Slashdot Mirror
UserLinux Proposal (And Analysis) Now Available
Lucky writes "Bruce Peren's idea for UserLinux was much discussed on Slashdot some weeks ago; however, there was no formal proposal. Linuxworld is running an analysis of the proposal and links to the first draft."
I'd prefer a formal analysis of a normal proposal rather than a normal analysis of a formal proposal.
Which one is more likely to grow the most mindshare in the future? I'd be interested to hear some opinions.
Personally I think UserLinux or something like it will prevail in the end. Red Hat exercizes too much control over Fedora IMHO.
I'm fairly disgusted with formalities- we deal with them in day jobs, why the hell are we bringing them to things like linux.
It spoils the mood- I think I'll just write closed stuff for my own purposes. The other people can have their status meetings and kiss ass corporate style for a salary of $0.
UnitedLinux to date seems to have had very little impact on the Linux user community - due to SCO's participation and the lack of unilateral support by Linux distribution vendors, most notably Red Hat.
...
Yes, having SCO and RedHat as organizations supporting your Linux project is a bit of a handicap
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Why not a linux-games CD, for example?
There are tons of games on freshmeat.
Generally linux distributions are too scared and following the SYS-V standards: init scripts, a compiler, a shell, GNU shell utils and that's it. No innovation man!
I'm not stuck on the UserLinux name, and would listen to alternatives. I proposed gnUserLinux, but RMS didn't like it! He feels that having the GNU up front would signify that it's an FSF official project. UserGNULinux doesn't roll off of the tongue quite as easily.
I'm wondering why these ideas just can't be incorporated by the Debian project itself. They have a desktop subproject, why not just rally around the Debian banner ?
"Based on Debian" is great, but why not convince the project itself that this is the direction to go? Wouldn't this do nothing but improve the distribution? Who would be against that?
I see you have no understanding that Linux is simply the best for certain people. I've used both Solaris and Windows but as I like complete control I use Linux where I can. Free is nice- but control is better.
You need hand holding and someone to wipe where the sun don't shine- so use Windows, it isn't that bad,
but there really is a lot of interest in Linux.
* GUI everything: If it's not a system crash, the desktop PC should be able to handle everything in GUI. Perhaps console programs that have a GUI counterpart (you run guiFdisk and you get a pretty "partition magic" type interface, but the real work is done by fdisk). Both parts would probably need to be written together for this to work seemlessly.
* Look to Windows. I hate to use them as a Linux standard, but seriously! If Microsofts 'Distribution' can do it, UserLinux needs to at least take note of it. Where Microsoft is criticized, Linux in general needs to be careful. I'm not just talking about critisism FROM the Linux comunity, but major distributions need to keep tabs on what excites/displeases regular win23 users.
* I don't know enough to comment on how the system should keep tabs on packages, but it would be nice to be able to make sense of dependancies. This isn't a specific recomendation, just a general thought: remember the "device manager" tree in Windows, something like that with at least two tabs. One would have at the top level only packages that have no dependancies. The next level would be packages that directly rely on them, and then the packeges that rely on them, and so on. The other tab would work the opposite direction, starting with a list of all packages and branching into the packages that they rely on. Perhaps the user would even be able to click on a package and get more detail. Something of this nature would allow users to get a sense of 'whos who' among their packages.
* Shoot for the next generation Linux, but do it while aiming at a more distant target. It would be very nice if 20 years from now UserLinux was not a hack upon a hack to keep it up to date (not suggesting that anyone else is).
* Don't lose track of all the user input. This is probably reduntant for me to say, but I'll say it anyway. Michael Collins who rode Apollo 11 wrote in his book "Carrying the Fire" that he kept a notebook and everytime something ocurred to him about the mission he would write it down. If he was in a resturaunt, he would write it down on a napkin, take it home, and copy it into his notebook. He refuse to launch until every concern in his notebook was checked off. Keep track of all good user input in one place.
Finally,
GOOD LUCK!!!
("You're going to need it.")
You must be new around here.
Re-read the post, it's called a flamebait, and you swallowed it all, worm, hook and line.
There's already tons of distributions that are focused on end users -- It's really unclear what the point of another one is. It seems like this is just an attempt to make Debian more popular by packaging it better, but it's not clear why a that can't be done by the existing Debian project.
Also, the idea that YA distro could become some sort of "standard" reminds one of SCO's "UnitedLinux" plan.
I think part of the point of UserLinux, and standards in general, is just to tip the scales when less involved developers make choices.
When I'm developing software I frequently come to a decision point where there's multiple protocols, implementations, or standards I can support. I often (usually!) don't care about which one I use, so long as it's not insanely bad. For example, I don't care where my program's files go, so long as I can find them. I don't care what port I use, so long as it doesn't conflict with other programs. I don't care about the file format, but it would be nice if other tools could handle it. And so on.
Standards make it easy to make a decision in these cases. Because lots of decisions are important but not useful. Let a standard committee figure it out for me -- whatever important details there are that I don't understand, they can think about those. And when they are done, they don't have to present a justification of why they are right -- they just have to tell me, the developer, what I'm supposed to do.
Competition can be useful. But only when it's interesting. I know, things that are interesting to one person aren't interesting to another. I don't care about exim vs. postfix vs. qmail, but I'm sure there are people who care very much. I guess part of a standard is a way of making both of those possible -- making it so I don't have to care (because they all talk SMTP) while another person can make decisions that are useful to them. Of course, SMTP is only a start -- I like /etc/aliases too, because it's easy to understand, but it's also limited. A growing standard might extend that -- and well it should, because having a single way to express aliases would be very useful. In this way a standard can grow, and slowly pick off the pieces where useful diversity doesn't exist (only annoying diversity).
I think UserLinux could be successful if it finds low hanging fruit first -- standardizing boring things, where the participants are easy to convince. There might be things that are more useful to standardize (like a GUI toolkit), but down that road leads certain failure.
Click here [goatse.cx]
I'd prefer a formal analysis of a normal proposal rather than a normal analysis of a formal proposal.
I'd rather have
a bottle in front of me
than a frontal lobotomy.
-kgj
-kgj
With Sun the "overnight" 800lb guerilla of Linux Desktops, seems to me that if this is going to have ANY success, they'll need to be on board.
But there's that nagging issue that it's a "Enterprise" desktop vs a User Desktop.
But even so, while a User Desktop may not be an Enterprise Desktop, the reverse is true, or at least should be.
Don't throw every application into it. As a counter-part to the "gui everything" I think its important that we at some point have a distribution that's is fully and transparently integrated. No more merely cobbling great products together. Success will mean true consistency, maybe then the rest of us will see that its not all that bad.
Quack, quack.
UnitedLinux, UserLinux, Fedora (community) -- add this to the many other linux distros and it becomes a bit more daunting.
I understand the task is to unite all the distros so we can get inter-distro compatibility and all that. There's hope that it works out. Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll offer this:
KDE 3.2, APT as the package manager, Oo.org as the office suite, mplayer, xmms, k3b, mozilla (firebird), evolution, and most importantly, frozen bubble.
So standardize on that! Oh, relax. I could've said Lindows.
* GUI everything: If it's not a system crash, the desktop PC should be able to handle everything in GUI. Perhaps console programs that have a GUI counterpart (you run guiFdisk and you get a pretty "partition magic" type interface, but the real work is done by fdisk). Both parts would probably need to be written together for this to work seemlessly.
* Look to Windows. I hate to use them as a Linux standard, but seriously! If Microsofts 'Distribution' can do it, UserLinux needs to at least take note of it. Where Microsoft is criticized, Linux in general needs to be careful. I'm not just talking about critisism FROM the Linux comunity, but major distributions need to keep tabs on what excites/displeases regular win23 users.
* I don't know enough to comment on how the system should keep tabs on packages, but it would be nice to be able to make sense of dependancies. This isn't a specific recomendation, just a general thought: remember the "device manager" tree in Windows, something like that with at least two tabs. One would have at the top level only packages that have no dependancies. The next level would be packages that directly rely on them, and then the packeges that rely on them, and so on. The other tab would work the opposite direction, starting with a list of all packages and branching into the packages that they rely on. Perhaps the user would even be able to click on a package and get more detail. Something of this nature would allow users to get a sense of 'whos who' among their packages.
* Shoot for the next generation Linux, but do it while aiming at a more distant target. It would be very nice if 20 years from now UserLinux was not a hack upon a hack to keep it up to date (not suggesting that anyone else is).
* Don't lose track of all the user input. This is probably reduntant for me to say, but I'll say it anyway. Michael Collins who rode Apollo 11 wrote in his book "Carrying the Fire" that he kept a notebook and everytime something ocurred to him about the mission he would write it down. If he was in a resturaunt, he would write it down on a napkin, take it home, and copy it into his notebook. He refuse to launch until every concern in his notebook was checked off. Keep track of all good user input in one place.
Finally,
GOOD LUCK!!!
("You're going to need it.")
Polk anthre wex.
I'd rather have
a free bottle in front of me
than a pre-frontal lobotomy.
Good one -- wish I'd thought of that!
-kgj
-kgj
Risky to use Linux, considering GNU, GNOME, Gentoo, and more have all been hacked in the past months.
Watching the Linux fanboys squirm every week a new breach is announced makes me smile.
What is missing is metastandards. Sure we have TCPIP, SMTP, FTP, HTTP ..... etc, but we are missing higher level standards that surround such activities as:
Installation, compilation, platform and hardware identification, common GUI methods to build unified desktops.
Of course I accept we already have RPMs and 'standards' in install scripts but this is not enough.
We need to establish (several) standard models
which everyone agrees is the template for a higher level organism like a 'home PC' or 'office PC'.
These 'meta-standards' should be the next place to concentrate efforts in the OSS community.
Windows is not what I would consider an ideal end-user experience. Why not look at the 20 years of history of the Macintosh desktop computer, as well as the more recent experience and "lessons learned" with MacOSX. Apple may have created the most beautiful and well-behaved *nix GUI of them all (not like there isn't room for improvement there, either).
Just a thought.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I am all for an Enterprise Debian, I think most companies would also prefer a professinal open solution to RedHat/Novell/Sun. Most developers would.
This project will obviously address the needs of it's sponsors, reading the paper it sounds like this is a for a desktop replacement for Windows, why not be more specific about your sponsors needs. As for KDE/GNOME didn't FreeDesktop address this? What is the future plans for your sponsors? How often do they wish to patch, how often do they wish to upgrade etc etc. More info.
What happens when other orgs want their version of Debian Enterprise, say an LTSP version or a MOSIX cluster? Do we have multiple Enterprise Debians?
I think you will need to be far more strict than you imagine to cut down the packages used. I'm sorta thinking a new release of debian that things from Debian-Stable get promoted from. Or indeed a subset of debian-Stable.
Why not build a testing framework as your version of Linux? Take Debian-Stable, reduce the package count to a minimum. Write the AUTOMATED test. Then anybody can write software for your system. The validation is that after they've installed their software your test framework still executes correctly. Test early, test often.
Cerifitcation will have to happen on many levels. Hardware players IBM,Sun etc need to certify your code. Infrastructure software needs to certify your code. Apps software needs to certify your code. Developer/Admin/User certification will need to be available.
Make no mistake $1m a year is not a lot of change and this is a _HUGE_ undertaking.
http://savannah.gnu.org/statement.html
Good lord, ANOTHER BREACH?
and you swallowed it all, worm, hook and line.
And the sinker, don't forget the sinker.... ahw shit you forgot the damn sinker.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee to SCO, so you can legally use Linux.
here's also somes proposals to have the best desktop OS :
e Pe rfectDesktop
http://frimouvy.udev.org/wiki/wakka.php?wiki=Th
(it's wiki, everyone can add his own idea)
Ploum.net.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Click Here if you want to hear it.
Help fight continental drift.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Although we're all getting comfortable with it, I'd like to see the name UserLinux go bye-bye. In fact, "Linux" is getting to be scary word to a lot of execs, especially as Red Hat and Sun announce their pricing, which is getting up there.
I like names like MorphOS, which are much more friendly. Frankly, I'd love to see a catchy name withOUT the word Linux in the title and have th tagline be "Built On Linux" or "Based on Linux."
Does anyone else agree with that?
Well, I don't agree with your criticism of Debian.
Therein lies the downfall I think Bruce.
Reading through your white paper, I agreee entirely with your analysis and proposals. We desperately need something like this, but a Debian base and iterative development with that project is not going to fly. I think that you have a tendancy to overlook the shortcomings of Debian and that you don't appreciate that the corporate market has little use for Debian-obsolete and Debian-broken.
Further, to get buy-in from the current Linux install base, you need to be offering a viable alternative to the distributions most are accustomed to. Current Redhat users are ripe for conversion, but not if it means a step backwards to Debian-by-another-name.
It strikes me that one of your unstated objectives is to revitalised Debian. If Debian is suitable for your stated objectives out of the box, why is it that you are proposing a new project, as opposed to working inside the existing Debian framework?
Occam's Razor. Kiss (keep it simple stupid)
/..... and makes it simple to use. However it is intellegent, setting up the right parameters correctly, and CONSISTANTLY.
Simple is better than complex. The parent post makes this point about 5 different ways, but not quite getting to the point.
Simplify Everything. Don't make it DUMB, just simple. I will give an example of simple not dumb.
DHCP. It takes a complicated job, IP / DNS / WINS / Gateway
In the words of my dad, "Pick a lane and go!"
* KDE or Gnome Pick one
* commandlines are for geeks, not users
* Consistant AND Easy Versioning
* Pick the best in class client/app
* User Manuals in the style of "Dummies series"
* Want to do THIS, use THAT app.
* commandlines are for geeks, not users.
If LuserLinux is going to be sucessful, the GEEKS and Zealots have got to get out of the way. So what if RMS wants to call everything GNU/linux. Users don't care about such stuff. So what if Perens wants to compile his own kernel. Users don't care. The point is, USERS don't WANT to care about such things. And it doesn't matter to them what RMS, BP or whoever thinks. (and don't get me started on Emacs vs Vim, neither one are usable by users).
Users want easy to use, unbreakable, solid applications that get stuff done. Use simple defaults; default the best options MOST people need, and then hide them.
Put stuff in the background that the average user doesn't need or want to see. Translate things from GEEKSPEAK to Natural Language. "Automate tasks" instead of "Cron Job".
Providing something simple to use, yet powerful takes intellegence. Simple doesn't mean Dumbing down.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Create a framework under which a service provider can assert "UserLinux Compliance" or somesuch. A distro within the UserLinux (Debian) framework that contains only a proper subset of the full UserLinux would be UserLinux Compliant.
Let the market decide the best balance between security, stability, utility, compactness, completeness, and gee-whiz-feature-creep. Obviously, there may be several winners.
sigs, as if you care.
Toy Story character names are trademarked by Pixar and Disney. Disney is especially known for its legal department. We can't really make commercial use of those trademarks.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
But the most important thing about installers is that they are run once. People base entire distribution reviews on the installer, which is just stupid.
I used to agree with the above statement until I had to help many newbies "Try Out" linux. Most of them had tried to install on their own, but ran into trouble. Once I got it installed, most were impressed. But some were just entirely turned off from the first impression the installer left them with.
Granted, this was a year and more ago, most distros have improved their installers dramatically; however, I would not include debian in that list.
My $0.02Standards should be engineered, and software built to those standards and according to standards in programming. The distribution should be based upon OPEN standards, where they exist. IE, Word processing documents should conform to a OPEN standard. RTF, XML it doesn't matter.
Then the software should be EVALUATED to conform to USABILITY. You can engineer all sorts of standards and code to standards and provide a product that "Works" correctly in every way, but is IMPOSSIBLE for the average user to use. VI anyone, how about EMACS?
Then there is standardizations on one spec over another. KDE vs Gnome is another example. BOTH provide similar tools to the end user. Pick one, I don't care which, and neither does the average user. They don't care about QT vs GTK flame wars.
The problem is that Bruce Parens has the right idea, except he is too much of a GEEK and Zealot, and can't see the forrest for the trees. The world doesn't need another Debian clone. It needs a STANDARDIZED formula for Desktop Linux, where the choices have been made.
This is where Bruce loses it for me. NO USER needs 12884 applications. How many of those are Word Processing. Pick one, and GO. Take the best, forget the rest. KDE and GNOME are both good. But the desktop only needs ONE.
How many of those applications can run on 2.2? 2.4? 2.6? How many require KDE or Gnome? Howmany are CLI and how many are GUI. How many are "usable" by the average user?
The issue isn't how many, it is making the whole thing EASY to use. If it aint Easy, it won't be used.
KISS and Occam's Razor. 12884 is NOT using either of these principles.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
From LinuxWorld: This is an interesting proposal because Debian has as good a technology as anyone (arguably better by many).... The difficulty of installation of applications across distributions due to conflicts and lack of supporting libraries could be solved by Debian's apt tools, which are quite superior for the installation and resolution of dependencies in comparison to rpm.
.deb package, and they really are functionally equivalent.
:-)
Can we stop being so ignorant about RPM, please!!! RPM is a packaging standard, not a delivery/dependency resolving mechanism. Please don't tell me that RPM is worse than apt-get, because you're comparing a package to a delivery mechanism. RPM is the equivalent of a
If you want to compare delivery and dependency resolution mechanisms, try comparing Mandrake's urpmi or RedHat's up2date to apt. And urpmi is arguably better than apt:
$ urpmi evolution
takes less characters to type than:
$ apt-get evolution
For all you folks who have a dislike for the Debian installer, some have suggested Knoppix. However, Knoppix installs are definitely not pure debian, and some Knoppix-specific packages are quite difficult to remove without disturbing the rest of the system.
MEPIS Linux has very similar hardware autodetection to Knoppix, and its CD is bootable. It offers a pure Debian install, plus a few GUI system tools. The install is ridiculously simple, requiring only that you tell it what partitions to put /, /home (can be same as /), and swap on. It proceeds to format and install in *one* step. A tad more configuration and you're ready to reboot into your new OS.
My install took all of 25 minutes, including the formatting of a total of 40GB of hard drive space.
MMmmmmm... more "l337" kounter-kulture from da 'hood...
LiNuX beez a bro' thang! Yo no wham sayin'?
First Bruce-Perens-is-an-annoying-KIKE Post!
...and vice versa
"Have only ONE GUI. No KDE vs Gnome, just standardize on one, but keep compatibllity libraries for leagacy gtk apps until they are replaced by modern QT apps"
I really wish someone could mod the KDE control center down to "-1, troll" for using that terminology. This pointless sniping makes both desktops look bad. It's just as valid to claim that QT libraries are for keeping compatibility with legacy GPL-violating apps, while GTK2 is the free toolkit to code future apps with. (I'm not saying that QT is still a GPL violator, just that calling GTK2 "legacy" is inaccurate in the same way as calling QT "un-free")
0 1 - just my two bits
Haha, you poseur high school kid.
Is that you want a "perfect" distro where the users decide what happens. The problem inherint in this idea is that the users with the best ideas may not have the skills necessary to code said idea. And the coders may not want to code said idea. And if you try to force people who aren't getting paid into coding something they don't want to you'll have a broken product in the best case scenario. You're distro will die in the worst.
/. as to which one you should do. Plus the obvious arguements on the dev team as to which one should be accepted. Personally I like Gnome, but KDE is good too, then again I use Afterstep on my laptop due to low end CPU. Keep these things in mind.
In response to the miriad of comments about Gnome vs KDE pick one and forget the other; Please don't. If you think about it the linux desktop users are pretty much sitting at 40% Gnome, 40% KDE, 20% Other. So by picking one or the other to support you're pissing off about 60% of linux users. You will also start a flame war on
Kleedrac
Sure we wang, can.
That's what you're going to call it, damnit. I'd definately use XchinoLinux, and I think all the other Xchino's out there would too. Why use XchinoLinux? Brand name synergy paradigm shifting, now with XML!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Word
First of all, this is the best damn idea ever. I was just thinking a while ago that a good solution to the RedHat/SUSE sort of problem would be to have a community-developed distro with a not-for-profit that provided service. But this is a much better version of the general theme, and obviously better thought-out.
My only concern is: will it become like Debian? Desktop linux is making huge strides in very little time; this distro can't succeed if it insists on using GNOME 1.4. The Debian model works great for servers, but this distro needs to release about once a year. Even if most corps don't upgrade that often, new organizations aren't going to deploy 1000 seats of an outdated distro. Not to mention, hobbyist users won't dig it.
I'm currently using Fedora because I wanted GNOME 2.4, but I'd gladly trade the bleeding-edge timeframe of Fedora for a stabler (xscreensaver should _not_ lock up!), freer Debian-based distro.
Thank you Bruce
Package management should be based centered around two things:
1 - Making it easy for the user to identify what he wants
2 - Doing whatever is necessary to make the user's desire a reality.
A good package management system needs to keep these two ideas at their very core.
Having said that, here are my proposed guidelines for satisfying those criteria:
1 - The list of things the user selected to install should be the only thing the user has to see. Thus, install by choice and install to satisfy dependency should be kept distinct (hereafter, chosen packages versus dependency packages).
2 - Any package that isn't installed by choice should be removed the moment all choice packages that depend on it are removed (reduces disk clutter)
3 - Conflicts among dependancy packages that are only needed at build time are not conflicts, just remove the package that's in the way and get the new one. A real conflict only occurs if it effects the user's chosen packages as installed in some way. This will require the package manager to be careful about build/install order, though.
4 - Don't force the user to choose between "sticking with the distro" and installing things for him/herself. "./configure; make; install" should be replaced with some kind of script that defines the package's dependencies and conflicts, and suggests a way to satisfy them before an attempt to compile is made. The suggested way(s) to satisfy can be any of the following three: 1, the name of a package that the package manager can get from the main distro; 2, a link to download the file necessary (download, decompression, and installation should be handled automatically); 3, as a last resort, instructions on where the user should go to get the dependancy, and where they should put the file once they download it (to maintain the distinction between chosen and dependent packages, the installer should say something like, "Please go to web page X, download Y, place the file in directory Z, and then press enter to continue."). Then the package list for the computer should include a manually installed section.
5 - Given the new freedom of number 4, conflicts will occur. To guard against the most flagrant ones (overwriting files needed by other files at install time), the file system will need to support metadata that describes what package a file is associated with.
6 - The user should, by default, be blissfully oblivious of what is going on in the background. No asking if a dependancy should be satisfied, only notification of conflicts. Said conflict notification should also be at the level of "_____ chosen package conflicts with new chosen package ______, what do you want to do? Install ______ and remove ______, or keep _______ and abandon installation of ______?" Then, hidden away in preferences (possibly as deep as being hidden by an advanced mode preference) should be the ability to turn on examination of the package tree, force full disclosure of what dependent packages need to be installed, etc.
At least, that's how I think a package manager should behave.
BlackGriffen
I tried Webmin a few times and it seems to have pretty good plugins to configure stuff... someone should make a GTK gui for these plugins so we could have some kind of "control panel" or "mmc" equivalent in the "friendly" linux distros such as mandrake..
I may be being dense here, sorry if I am, but I don't get how this "industry group" will be saving money if they represent "50,000 desktop or server units" when it was stated in the paper that company's are charging 1000 pa (when the "industry group" is paying 1 mil per year for the development of UserLinux).
Am I missing something? I think I am but can any one explain it to me? To me it looks like they would do better paying the 1000 pa per-seat.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Here.
I hear you can get a native, Trolltech-provided Qt 3.2 Windows free edition on the CD-ROM that comes with the upcoming re-edition of the Qt book, too, if you can't want for the above project to reach completion.
Otherwise, a decent alternative is wxWindows (not as clean and elegant as Qt, and thus requires a bit more code for a given task, but still very decent, don't worry).
Thank you.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
One thing that would be good is to provide both methods. We have a package repository, but we also have a way to install everything into one sub-directory without doing anything systemwide, like the Mac does.
... ?
I like programs that give me that chance, like blender, for example.
Maybe an apt command that would automatically generate that big directory
After spending way to much time reading through all of the posts, I guess I want to throw in my comments and get beat-up like the fool I am!!
First, I do disagree with Bruces' comment about the installer being only run once. I might be reading to much into the comment, but the installer is one of the most important pieces of software you ship. First impressions are very important, and if the user cannot get Linux onto the computer then the game is lost. Plain and simple. You can try to argue, but if the user can't boot into Linux then what is the use.
(Remember, that most users are not all that bright!!! Just ask any tech support person.)
Second, why not use UnitedLinux as a base? Yes, it might cost some money initially but look at the rewards. Now you would most likely have a desktop that matches the servers in the important areas (compiler version, kernel version, WM versions etc). I think what UnitedLinux (minus Caldera/SCO) aims for is exactly what the desktop needs.
Third, RPM vs apt-deb argument. Dammit, it is too late for me to try to argue for/against each. Sorry. Need sleep.
(P.S. If anybody wants to contine offline, feel free to email me.)
Here is the correct troll:
Have only ONE GUI. No KDE vs Gnome, just standardize on one, but keep compatibllity libraries for leagacy apps until they are replaced by modern apps.
The command line must be disabled by default, and the only way to get it is to install an unspported package, with a huge disclaimer in bold red text saying explicitly that they can destroy their system, and the user must sign a disclaimer and have to enter in a 50 character activation code (weekly) to confirm that they want to use such dangerous software.
Up to date software in the STABLE distribution, with contiuous upgrades which should promote the use of more sophisticated hardware. Release a core distribution every year, with service packs throughout the year. For example UserLinux 2004, UserLinux 2005 SP3.
One of each app, no more. One text editor, mp3 player, video player, image viewer, office suite, email client, image minupulation program. These should all be completely integrated into the user environment seemlessly, so that they are almost an integral part of the operating system.
Must come with comprehensive documentation, with interface reviews, proofreading and all. With the option to have PRINTED manuals, access to a moderated user forum (read: RTFM response not allowed). Furthermore, all documentation should be written on the level of the average user. Users do not really need to know why this does that, just inform them of what is necessary to complete expected tasks.
Most importantly, ALL options MUST be configurable from the gui and only from the gui! If just one thing has to or can be done from the command line or a text file then the user will be confused. In order to simplify things all settings from all programs need to be concentrated into one of the 4 binary "registry" files to be placed in the /linux, /linux/system, and /tmp/deleteme directories.
Well...since that's where linux is going, I'll probably have to leave...
I already left one operating system for that reason....
if BSD weren't dead I might move to that.....*sigh*
How is hurd coming along?...
Oh....
guess I better start on my own kernel then.......*trots off*
Various circumstances:
.deb format.
.rpm or some other PACKAGE format.
#1. User wants to install app that is in
Debian already solves this fairly well.
This also works really nice for upgrading and un-installing.
#2. User wants to install app that is in
Alien does an okay job. But it would be nice to have some improvements.
Again, upgrading and un-installing are handled.
#3. User wants to install app from tarball WITHOUT changing any of the tarball defaults.
Instead of using make and configure, why not have another app that calls them BUT monitors and RECORDS what was installed and where it was installed?
This will allow the app to be UN-installed, cleanly. But upgrading it will be a hassle.
#4. User wants to install from a tarball AND wants to change some of the defaults.
This looks like the hardest situation to handle. I don't know if there is a way to make this a "one-click" install.
But then, anyone wanting to do this is probably advanced enough to be able to handle it on their own.
Remember, a package management system should be able to INSTALL a package, UPGRADE a package, VERIFY and FIX a package, and UN-INSTALL a package.
Debian does VERY WELL with package management, but that is mostly because of the community that the maintainers belong to.
When you get away from that community (installing from source), you lose those benefits.
I think there are too many variables to be able to handle every case of installation from source code correctly (install, upgrade, verify, fix and un-install while allowing for a custom installation).
Instead, can we provide for the other cases and just issue a warning/notice that, since the installation was not done via a packaged app, the system cannot upgrade or verify/fix the app but can only install and remove it?
I think that will still give you an advantage over most Windows desktops.
I think the problem with systems like apt, rpm, and emerge is that they're too good. The sophistication of apt and rpm have made installation of software much easier with dependency checking. The problem is not in the package managers. Its in the dependencies.
People who use any desktop operating system want things to be easy and simple. UserLinux seems like an attempt to ratify another standard that's going to be discussed to the point of everyone agreeing on it long after its needed. What's needed is a simpler approach.
Here's my idea. I'm a big fan of KDE, so I'm going to use that as my example here, although it could be applied to GNOME just as easily. First we start with the LSB. It's mature and widely deployed. Second we look at KDE. KDE is meant to be a set of libraries from which you can make your application. Using that theory, create a LSB package called "kde.rpm" which contains the necessary libraries to run a KDE app and has "lsb" as its only dependency. Then every KDE application has a single dependency of "kde".
Now obviously everyone's going to be wondering "why would ANYONE want a single rpm file? That's HORRENDOUS!" Create a new type of rpm called a "super rpm" or something similar which is a collection of rpms and a text file containing the order to install them.
What about all the packages that depend on libraries beyond the standard KDE libraries? Statically compile those libraries into the application, thus keeping every KDE application with a "kde" dependency. I know this sounds like a horrendous kludge of a solution, but it would make installations so much easier.
This could be a stepping stone for further improvements in policy. For instance, it was suggested in another post to include all the dependencies of a package in the rpm. That would still create a few dependency conflicts between packages. One solution is to include the most sensible libraries as rpms within the package, and statically compile the others that are more obscure. Sensible libraries to include as rpms rather than statically-compiled into the binary are those that have a very stable API, are very large, or where everyone generally uses the same version.
Obviously this solution has many technical shortcomings that would need to be worked on. However, I do think that eliminating most dependencies would be a good idea, and would be a great step in the right direction for desktop linux even if it seems like a bit of a kludge at times.
The best rule of design that I know of is the following.
1) Create 10 potential users of your application
2) Give them each a name, an age, some ability, etc.
3) Role play some design decisions with all of them
e.g. Bob the geek likes ultra control over everyhing and really likes this part of that app
Lisa the art major prefers to be directed, i.e. less options, more depth
4) for each design situation you need, rate the happiness of the users
5) find the target user, the target user is a user where when he is very happy about a design choice, all the others are at least ok with it (nobody hates it). Let's call her Julie.
6) Design everything for that user from now on. Don't worry about anyone else.
If you can find a target user then it turns out that you do please everyone, i.e. you don't have anybody which hates a decision. They might feel it's not the best but they are at least ok with it and can recognize that it makes others reall happy about it. It sounds like the holy grail, yet it happens often in practice: the carry-on was built and designed for pilots and no one else, yet everyone likes them.
Bruce, find that target user. When you do, you can beat any and every commercial distro.
But the most important thing about installers is that they are run once. People base entire distribution reviews on the installer, which is just stupid.
Actually, they are run at most once. The users who can't even get through that first crucial install (many, in Debian's case) aren't likely to reap any of the other benefits of the distribution. Debian may be featureful and stable, and apt may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's all for nought if you can't get the darn thing installed and end up switching to a different distro.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
KDE or Gnome. I agree. Sort of.
Don't have both in one package.
But how about having UserLinux-KDE and UserLinux-Gnome? Just not together.
The core Linux would be the same, of course.
But one distribution would be focused on Gnome and the other on KDE.
We don't even need both versions to start. Just think about the naming scheme so that the other can be added later (if anyone wants to).
Something else, look at Knoppix. Make UserLinux a live CD so people can test out their system BEFORE going through the install.
That way, if something goes horribly, horribly wrong, YOU CAN STILL GET TO THE INTERNET TO LOOK UP THE ANSWER. Or you can put off the install until you can get a compatible NIC or video card or whatever.
No surprises!
It makes a difference to me because I thought I'd pass a resume to anyone intersted in your excellent project. The first company did not look right, the second one provided me with no information.
Oh well. If you are bored after your marathon question and answer sesion here, have a flower, or a lizard or a spider. The flowers might be nice backgrounds for your corporate desktops. I had fun taking the pictures and hope other people enjoy looking at them. The flower page comes in handy when secretaries do nice things for me. =:>
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You know, this stuff comes up on Slashdot every so often -- someone notices that Linux is difficult for Grandma to use and suggests that we do something about it. There are lots of people who would love to see Linux take down Microsoft on the Desktop.
When talking about how this should be done, invariably a bunch of people start talking about GNOME and KDE and about making everything a GUI and making it work more like Windows, because that's what users are migrating from. And lots of folks start critisizing what we have currently, saying things like "we must get rid of the command line" and "geeks and zealots must step aside".
To produce a Grandma-oriented desktop, they may be right. But here's one big problem with what they say, and as I see it, it's insurmountable.
Linux is written by geeks and zealots. And the tools (GNU or otherwise) that come with it are too.
I am a geek, and a zealot, and I develop free software. I'm just one example. Most of us are. We are technically minded, and critical of windows. We like the command line, we like text files, and we like to argue about emacs and vi. This isn't just a steryotype -- it's the truth.
Mind you, I'm not talking about Linux users now -- I'm talking about developers. There are an increasing number of not-very-technical users out there who see the benefits of Linux and want to share it with their even less technical friends. And they see our UNIX/command-line/text files/geek/zealot philosophy as a barrier.
They are probably right.
The problem is, that 90% of these people do not write software. As ESR said, every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch. Not by scratching a user's personal itch, but a developer's. The problem is that users (who, on Linux at least, are increasingly normal folks) and developers (still primarily geeks/zealots) do not see eye to eye on any of this.
I'm sorry, but frankly speaking, the interesting problem to me is not a consistant UI written for grandma to use, but a UI that does what I want. I might put together a GTK front-end and even follow the GNOME usability guidelines or the like, just because I like having a sense that I'm doing something "the right way", but that's the extent of it. If someone wants user-friendliness badly enough, they can send me a patch, and I'll include it -- that's ok.
But I don't have a lot of time to begin with, and there's no way I'm going to spend it doing stuff that I don't care much about. I'm happy with linux the way it is now. You don't agree, and that's fine, but the problem is that you are asking me (a developer) to write you the stuff you want.
Hat's off to the GNOME and KDE developers for caring about this stuff; I salute them. But there aren't enough people who really, really, passionately care about UI programming in the Linux world. It's that simple.
The closed-source model (like Microsoft or Apple's) works well in this regard because the zealots they hire are getting paid to write code they probably don't care much about, under the direction of PHBs who are basically normal folks with normal concerns.
But until the 100,000 Slashdot-reading linux users stop making wishlist requests and begin coding themselves, they probably won't see their personal itch scratched.
This is the open source framework, friends. Either code, or live with things the way they are.
It's well and good to say that users can only fuck up their own directory, but that can completely ruin your interface. Delete the Gnome or KDE config directories, and when you next login, you get a plain X interface. Hard to recover from there for a non-technical user.
Politas
Step one: boot Knoppix.
Step two: open the Root Shell.
Step three: type knx-hdinstall.
Step four: follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Step five: ???
Step six: Profit!
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Or as Krusty would put it: "Now now now now now!"
.torrents, ed2k links, you name it /. for instant karma
1. Get minimized Knoppix
2. Apt-get just about every free game you can
3. Post
4. Post on
5. Profit!
Any reason this shouldn't work?
You may be trying to say something in favor of BSD-like licensing. In that case, I think you should consider that this argument has two sides, and that it is too often seenn only from the standpoint of the person who recieves free software, rather than the person who creates it.
As soneone who creates free software, I think that most of us here are very much in tune with the development side of it more than the reception that people have. The recieving end is often the ignored side. For example:
1: Where does an average user go for help and technical support?
2: Where does a business go for a service level agreement?
Note that this is one way that companies can make the money on the free software they produce. In fact, it is the focus on the recieving end that allows people to make money. Trolltech tries to focus on the developer users, while Gnome is becoming more popular in corporate environments because it lacks many of the licensing restrictions that QT has.
Now-- I am one of those who DOES feel that competition is good for both the core kernel(FreeBSD vs Linux) and the Desktop (KDE Vs Gnome). Bear in mind that in the end, many of the interfaces will be standardized, but the internal mechanics may not. Hence different programmers who see things differently can play around with different ideas and see how they work in practice. When an idea works well, it is adopted by all sides, and if it doesn't, it can be quickly forgotten.
BTW,I don't think that we need to make the choice of dual licensing. GTK and many many other libraries have been successfully built and released under the LGPL and BSD licenses which do not contain the viral clauses of the GPL.
Indeed, if you see the GPL as having been designed to handle UNIX tools, the GPL is decidedly non-viral in the sense that it si indeed possible to build large proprietary systems with the inclusion of GPL'd components (communicating via pipes and sockets). The viral clauses only come into play with the release of statically linked binaries including GPL'd libraries, or with dynamically linked binaries which are bundled with the GPL'd libraries. In other words, as long as GPL'd software is self-contained, there is no reason to see it as viral.
(Since use of the software is not at issue in the GPL, the GPL only applies if you are redistributing GPL'd software).
The problem with QT (and MySQL, BTW) is that they have licensed the libraries under the GPL in order to force people either to choose the GPL'd road or the proprietary road. No option is given regarding any other licenses, and the proprietary licenses are expensive and cumulative. For small software projects, these costs are prohibitive.
For this reason, I think that free software should be free from a development standpoint as well-- selfcontained entities can be licensed under any number of licenses (including the GPL), but entities which are not self-contained (libraries) should be licensed under licenses such as LGPL, BSD, etc. Failure to do this makes a project less useful in commercial space, and dooms a business to try to sell something that someone else can get for free.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't know if bruce is still reading this story or not, but here is my comment on his initiative after reading his draft. First of all, we all agree for the need for a UserLinux. SuSE/Novell and RedHat as you mention are now lock-in situations. I also think that most of the community agrees on basing the whole thing on Debian. It is a true and tested ditribution, that works. Criticism to Debian ofcourse is valid, woody installer isn't great, and debian stable is out of date. But that doesn't mean that UserLinux should also face these disadvantages. I personlay like Anaconda very much, I think it's the best installer for any OS now a days. I don't know of your relationf with Ian, but I encourage you to work with progeny and their port of Anaconda on Debian. While I have also tested the debian-installer for sarge (beta 1) my vote still goes with Anaconda. Anaconda can be UserLinux's installer, and put an end to the installer issue for good. As for being out of date, well UserLinux can address this, like Libranet has addressed it, by upgrading some packages to their testing/unstable version. But this process should be done carefuly, so that the distro still works with Debian apt's repositories. I find the argument of 'Why don't do all these inside the Debian project" a valid argument. But your answer for a need for the Debian to work with for-profit organizations also seems valid. The whole thing sounds good to me. UserLinux can be an umbrella project for Debian/SPI, in which debian produces the core system, and UserLinux builds on top of it. Slecting from competeing packages can be a painful task, but you have to face it. Bruce, tell me if you have ties with Progeny, and if they are interested in working with you/User Linux. I personlay don't like the name UserLinux, I propose Debian Enterprise GNU/Linux (if Debian can accept it) or GoLinux (if the name can be cleared). Also, you seem to think $1M is a lot of money. Well, it is, but not for the task that you are going to face. The FLOSS community needs people like you Bruce. I am proud of you, and proud of the work you have done. Good Luck with UserLinux, hope it becomes another success.
--
I like it. It reminds me of Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Of course, you'll probably be sued by Disney and Pixar, but it's still a cool name.
Plus, I'm sure Jules Verne would've supported Linux.
But the most important thing about installers is that they are run once. People base entire distribution reviews on the installer, which is just stupid.
First, this is a VERY dangerious position to take regarding a project like UserLinux. Understand that users who are only slightly technical are going to have to be able to install the product.
Secondly, understand that installers are the way that solutions get implimented. If the installer doesn;t work, the solution will never get implimented.
To some extent you have a point regarding enterprise systems (ever installed Oracle?) but even there, I think, that ease or at least transparency and sensibility of installation is extremely important. If these don't work, why use such a product? You have to work MUCH harder to win customers that way.
Now, for UserLinux, the installer will be 100 times more important than it is for Debian.
Best Wishes
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So what if they didn't? Sure, they "traditionally" pay for proprietary operating systems and commercial toolkits, but assuming that a completely Free solution works well enough for them that the cost benefit isn't offset by a loss in productivity, why SHOULD they pay?
If one way to solve the problem involves me paying someone, and another just as workable way involves me paying no one, then the provider of the first way had better be adding some value.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Hi Bruce and everybody.
UserLinux is not a good name, because "User" is a word belonging to one specific living language.
A good brand name is one that sounds right in many languages i.e. like the VIVENDI groups name, which was created regarding this multi cultural identity.
So a better name would use maybe latin roots or old greek roots.
i.e. AquaLinux, VivaLinux, VeniLinux, VediLinux, VinciLinux, SigmaLinux, BetaLinux, LambdaLinux, DeiLinux, PhiloLinux,
Hope that someone still reads this, down here at the bottom.
Freidenker
1) Debian stable is horribly slow in evolutionary speed. How can Debian be considered a decent base without advanced QA tools to move stable along at > retarded pace? App. developers are not going to dig worrying about a distro stuck dozens of minor # off the latest kernels. At this pace it won't be up to 2.6 'til '08.
2) I know Bruce noted this, but come the hell on folks, there's no excuse for the condition of the installation (interface not applicable here). We're coming up on '04, not '94. If that's not a palpable disdain for new users, a 2X4 between the eyes must be a friendly greeting where y'all live.
3) Can the recent kernel hack being premiered on the Deb base be considered good advertising about quality control on the distro or competence of the core structure? I know every distro using 2.4 was vulnerable, but the timing of this sucks rocks.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good distribution for an advanced niche. But I'm concerned that the hurdles to making it accessible are much higher than are being presented. The last core reorg. may have left them in worse shape than advertised.
Flame away damned pirates!
Like he said, RH/SuSe is supported commercially, not only by the companies that release them, but also by third-party providers like Oracle and even Codeweavers.
That's the only, imho, reason for using either. The question then becomes: Why isn't Debian similarly supported? We are beginning to see commercial distributions based on Debian, so it's not that it's inherently unsuitable or *too old* or whatever.
The problem with Debian is that there is no *standard* distribution. The Debian people themselves have failed to create a 'default install' a la RedHat or Lycoris, that includes everything a corporate desktop or server would need, properly integrated. Instead, there's three different distros: too old (for desktop users), *testing* (which sounds like it's destined to fail), and too new (for 3rd party support).
Debian really needs to incorporate something like Knoppix into the mix, a distribution that starts with Debian stable and adds what's needed from testing and unstable. Have a vote or whatever to determine what apps and versions to include, then make it the *standard* Debian distro.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
was with woody. i'm still using woody, and i've gone through at least a good two dozen installs of it, and have been using it for almost a year, and i plan to use it for the rest of my life, or at least for a long time. and i havn't yet seen a linux distrobution ...or any Operating System for that mattere...that even comes close in my mind, to all of the collection of benifits that debian provides.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
there's three different distros: too old (for desktop users) Why do corporate users need bleeding-edge software? I run Debian/stable on all my servers (except a few legacy DeadRat boxen which I haven't yet reinstalled) and Debian/unstable on my desktop (because I can fix it if it breaks). Most desktop users, mostly using scientific applications which are Linux-specific, are either running Debian/stable or old versions of RedHat. They don't need KDE3, or the latest version of X, or whatever. If they seriously had a need for newer software, I could get it from backports.org or something, and it'd become the responsibility of the in-house IT team to look after it. I agree that the lack of corporate support is a bad thing. It's something I'm looking into - I've founded a company with a few Linux-knowlegable friends and once I can afford to risk going a year or two with no income, I'm going to go into business doing Linux installations and support for corporate clients. Our market research is very promising, especially among industrial businesses which have no need for Windows and are keen to make savings on IT.
Then again, from the humblest of beginnings, Linus' kernel project and RMS's GNU initiatives have taken a significant market share away from the world's largest company.
We've stolen markt share from Wal-Mart? I didn't even know cheap plastic stuff was part of the OSS movement. I still learn something new everyday.
They need bleeding-edge hardware support because they like to buy new Dells; that means the latest kernel, plus a few modules, plus a recent version of XFree86.
They need a web-browser that supports the latest websites. That means a recent Mozilla, plus Java and Flash.
My clients in particular need Windows-like usability, which almost *requires* KDE3 (I'm not bashing Gnome, but I'll use it when it's ready). I know, I use KDE2 at home and it's okay, but I don't want to hear complaints like "Windows does foo; why doesn't Loonix do foo?" I want to hear "Why doesn't Windows do this?"
They also need Crossover Office, which is mostly written for the latest versions of the major distributions. Using anything but SuSe, RedHat, or Mandrake is asking for trouble.
That's pretty much your basic corporate desktop. Add in a few niceties like mplayer and a decent cd-burning app and it's bye-bye to Windows and spyware and Outlook viruses and crap licenses and "Reinstall Windows to fix" errors. Unfortunately, though, at the present it's hello to cut+paste problems and five different print/file dialogs and 256MB RAM requirements; but, I'm confident that those problems will be resolved as desktop Linux really gears up.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"