. Squires, Ph.D., M.P.A. 546 North Park Ridge Road Bloomington, IN 47408 Home phone: 812-333-6564 Cell phone: 812-369-5232 www.siralan.org or www.smithgreensound.com UN*X at home since 1985 -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
[ubuntu-studio-devel] Some thoughts, frustrations, and considerations.
Hi everybody, As many of you know, Eylul stepped-down from the core leadership of Ubuntu Studio on Saturday. With Eylul's departure, we lost one of our key developers. She had planned on stepping-down, so this was not completely unforseen, and she isn't the only one who wishes to depart. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Len was looking at stepping-down when the timing was right as well. This has me rethinking some of the ideas we've had with the less-than handful of people we have working on this project. When Ubuntu Studio was born, it started as an add-on to the existing GNOME-based Ubuntu install. Those that were there can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the first ISO came about with Xfce as the desktop when Ubuntu went to Unity. With Unity no longer a major factor, I asked the team to explore other desktops, and, with Len's recommendation, Plasma was chosen as a viable alternative to Xfce. Unfortunately, getting an ISO spun-up with Plasma as the desktop has proven to be more of a pain than previously thought because we'd essentially be creating a new "flavor" of Ubuntu which has to go through all of the steps necessary to make that happen. With our dwindling numbers and lack of time to dedicate to a project that got too tedious, I recommend we abandon this project. Also, creating Ubuntu Studio Welcome and the boutique to replace -installer have proved to be nearly impossible without help that I simply don't have. Another frustration is that it is nearly impossible to get packages updated, and if they're synced from Debian it is even more difficult. For example, I worked on and got the new version of Calf (0.90.0 which has been out since November with a point release to 0.90.1 in July) updated, and since it gets pulled-in from Debian, I had to go to the Debian Multimedia Team to get it updated, only to find that there was someone already working on it without the point release (0.90.0), but it hadn't yet made its way into Debian Testing or Unstable. The upstream developers had released it in November and it's STILL not in Debian Testing or Unstable. It shouldn't take 10 months to update a major release of a project. Fedora doesn't have this problem because they don't have an upstream project from which to pull as they ARE the upstream, and already have the 0.90.1 package! Updating a project shouldn't have so many hoops through which to jump! The biggest roadblock we have is the lack of active MOTUs on the team. I would apply, but I don't feel as though I'm qualified since I've had nobody to mentor me in package development. Additionally, we've been unable to attract any dedicated MOTUs. If Ubuntu Studio is to survive, I believe it might be time for another approach which would bring Ubuntu Studio closer to its roots. My proposal is to keep Ubuntu Studio's ISO as Xfce, but to develop metapackages that bolt Ubuntu Studio on to an existing install of another flavor. There are a couple of different approaches to this: 1) the metapackage pulls-in the required configureation files to simply add some essential configuration such as the lowlatency kernel selection in GRUB, or , or 2) pull-in said configuration and rebrand the install to Ubuntu Studio. The other day, I took an afternoon and packaged something to demonstrate the #2 option above on a default Ubuntu (GNOME) install and it worked perfectly. This would require at least one MOTU to be dedicated to this project. There is yet another option, one that I don't like, but it was proposed from outside this mailing list when I first got involved. Perhaps Ubuntu Studio, as a downloadable flavor, has run its course. We're no longer in a world where people have to download whole ISOs to get the software they need quickly since it's all available in the repos and most people have a high-speed connection. This world no longer requires that every single piece of software be included in an ISO. Additionally, community support is dwindling, and Ubuntu Studio has gone from the premiere multimedia distribution to the one people are staying away from, with referrals to what are now arguably more successful projects for audio (KXStudio and AVLinux). Perhaps it's time to sunset the flavor. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Overall, I understand now why there has been so much burn-out in the Ubuntu Studio development community. Erich signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
