Slashdot Mirror
Canonical Plans a Version-Tracking Tool for Devs
daria42 writes "Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, has started work on a new project which aims to make easier for Linux developers to find the latest open source software updates, no matter which distribution they are contributing to. The effort encompasses distributed bug tracking, revision control, language translations and more. Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth wants Ubuntu to take advantage of the software, saying: 'As the framework [for using code from across the community] sets, hopefully we are at the centre of it. Further down the pipeline we may need to differentiate on other grounds.'"
This is just another short-term bypass to a long-term problem. Eventually, this will be just as usefull as CVS/Subversioni is right now for open source projects on different distributions.
:)
IMHO
The FAQ doesn't say why Rosetta isn't open source. I find this shocking because Ubuntu has traditionally maintained a strong stance in favor of free software. I don't suppose you'd happen to know why?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
CVS was a good start, and Gentoo takes the next step, but they all require somebody to be "developer in the middle" for every single configuration decision. Debian is very cool in that it seeks to always provide a "foundation" to build on, but it's much too slow advancing [updating the foundation] for "internet" usage. I've thought it was time for a while now to develop the "next" system... which I could gaurantee is unique to OSS and nobody else. Gentoo's ebuild is great, but it doesn't go back to the developer/ outside of gentoo. Think about this a minute... if Gentoo is source only, then it should be simple to make a ebuild for any other distro too... but "it's not that easy" you say... I'd ask WHY?
Ideally, every person who compiles should be able to submit their results "upstream" as well as "downstream" that's the current distro problem we face now. Every distro fixes things differently, but the original author can't keep up with all the changes coming from a dozen distros... so they all stay "fragmented". The "next" system should fix bugs once... and be able to relay the issues back to the guy who maintains that particular piece of source code. Gentoo comes close, but it can't "put back" and suggest changes and test cases to the original developer... That's the step that's slowing down development all around. It's the need for things like drivers and kernel modules to fix third- and fourth- levels of interaction... the best testing environment is the "real world" because there are far more combinations of programs out there than any one developer could ever hope to test... The ability to guess where a bug might be by looking at logs from ALL the compiled versions... and see what's breaking stuff... to reduce the reliance on "custom" distros, you need a sytem that can spot bugs that happen once per thousand or even ten-thousand users... The other advantage is that proprietary developers would be able to tap the same up-to-date pool for their projects... so they wouldn't be pertually "out of the loop" dragging things down!!
There's just one problem to watch out for. That the needed communications between repositories doesn't outnumber the actual content behind it.
They are now propriatary software developers, and it is immoral to support ubunto because of it, unfortunatly.
You need to understand that OSS licensing is merely a set of terms in a transaction. If the terms are suitable for you, fine, if not, fine, but it isn't a moral dillema at all.
It is entirely possible to argue against closed standards without using the morality card (which really makes you look immature, BTW). What about investment protection? What about risk mitigation? What about cost savings? What about interoperability?
I could rant for days on end against Microsoft, for example, and not once say they are immoral. While they certainly have very poor ethics, I'm not convinced it comes down to fire-and-brimstone morality, yet.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Immoral? No. Hypocritical? Maybe.
It is entirely possible to argue against closed standards without using the morality card
But I wouldn't want to because it delutes my main arguement: that denying the world the source code is not nice and undermines the reason we allow copyright in the first place. Information wants to be free.
What about investment protection? What about risk mitigation? What about cost savings? What about interoperability?
I don't care about any of that. Why would I? It might make sense for businesses, but I'm not in the business of helping businesses to do better business.
(which really makes you look immature, BTW)
I care even less about my apperance.
While they certainly have very poor ethics, I'm not convinced it comes down to fire-and-brimstone morality, yet.
Unethical but moral? I've been treating ethics and morality as synonymes. Maybe you know something I don't?
You're describing ClearCase. And it's a horrific piece of garbage.
Cheers Koz
Distributed this and that is great. But a lot of projects are hosted on systems like sourceforge, they have their own tracking features. And most distributions also have their own trackers and what not.
What we need is an OPEN STANDARD that everybody want's to integrate into their system so it can truely be distributed instead of going to yet another site that doesn't want to play along with the other kids.
e.g.
> reportbug SomePackage
should send a bug to the debian bug tracking software, which in turn will signal the the other bug trackers that are associated with the package.
The claim: "OSS licensing is merely a set of terms in a transaction."
The Stand-in phrase in place of an arguement.: "You need to understand that"
A possible re-write would be: It is entirely possible to argue against slavery without using the morality card (which really makes you look immature, BTW).
You have presented a number of other reasons why propriatary software development might be a bad idea, as opposed to immoral, but have not said why the previous posters claim that it is immoral is false. If you are going to say that a position makes someone look immature maybe you could also present an arguement as to why they are wrong. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure myself and so would like to hear it. (:
That idea has been tried numerous times before and it doesn't work well. Most things do not need to be versioned, or versioning them is harmful to system performance. The things that do need to be versioned require a lot more functionality than a file system can provide on its own.
At this point, it is doubtful to me that anything remotely related to versioning or metadata belongs anywhere near the kernel. But if it does, then the right way to provide it is via user-level servers (like Plan 9), not by hacking stuff deep into the bowels of the file system. Simple versioning, like the kind that has been provided in file systems, could be safely, transparently, and simply provided in the C library, in a way analogous to the way Emacs does it.