Trouble on the Debian Front?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Saturday September 2, 2006 @05:24PM from the everyone-has-their-burnout-limit dept.

Linux.com is reporting that Matthew Garrett, one of the more active Debian developers, has called some ongoing problems with the Debian project into focus with his resignation. While he didn't hold any actual office, many prominent Debian developers described Garrett as "high profile". From the article: "In his own blog, Garrett relates his gradual discovery that Debian's free-for-all discussions were making him intensely irritable and unhappy with other members of the community. He contrasts Debian's organization with Ubuntu's more formal structure. In particular, he mentions Ubuntu's code of conduct, which is enforced on the distribution's mailing lists, suggesting that it 'helps a great deal in ensuring that discussions mostly remain technical.' He also approves of Ubuntu's more formal structure as 'a pretty explicit acknowledgment that not all developers are equal and some are possibly more worth listening to than others.' Then, in reference to Mark Shuttleworth, the founder and funder of Ubuntu, Garrett says, 'At the end of the day, having one person who can make arbitrary decisions and whose word is effectively law probably helps in many cases.'"

28 of 255 comments (clear)

difference between anarchy and free-for-all by darkonc · 2006-09-02 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the early net, some people would regularly confuse the anarchy (lack of fixed leaders) of the Usenet/Internet universe with lack of any rules... ("I can do whatever I want! (and you can't -- i.e. you have to put up with my stupidity).)
Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
1. Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all by mdhoover · 2006-09-02 17:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The thing is, even with rules in place, mailing-lists always end up being a place for megaphone diplomacy, he who shouts loudest and longest (even if they have no clue) wins.
  The lists end up being political flamefests so anyone of actual consequence (ie: folks that do the work) will just depart the list to use IM/IRC/private email so as to avoid the bullshit and get on with work.
  
  Maybe to avoid this projects should use Slash instead of mailing lists, at least the smack-tards could be moderated out of existence ;-)
2. Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all by suv4x4 · 2006-09-02 18:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules
  
  It's not the same but you'll quickly find out how you emulate "authority" with your set of rules sooner or later, effectively ending up with leaders.
  
  It's the natural way. We all want to be leaders, or be equal, and that's ok, because it means there's a competition and possibility of change for the better. But if there's no concentration or "strategy" in a system, what results is a mess.
  
  Every system needs just about the right amount of "chaos" and "order" for it to thrive. Even democracy has elections once a few years, no every day or every hour.
3. Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-02 18:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Smack-tard" is not a word, ass-hat.
4. Re:difference between anarchy and free-for-all by LordLucless · 2006-09-02 22:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, that's representative democracy; true democracy would have no elections. Rather, every law would be voted on by everyone before it was enacted. That's the way it was in ancient Greece. Of course, there's a large difference between an ancient Greek city-state, where only male landowners can vote, and a continent-spanning nation with general suffrage - true democracy would result in chaos in most modern nations, especially with the number of laws we currently have (although I think that a lot of that is an outgrowth of having professional lawmakers). But still, the American system of representative democracy should not be used interchangeably with democracy; they are very different beasts.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Interesting... by SaDan · 2006-09-02 17:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's kinda interesting, the last comment regarding having a single individual who's word is basically law in a project. It's worked for the Linux kernel, and the longest surviving Linux distribution (Slackware).

I was never a fan of the political backend of Debian, but I recognize the developers' contributions to the distribution. Maybe now that Ubuntu is popular and succeeding, a change in the way politics are done at Debian is on the horizon?
Take from this what you will by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-09-02 17:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

NetBSD is dying

What you have here is someone who has taken an either/or position on formal structure. This is a fallacy that is refuted every single time it is used. 'You're either with us or against us', 'Emacs, not vi', and 'cathedral, not bazaar'.

What is necessary is not a central bureaucracy that keeps people in line. Nor is it absolute freedom that allows any idiot to speak with equal stature of someone with multiple credentials. There are no hard and set rules that will make one project more successful or attractive than another. The best you can do is to take care of the community members that are productive and useful and try to avoid those members who are more prone to religious wars than code reviews.
Could it have happened any other way? by pepeperes · 2006-09-02 17:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I doubt many of Debian's greatest contributors would have been there building stuff for these years had the organization been different. Much of Debian's beauty and attractive for many is based precisely on its 'loose' or rather free structure. If it survives, or if it will disappear we do not know yet, but it right now its offspring have shown they are really strong and effective, and I guess thats one of the main reasons-to-be for almost any entity, be it living or algorithmic.

--
... from the forgotten corner in europe
rulemaking isn't pretty either by SuperBanana · 2006-09-02 17:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.
The sad bit is that you usually need a leader to help make rules; when it comes down to it, the top couple of people most interested/involved/popular/whatever set some basic rules. Too many cooks etc. Add in egotistical or socially clueless people...and the number of practical cooks drops. Radically.
The really sad bit is that "just enough" of the people left out will devote endless amounts of time to arguing about said rules. BTDT in many clubs, for example. The best approach is to write the first draft of rules to be simple, un-evil, and able to be modified in the future, but not too easily.

--
Please help metamoderate.
Geeks without rules = too many pissing contests by winkydink · 2006-09-02 18:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?

--
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
1. Re:Geeks without rules = too many pissing contests by gardyloo · 2006-09-02 19:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?
  
  Is THAT your best attempt at starting a discussion?!? What a freaking IDIOT!!!
Other *nix OSes, and a little rant by lullabud · 2006-09-02 18:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's also worked for Apple's OS X, which claims to be the most widely distributed desktop version of *nix ever.

I tend to agree that there needs to be somebody to make final decisions on matters of wide questionability. Just the other day I compiled an app on Ubuntu and moved it to RHEL3 only to find that the static libraries were in a different location. I praised Apple's build system as well as the efforts of LSB and gave up on my quest to run hacked code on RHEL3 since I'm nowhere near a guru developer. (The app compiled and ran flawlesly on OS X and Ubuntu using debian packages.)
1. Re:Other *nix OSes, and a little rant by TheRaven64 · 2006-09-02 22:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The difference with FreeBSD is that it is a meritocracy. If you regularly contribute code, you will be invited to become a committer, and granted write access to the repository. The core team is then elected by the committers. You only get to vote if you are an active contributor, and the elected core team then sets policy. This helps to insulate the project from people who have a lot to say, but nothing helpful to contribute.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No. by MrNaz · 2006-09-02 18:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I disagree with this developer's comments, and suggest that perhaps his way of thinking is perhaps not suited to a meritocracy. Perhaps he needs an authority to appeal to in situations of disagreement.

While having one point of authority is good if you are looking to conduct a project under corporate type structures, it is undesirable if you are looking to adhere to principles of community involvement and community focused agendas.

I agree that it must be acknowledged that not all developers are equal, but disagree that this must be explicitly stated somewhere. In an open, meritocratic forum, relative skill levels become apparent fairly quickly, and if you need full and formal recognition of your work, then you are out of place in the open source community.

I have found the Debian mailing lists to be quite helpful, and if there genuinely is a lack of an appropriate forum for technical discussions, then this is a minor administrative problem (i.e., get a moderator to keep discussions on topic in the developer lists), not an intractable structural problem.

In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I find it difficult to accept that the "Debian Way" is broken when the project is so old, so well regarded, and so successful.

Garrett: If you are unable to work in the Debian project becuase your ideas conflict with it, then don't be blaming the Debian project. It may simply be the case, as with many relationship breakdowns, that your ideals and theirs are simply incompatible.

--
I hate printers.
1. Re:No. by jsebrech · 2006-09-02 20:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I find it difficult to accept that the "Debian Way" is broken when the project is so old, so well regarded, and so successful.
  
  Speaking as a disgruntled ex-debian user, I can assure you that a lot of people only consider the project old, not well regarded or successful. I consider it a niche OS that will remain a niche OS until it gets its act together.
  
  The failings of the debian project that made me move away from it were numerous but revolved around a lack of direction. The project came across as a collection of developers that solved their own pet problems, instead of a community focused on a clearly defined central goal, led by knowledgeable leaders. What I wanted out of debian was first of all for it to be up-to-date (something it never succeeded in, despite many attempts to "fix" the system), and for it to be well-suited both as a server OS and as a desktop OS. It was well-suited as a server OS, but only if you didn't need to run anything too new, and only if you weren't afraid of the command-line. The only way to make it usable as a desktop OS was endless tinkering.
  
  It's no mystery why the most successful OSS projects have strong central leadership. Vision can't be parallellized. You can maintain a piece of software in cooperative fashion, but if you try to apply direction to it you need one or a few people who have the authority on what that direction is, or your ship will just sail in circles.
2. Re:No. by Anthony+Boyd · 2006-09-02 22:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While having one point of authority is good if you are looking to conduct a project under corporate type structures, it is undesirable if you are looking to adhere to principles of community involvement and community focused agendas.
  
  While that may be true in some cases, it's not true in cases like Linux, or Perl, or Ubuntu. Therefore, while I am not going to suggest that your point is incorrect, I am going to suggest that your point is diminished by counterpoints.
  
  I agree that it must be acknowledged that not all developers are equal, but disagree that this must be explicitly stated somewhere. In an open, meritocratic forum, relative skill levels become apparent fairly quickly, and if you need full and formal recognition of your work, then you are out of place in the open source community.
  
  I'm going to 100% disagree here. It has been my sad experience that -- as someone else mentioned here on Slashdot -- "megaphone democracy" is what you get. The person who speaks loudest the longest wins. But I'm not even upset about that, now that I've experienced that and understand it. You see, the core group that does the most is very often very small. And they're surrounded by a large group of sorta-disconnected sometimes-contributors. That large group is not well informed, and you cannot blame them. They have lives. They've decided that other things are priorities. That's fair. But that also means that they cannot be expected to judge who has skills. All they know is who has been helpful for the 3 interactions they've had on the project. And sometimes, the person who has been helpful to them was a PITA to everyone else.
  
  This is how humanity is. I do not blame, because I've had to pick & choose what gets my attention, too. But now that I understand this, I know that your argument that skill levels become apparent just ain't so. Not for the majority. It's a pipe dream. Especially in this context -- chatter on mailing lists.
  
  Garrett: If you are unable to work in the Debian project becuase your ideas conflict with it, then don't be blaming the Debian project. It may simply be the case, as with many relationship breakdowns, that your ideals and theirs are simply incompatible.
  
  That may be true. It may also be the case that as an insider who has been a good contributor, he has seen the core of the apple, so to speak. He may be in a good position to reveal what's rotten. Write him off at your own peril.
  
  --
  My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Re:Debian's demise has been fortold for years by cloricus · 2006-09-02 19:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Debian's demise is an annoying catch cry for all those who want to start pointless flamewars instead of helping the community move forward. Ubuntu has many problems and cannot hope to replace Debian, ever, as the focus just isn't the same. Linux isn't Windows, in that it wants to be everything for every one, people so please remember that and really if you don't like the way some thing is run go where you do like it...That being said I hope any well thought out points that make sense in this mans blog are implemented for the betterment of the Debian community.

Just for the record I use Debian and Ubuntu in server and desktop configurations daily at home and work and I enjoy both.

--
I ate your fish.
Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution by WebCowboy · 2006-09-02 19:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Besides, Ubuntu would not exist and remain in existence without Debian.

Errr, what would keep Ubuntu from continuing if Debian simply and abruptly came to an end? Perhaps it would somewhat affect the course of Ubuntu's development but it wouldn't spell the end of Ubuntu or any other successful Debian-based distribution should Debian itself become defunct.

H. Sapiens remain in existence today despite the fact that H. Erectus ceased to exist long ago. Perhaps Debian is reaching the end of its predominance and the frontrunning Debian-based offshoot, Ubuntu, is finding its place as a replacement. It really looks to me like evolutionary development occurring within the Free Software ecosystem--Linux went from being a student hacker's experiment, to a hobbyist/enthusiasts toy, to a few rough-around-the-edges distributions managed usually by individuals (eg. Slakware), to full-fledged community-driven collaberative efforts (Debian) and commercially-driven products (Red Hat, SuSE).

Since the commercially-driven efforts continually evolve (Red Hat dropping consumer-level products and establishing Fedora, Mandrake and Connectiva merging and re-inventing their businesses, SuSE being bought by Novell and releasing a community edition of its own) what should keep purely community-driven efforts from evolving as well? Ubuntu is a reponse to influences and pressures of the Free Software community--it shares the same technology, much of the same content and has some common roots in its founders and contributers. It keeps Debian's strengths (package management system loved by many, lack of direct corporate influence and commitment to the concept of Free Software, relatively high commitment to stability etc.) and abandons other characteristics that are weaknesses (lack of organisational structure, political disputes impeding on technical progress, slow pace of development at times, unpredictable release cycle).

This is exactly what makes Free Software so valuable--even if Debian were to disintegrate as a project there will be nothing to keep Debian's code and heritage from living on in new projects that pick up the pieces and move forward in great and exciting new directions. I have personally seen a couple of closed software applications of great value pretty much die because the companies responsible for development went insolvent, and for what I can only think are financial reasons nobody ever let the code go Free (perhaps doing so would make the intellectual property asset worthless from a balance-sheet perspective--in one case the receiver sold all IP to a competitor and all that remained of its applications were what was incorporated in the competing product. In the other case much of the software became abandonware).

So while this news may be cause for sadness towards a legendary Free Software project, it is far from cause for alarm. Debian itself will evolve into something better, or perhaps go extinct while its resources fully migrate over to a new project, likely Ubuntu. In the end we'll all get better software as a result.
1. Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution by smilindog2000 · 2006-09-02 22:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What's wrong with having Debian be the technology proving ground while Ubuntu builds stable desktop operating systems for average people?
  
  What are the odds that all those Debian developers will wake up one day and decide to work for Ubuntu instead? Clearly, many of them are bitter that Ubuntu is stealing their thunder. It's doubtful that Debian developers will abandon ship anytime soon for Ubuntu. It's also doubtful that Ubuntu will get the huge numbers of developers needed to compete with RedHat anytime soon. For at least the near future, Ubuntu requires Debian to thrive.
  
  As for me, I trust Debian's open style of development to never be corrupted by any single person. It's amazing growth and activity is a tribute to the spirit of the open-source community. Sure, there's no all-powerful leader who can make things happen quickly. But then again, that can be a good thing. It's kind of like the US vs European Union.
  
  --
  Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
2. Re:Perhaps Ubunuto is just evolution by cortana · 2006-09-03 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Ubuntu community doesn't respect Debian? From what I hear about the "Fuck Ubuntu" t-shirts being worn at Debconf6, and the (verbal) attacks on DDs who also contribute to Ubuntu, I think the problem is exactly the opposite. :(
Yeah, What Problems? by twitter · 2006-09-02 19:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Things are looking good as far as a mere user like me is concerned.

Exactly. What problems are actually showing up in software?
A developer is leaving, that's a problem. It's sad to see a talented developer go, but someone else will step up the the plate and prove that every developer indeed deserves a voice.

A developer claims that mailing lists made him irritable. That's a problem that has one of two causes, the lists have been infiltrated by trolls or he needs to more tolerant and less easily bothered. The solution treats both causes. Realize that some people on your list are intentionally provoking you and ignore them. Realize also that differences can always be worked out and that not everything has to go exactly your way. If you are right, the project will get back to your way even when it makes mistakes.

Free software has enemies, that's a problem. Back in 1998, Microsoft declared war on free software with their Halloween Document and targeted the user community. Trolling lists is something they have been doing all the way back to Steven Barkto. It disrupts useful activity, promotes ill will and distrust of your neighbor and can even move organizations to the wrong conclusions and in the wrong directions. Eventually, the truth comes out so the strategy is ultimately wasteful. There is nothing M$ can do to make non free software competitive and they can't really shut down free software. There are far too many projects and damaged communication channels are routed around. The co operative spirit of free software depends on good will, but free software creates that good will in abundance.

The answer is not to make a king. If you think your peer is annoying now, imagine them with the king like power to make decisions you want for yourself.

None of these problems is an actual software problem. The kind of people who pretend such things are a big deal are the kinds of people that said free software could not make a friendly user interface, usable documentation, a coherent distribution, a kernel, a compiler, a text editor, etc. Etch is a fantastic distribution that shows that things are working very well.

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1. Re:Yeah, What Problems? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-02 22:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.
  
  As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
  
  Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
  
  A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
  
  Don't bite if offered flame-bait. Too many threads degenerate into a "My O/S is better than your O/S" argument. Let's accurately describe the capabilities of Linux and leave it at that.
  
  Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
  
  Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
  
  Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
  
  Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
  
  Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
  
  Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
  
  There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.
  
  From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
who would've thought... by CAIMLAS · 2006-09-02 20:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who would've thought that civilized, focused discussion would be more productive than a free-for-all...

I love Debian, but I've long had the suspicion that part of the reason Debian has such a long time between releases (which I view as a mostly good thing) is because they've got too much of a "free form" development process. That's good for small projects, and it served Debian well in the past, but Debian's scope has broaded so much in the last 5+ years that new considerations should be made...

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Two problems with the comments - by tonymercmobily · 2006-09-02 22:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Hello,

I can see two problems with the way people are interpreting what happened.

The first one is that a lot of people are implying "One developer has left. Big deal. Somebody will step in". FALSE. A single, skilled developer can make the difference between a successful project and an unsuccessful one. As many good manages know, replacing a good worker is _very_ hard - sometimes impossible.

The second problem, is that a lot of people here have written comments without reading the mailing lists. Somebody implied "oh, it's the developer's fault, he shouldn't have been bothered in the first place". FALSE. Garrett really cares about the debian project; I generally agreed with what he said; lately, I was thinking "Geee, if I were him, I would quit". He found some of the tones grating as you guys would have if you cared about the project - and, above anything else, if you had read some of the messages in the mailing list. Accusatory. Unnecessary. Excruciating. Always coming from the "usual suspects" - who nobody seems to be able to shut up.

More and more people will leave, unless things change - rapidly.

Merc.
Editor In Chief
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/
Traditional corporate structures by bettyfjord · 2006-09-02 23:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although no one's come and out explicitly mentioned it yet, it strikes me that Mr Garrett is saying that traditional corporate structures work best when developing software.

Enforced rules of conduct, a formal structure, an acknowledgement that not everyone is equal is skill or knowledge and a single leader who has the power of final decision. Strip out the jargon and it sounds pretty much exactly like a traditional office environment.

Does this mean that while OSS has made many people rethink distribution and revenue models, open source development will mature into exactly what we have now?
Re:Debian's demise has been fortold for years by morgajel · 2006-09-03 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Community didn't want help moving forward; that was part of the problem. There's a saying on freenode that #Debian is where all the assholes go. It's sort of amusing sitting in another [unnamed] distro channel and watching a trickle of debian people come in (the same way I did) and were shocked at how friendly the channel was despite having almost 1000 people in one of it's 20 or so channels.

I also know a developer (who is probably one of the more skilled developers I know) try to get in and help with the debian project and he was denied at pretty much every step. He finally said screw it and that there were better uses for his time than battling Debian beaucracy.

Debian got too big for their britches and got complacent. They need to be taken down a few pegs.

--
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Cause of death yet unknown by QuaintRealist · 2006-09-03 01:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to agree with you - Debian is still live and kicking. Still I also think that Debian, like everything else, will have its day and then pass into history.

That's what the ensuing flameware will be about if you boil it down. How fast is Debian dying.

All this developer is saying is that he personally feels that the egalatarian/authoritarian balance is probably skewed in favor of the former in Debian.

And I have no opinion re Mark Shuttleworth, but ask all students of history: When does a benevolent authoritarian run a more efficient state than a republic/democracy? Every time. The trick is how to keep a succession of benevolent authoritarians...

--
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Free 2B U and Me by Doc+Ruby · 2006-09-03 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

So Garrett didn't fit in with the rest of the Debian community, despite his technical aptitude. There are plenty of social specs that take priority in communities, even mailing lists, which are often independent of technical qualities. Garrett apparently didn't like the Debian "anything goes" style in developer discussion, so he left.

No problem. He can switch to Ubuntu's team. Sounds like they'll be glad to have him. And interested people in the Debian community can still use Garrett's Ubuntu work to improve Debian, as it's all GPL. This is the strength of openness, both in the software and in the groups of people. When we can choose how and with whom (and with what) we work, we can work the way most productive for us. And thereby, for everyone else in the cycle.

--
--
make install -not war