Slashdot Mirror
New Linux Distribution — Exherbo, Announced
An anonymous reader writes "Former Gentoo developer Bryan Østergaard recently announced a new linux distribution aptly named Exherbo. The distribution, which has been underway for a couple of months and is based on ideas and experiences from his long work with Gentoo, features a new packaging format and several subprojects, such as a redesigned init system. Currently no installation medium is available but their package tree is public for the daring ones who want to play with the upcoming distribution. The developers strongly discourage any serious use though, as it's still highly experimental."
So basically, it is supposed to be easier to use, but is incompatible with gentoo? Sounds useful...
A new package format. Just what we need. ... Oh well must be a slow day.
Man I have to admit that after reading the site I really want noting to do with this distro. Why is it even on Slashdot?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"aptly named Exherbo" I've read both FAs and I can't see why. Am I missing something obvious?
There are tons of linux distributions that are "new" and more ambitious than this one. In fact, reading the project aims on the website gave me the impression that this is a highly specialized project by somebody who has an axe to grind with the gentoo community. With so many existing gentoo variants out there with larger scope and communities, I am having problems appreciating the notability of this article and why it's even on Slashdot. I normally expect tighter coverage of Linux topics than this.
Seriously, they treat this thing like they're trying to hype it. "It's not ready for users, not even developers!" The only thing it's ready for is Guatemalan Insane Asylum Inmates! Avert your eyes!
It is funny that they claim more progress working on this for six months than working on Gentoo for four years. Because of bickering and criticism. I can totally believe that. I wish them tons of success!
My work here is dung.
Sheesh, don't we have enough non-BSD non-SYSV unix init systems yet? Solaris has their own, Mac OS X has a different one, and I think I recall hearing some other distro changed theirs as well. This fragmentation is irritating for sysadmins and gains little. Have these people looked at the other systems out there (Sun's, Apple's, etc) and seen what needs of theirs are not met? Perhaps extending one of these would be worth considering...
Altho honestly, I find SysV style init to work just fine.
Yeah. That's right. Aptly named. Because boy, when I heard it described, "exherbo" just jumped out at me.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
... is not going to come from this.
I'd like to see the rationale for creating yet another new packaging system. What's wrong with the current ways, and what will the new way fix?
It might be worth checking out just for that!
OK, I don't need to try it. However, I'm curious about one thing:OK, wikipedia has no clue what an "Exherbo" is. What is an "Exherbo" and why is it such an apt name? I don't speak Klingon, are there any Klingons here that can explain this to me?
From TFA I would guess that "Exherbo" means "fuck you" in Swahili?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
.. for a new Linux packaging format?
Well?
[....]
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Nope. All the other 500 previous distros weren't build properly, but this one will be. Mark their words.
It's not that we hate you (unless we do). It's just that we have nothing to offer you, and you have nothing to offer us. They don't have a finished product. They don't even have a product yet. There is nothing to see, and they say it as well. Post this on slashdot when there is something to see. Then they will be happy about the traffic and the press, but now it's just a link to a page that says that maybe, one day, there will be yet another linux distro that wants to make everything better and nicer than the current Big Players(tm).
Can we get a new build system as well? None of other ones are up to the task: Ubuntu/Debian's / Red Hat's / Gentoo's (oobvioously) / OpenEmbedded.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
New linux distros are being made all the time, why does this distro deserve attention over any of those other new distros?
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
And they want their headline back.
Um...how about...
"Jose Exherbo, you are a friend of mine..."
Well, okay, maybe not.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Exherbo apparently means "to weed" in Latin...
Well, that's refreshing. Maybe the gang got some hints on PR from Stone Brewing Company.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Binary packages that Just Work(tm)
Application packages that can be built from source and Just Work with the libraries that are installed (i.e. automatically "USE" what I have installed) instead of requiring me to install various databases and other random libraries for features I won't ever use.
Debian and many others get the first part right. Gentoo could have gotten the second part right without too much pain, but then they went and created an arcane variable to make things hard.
Bonus points if "exherbo-get upgrade" detects which source packages I've custom-built, and upgrades them with new custom-built source packages (optionally built in the background?), instead of ignoring updates (pinned in Debian), or overwriting them with whatever binary package (not pinned in Debian).
It's really a shame for F/OSS that, time and time again, there is such a huge duplication of effort and half-assed half-finished projects lying around in the junkyard of the Open Source cemetery.
And once again someone falls prey to a common misconception: F/OSS is not a monolith. If these guys didn't have the option of having their own sandbox to play in then what makes you think they'd be compelled to play in someone else's? The way this will more than likely shakeout is that fifty or so people will use this for awhile. Maybe it'll be a bit more popular if the primary devs have more stature than I'm giving them credit for.
These guys will get to have their fun and most everybody else will use an established distro. And that isn't to say good won't come of it. If they have good ideas, the bigger distros might adopt them. If they have REALLY good ideas they may supplant Gentoo among that crowd of people. Bugfixes may also go to upstream projects.
I know this is weird idea to someone accustomed to being served what they think they want from proprietary software houses but this is nothing but an exercise of freedom. Others are free to use what they make or not. What would you propose? Some sort of law saying that henceforth no one may attempt to start a BSD or Linux distribution?
The F/OSS world operates on a form of street-cred. These guys will either get it or not. It won't cause any sort of actual problem either way.
But does it run Linux?
From TFA:
absolutely nothing works
So, no. It doesn't run Linux.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
... is another distribution.
Most of the minor distros are specialty items like Knoppix or toolkits like Trinity Rescue CD. Having more of such isn't going to hurt anything. Besides, projects like this are a good way of trying out radical ideas without breaking anything. And I suspect the answer to "not teaming up" is that it seems that many developers would rather be Chiefs than common braves.
No. You're getting modded up due to the "there are too many Linux distros" groupthink (that you're completely participating in).
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
So it's not going to use one of the big two package management systems (deb, rpm)? That's idiotic. So they've pretty much screwed themselves on it ever being adopted in most business applications. C'mon guys. Just use whatever is already out there and has withstood the test of time before reinventing the wheel. And yea..don't even get me started on a NEW init system...
...another post asking do we really need another Linux distro?
I'll probably get modded down by the groupthink mods around here (hint: metamods: moderate any downmods as unfair)
You're given certain comments to metamoderate, but in the event I metamod whatever mod you get (so far they haven't modded it) will determine how I metamoderate. You simply asked a question so I can't see why anyone would downmod. It is an honest question afaict.
is this what the Linux user community needs?
No, but it may be what the Linux developer community needs. There could be some really cool code coming out of this that may benefit the user community in the future, but right now it's for developers only. If your hobby is hacking new code, this might be for you.
It's really a shame for F/OSS that, time and time again, there is such a huge duplication of effort and half-assed half-finished projects lying around in the junkyard of the Open Source cemetery.
Um, ok maybe I can see why you might get downmodded. I see no "junkyard" nor "cemetary", what Linux projects have died recently? A halfassed half-finished project deserves to die, but that's part of the open source process. And there's a "huge duplication of effort" having Windows, Apple, Solaris, etc, compete; or Ford, Chevy, Toyota, K.I.A. etc. as well. The difference is that if Ford invents something, Chevy's not going to have it in their cars unless they can come up with the same functionality without infringing Ford's patent. If some cool new thing comes of this, you may well see it un Red Hat or Mandriva shortly. That's one of open source's strengths.
I don't see "duplication of effort" as a weakness in either open source or closed.
As to junkyards, you might want to read a couple of articles I wrote a few years ago when I was at K5, Useful Dead Technologies and the sequel Good Riddance to Bad Tech.
Necessiy isn't the mother of invention, it's the father. Hard work is the mother. Do people need more than one mother?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
>>> Exherbo is a distribution designed for people who know what they're doing with Linux.
Are you so badass that gentoo is like ripping candy out of newb babie hands? Exherbo!
>>> Although it shares some code with Gentoo, and although many concepts are similar, and although many of the people involved were or are Gentoo developers, most Exherbo code is rewritten from scratch.
We know way more than those Gentoo tards will ever know.
>>> Exherbo is not, at the moment, a user-targeted distribution.
Come on... you want it, don't you? You want to be so badass to use my awesome distro, to be the most leetest person ever.
>>> It's not that we think that Gentoo is bad.
Gentoo is wretched for our godly needs.
>>> OK, I Want to Try Exherbo
I am high as a kite.
>>> Right now, all we care about is getting it into a fit state for a small number of developers.
We're announcing this publicly because we have no idea what product we're presenting, but we'll make it sound fucking awesome compared to everything else, plus way wore leetsauce, so we can get some actual developers to contribute something useful to make our project objectively good.
>>> The above paragraph does not apply if your pet project is something we find interesting.
Again, if you have anything that will make this distro more than a publicity stunt, for the love of god, please let us know.
>>> It's not that we hate you (unless we do).
Forgot how much better we are then you? You did? OK, in conclusion, fuck you.
Credit where credit's due: John Gruber and Mark Pilgrim
The whole point in GPL style freedom is that people are free to write another linux distro, if they feel that way inclined, and free to duplicate effort. It is duplication of effort that produces multiple projects which do the same thing, which gives choice, which I believe to be a good thing. If it wasn't for duplication of effort, we wouldn't have GNOME, and KDE, and XFCE, and enlightenment. If you happened to not like the one window manager we did have, tough luck. We're not all part of some big company, so you can't just tell us to all follow what guidelines you want to. This distro really isn't designed to be the next big thing, or to help out the community. You talk about half assed half finished projects as though they are a bad thing. I find, what many people often consider to be an unfinished hack of a tool will do a particular job perfectly. Take this in contrast to something like openoffice, or firefox, which are often considered to be "finished", production, mature products, but are actually completely bloated and not that great at doing what they're supposed to. Really, it is this sort of niche itch scratching that has made linux and everything to do with it what it is. If you happen to want to devote yourself to helping other people, and the "community", then feel free to, but don't start trying to stop other people from coding something for themselves, or a small user group. Another hint: don't try to tell the mods how to think - if they mod down your post, don't whine about it, you deserved it.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
From the looks of this it's just a sandbox for a few guys to try out some ideas. It'll probably never amount to anything other than hopefully some cool new ideas. Those ideas will probably then be reincorporated into Gentoo or some other projects.
The major problem seems to have been that they couldn't try out their ideas in Gentoo mostly due to political problems, so they made another Gentoo-esque platform they could directly control.
"That's what I dislike about the FOSS attitude. If we had one hundred developers working on one project rather than one hundred projects by one developer each, then we'd see much better quality software."
Uhh no, we'd see one project doing one thing well, and 99 unresolved problems.
Or maybe we'd see a hundred people yelling at each other (multiply by 2.5 and you have gentoo)
your opinion for many reasons.
1. If he and many others didn't try then I have a feeling Linux would be perceptually relegated to Hurd status or lower still.
2. Yeah, I'd like another window manager. I'd like four entirely new and different WM's.
3. I'd like iceweasel to run in console, so sure another version of iceweasel would be fabulous.
The more important question is what exactly is bad about so many choices? Do you understand the danger just a couple of operating system choices creates?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Because of this project, I'm developing a new Linux distro. It's based on Slackware, so I've decided to name it Slackerware. I've assembled a development team of folks I've talked to down at a few local college bars, and, as soon as everyone sobers up, we'll start working on it. However, be warned that this will likely take quite a while. We're thinking something may be ready by...well, we don't have a firm date yet because we haven't met to discuss it. Well, actually, we did meet, but we ended up playing NTN trivia instead. But as soon as we get off our lazy asses and do something, I promise you that Slackerware will be the coolest distro ever.
BTW, $3 pitchers at The Legacy tonight! Who's in?
Do we need more of this elitistic bullshit?
...
...
...
Exherbo is not, at the moment, a user-targeted distribution. It supports packages that the people involved find interesting or useful; it probably does not support your favourite desktop environment or applications. That kind of thing will come later there are plenty of other options for users who want a distribution that does everything badly rather than a few things well.
It's not that we think that Gentoo is bad. It's just that we think we can do something that suits our needs better. We've tried, without success, to do this using Gentoo. Unfortunately, Gentoo has serious shortcomings in several areas that stopped this from being a viable long-term approach (...) Portage. (...) Gentoo management. (...) QA. (...) The users. (...) Lack of overall design and direction.
Thank God there's much more to that distro you don't think is bad at all.
- OK, I Want to Try Exherbo.
- No you don't.
- Yes I Do
- OK, maybe you do, but we don't particularly want you to try it because we don't want to deal with you whining when you find that absolutely nothing works. (...) We don't provide packages for lots of things you consider critical. A lot of the packages we do provide don't work. A lot of the packages that worked five minutes ago all just broke because we just decided to redesign several large features. We don't provide support. We don't provide install media. We don't provide a usable init system.
- But I'm a Developer, and I Want to Try Exherbo
- Well, you know who to talk to if you need to be told where to find the shiny things. And no, we don't want to use Exherbo to implement your pet project. Especially not if it's a stupid pet project. Go and inflict it upon Gentoo, they think that porting ebuilds to run on SunOS 2 ksh under Cygwin is a great idea.
Wow! It sounds great! Do i need a secret decoder ring to read the sourcecode?
Seriously. I'm a Gentoo user and this sounded like a great thing to peek into - Gentoo is not without its share of things to fix/improve. But come on. What exactly are they announcing here? A distro tailored for a handful of users (which is nice) that we can't download, try or even ask about.
In Conclusion: It's not that we hate you (unless we do). It's just that we have nothing to offer you, and you have nothing to offer us.
Sounds like it's coming along great, eh? Do us a favor and make your work public when, you know, it is useable by the public. Or even watchable.
The guy wants to experiment with a new init system and a new packaging system. He's put this out as a "distro" so that anyone else who wants to can help out, make suggestions, whatever.
His work might end up "half-assed half-finished", or it might get incorporated into something larger which changes the way all the current big name distros work. If we are truly championing OSS, we should rather wish this guy well. He's doing exactly what everyone is always talking about, changing the source to suit himself and trying to learn how it is all put together.
"The developers strongly discourage any serious use though as it's still highly experimental"
They said the same thing about democracy...
An IT & FOSS guy got his ego dented?!? Say it isn't so! That never happens!
FOSS people are the most altruistic and saintly people EVAAR! Why, they give their software away! They give their source away! They work for free much of the time! How dare you criticize these saints! They give us an option against Microsoft the EVIL that will run on Intell/PC products! They give us a way to save old and outdated computers that will go into a landfill!
How dare you insult those people!!
Just post some long message about what you don't like in current distros and how you can do better. Then give it a stupid name, tell people they shouldn't look at it, and tinker with the code for a few months.
Note: Whether it ever runs is an afterthought. Building a community is not even an afterthought.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
oh, and do you have trouble with hobbyists making steam engines or kites or ships in a bottle? who the fuck are you to tell people how or with who they spend their spare time coding? anyone can fork their own distro or open source project, if you don't like it fuck off.
Exherbo, for people who thought Gentoo wasn't rice enough.
every install disk comes with a free R-Type sticker* for the side of your case.
*notice: free R-Type sticker requires a stage 0 build, reguired packages include:
Pens
Paper
Markers
tape or similar adhesive
I'll start by saying that I'm an unashamed Gentoo fanboy, so mod as appropriate, but Mr. Østergaard seems to have forgotten to mention what he dislikes about Gentoo in either his blog entry or on exherbo.org. He says that Gentoo developers, users, Fanboys, and community are bad, but the most specific technical comment he made was a criticism that someone undertook "porting ebuilds to run on SunOS 2 ksh under Cygwin", which is apparently bad. He simply says of portage that it's "broken and unmaintainable", but he doesn't say why. He says Exherbo option handeling is "much improved" compared to Gentoo's USE flags, but again doesn't say what's wrong with USE flags. (I get around unintended consequences simply by enabling/disabling things on a package-by package basis, so if he's talking about that...).
I've been using gentoo quite happily for almost 3 years now on various servers as well as desktops for multiple users (no, I don't `emerge world` nightly), so I'm quite interested in what's wrong with portage (It's a godsend from my perspective) and the rest of gentoo. Seriously, I'd really like to know what's going to bite me in the arse here. But alas, Mr. Østergaard criticisms of Gentoo were far to vague and his design goals for Exherbo were equally vague and silly. Maybe he, or someone other than than the Trolls, other distro fanboys, and non-techy former Gentoo users who got burnt and should never have used it in the first place can please point me in the direction of some unbias and fair evaluations of Gentoo's strengths and weaknesses.
While some points made are valid (eg portage, along with most other package managers sucks, and Gentoo's management is inefficient) it seems like the distro is completely misguided.
If anything, we need to be focusing on user-friendly *nixes, not developer torture - less still something more hellish than Gentoo. If someone desperately wants a system like this, they can read LFS. Or strip down a Gentoo install. That way, they're also more likely to get something that's more suited to their needs. And isn't written by someone who looks like they'd happily eat n00b stew for lunch.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
However, almost all of those developers are just doing it in their spare time. They don't get paid for it. They have no agendas, they only write the code for what they think would be fun/good/important/educative/etc. They don't have to work for something they don't like, don't feel comfortable, or where their ideas aren't welcome. See this case for example: they were trying to work within Gentoo, but it wasn't going anywhere - so they forked away. Who is to tell them that they should just suck it up and stay there? Or even go work with, say, Ubuntu (which has a totally different philosophy)? You can't say that, unless you pay them and they take the offer. Until then, they are free to work with whatever they want. They are happy, so they are more likely to work properly. Some users will like what they write, some will never know about it. That is the beauty of FLOSS.
find -name "*base*" -exec chown us {} \; ; ln -s
Well, if it becomes the Next Big Thing, it will continue the perception to many that you shouldn't switch to Linux, because eventually another new distro flavor of the month will come along and what you have now work work quite right.
another distro out of 1000s? come on guys... you can do better and pick 3-7 major ones and improve on those, not bs all over... i know the free mentality is ok, but common sense should be used first. and you guys wonder why linux does not do well on the desktop overall...
Congrats. You've just re-invented the wheel, with shiny hub caps.
It's pretty obvious...
* these developers are jaded 17yo ex-gentoo users, or equivalent.
* they really are more control freaks, than skilled linux engineers.
* this distro probably won't see the light of day, much less the darkness of a cvs repository.
* it just might be the geek-cred these guys have been looking for, but still have yet to deserve.
So anyways, back to reality. =)
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
"features a new packaging format" How many more package formats do we need? What does this one offer that the existing formats don't? Does it work better? Is it capable of handling existing formats? I could RTFA, but hey this is slashdot. We don't do that here.
It's quite simple, they are trying to discourage people who are not prepared for the instability of the project from coming anywhere near it, as they do not wish to support those sorts of people - and who can blame them. Sure, many people might interpret this as being a "badass" rebellious distro, but I don't believe that's how it's intended to be presented.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
Can you read the damn project website? FFS! You can apparently scan comments on Slashdot, but can't be arsed to read the source.
You might have get a few more polished products that way but you would get anything other then unimaginative copies of other software and obvious evolutionary improvements on it. FOSS already has this problem in spades. Why? because most people are volunteers to be happy they need to feel like they have some sort of input. The result is everything is design by committee and therefore "safe" choices are the only ones that ever get made. This is not a bad thing for a mature project but its not good for young ones working in spaces that offer real chance for innovation.
The "managed" pure source based distribution is not a solved problem yet. Projects like this are good not because many people will use it, but because they won't. These guys get to go off and do there own thing which will be more likely to make them happy and productive then anything else. They won't really piss off any of the other people working on the Gentoo project because they are not directly working with them any more, and end users won't be subject to their untested whims. Mean while people will be watching. If, and it is a big if I admit, they put something things together that really work then the parent project will be free the cherry pick their good ideas and roll them back in. If they decide to use enough of them these guys may volunteer to rejoin the project as maintainers of their contributions.
This fork and merge pattern is really the place where FOSS does produce innovative new ideas. Its the people who think like you that case all the YetAnotherXXXXX FOSS projects.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I realize that forking and fragmentation have advantages (more competition and all that), but man... sometimes I wonder just how far ahead of everything else Linux would be if everyone worked towards the same goals on the same projects.
Am I the only one struck by the irony of talking about how "apt" the name is of a new distribution featuring Yet Another Packaging System?
Read my blog.
So the prospect that there will be something better in the future is bad now?
I do not know what MS is doing to the masses, but surely the training works!
..."if you have to ask how, you probably shouldn't be using this. Or a computer. Go back to your Xbox" distribution.
What's new about this? I already got a couple of those. And I've got them running, Thank you very much^h^h^h^hlittle.
feh. Wake me up when you got something that runs on my Mitac 6120N, ACPI bug and all.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The name sounds like some horrible cardio vascular disease.
Damn these guys need some latte-sipping, hemp-wearing, mac-using marketing guys.
Bot Assisted Blogging
YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution) features:
1. YAPM package management
2. YAD desktop environment
3. YATK toolkit
Bonuses include Still No Drivers For Your Wireless Hardware & Good Luck With That Built In Sound Card.
YALD - just what you didn't know you didn't need!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Yet another Slashdot argument in which both sides are right on certain points, but continue to pretend they are directly opposed. Working on one thing will get it done faster, that is a good thing, but if you can't have that then at least you can hopefully use the ideas or even better, the actual software that is developed after the fork/splitoff/new project, in other projects which are more mainstream. Yes, competition is good, but so is working together when possible and beneficial. There, settled.
As a side note, separate projects are much more beneficial to one another when the system they are working on is modular and standardized enough to allow for easy adoption of code between the projects. A new package format, for example, would be just fine if there was a way to easily adopt existing package managers to understand the new package format. APIs/standards please, Linux community. Together, when possible, we are strong.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Oh, so this is a source-based live CD? That's certainly a niche waiting to be filled; I always was pissed off that live CDs didn't compile a custom kernel before booting.
I fully expect someone to point me to a Gentoo live CD that does exactly that already, wouldn't put it past them.
Just what we need. Another distro. Yay.
man, I feel like mold.
That's like saying that you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look.
Sometimes I get things right the first time. I like that way a lot better.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It depends upon your end goal.
/is/ Linux. If all of the Ubuntu developers switch over to Exherbo in three years, the masses will think that Ubuntu stagnated. They'll be more likely to go back to Windows, where at least you have support (even if you have to buy a new copy every 5 years--hell, people do that anyway when their old computer "stops working" due to viruses.)
If you think that Linux should dominate the desktop, then forking projects is bad. The masses think that Ubuntu
"but really, is this what the Linux user community needs?"
Those who don't need it can ignore it. It will thrive or die depending on who it pleases.
Not every egg hatches. So what? The strong survive, the rest die off, and it doesn't cost
anyone anything who does not choose to invest.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I think there should be hundreds of distros! That way everyone could just pick one they like and be as different from everyone else as they like! And then they could make them all use different means by which to update and install different stuff and make it where some stuff works only on some distros and not on others and some distros make you have to, I don't know, sort of "compile" the programs together by hand just to work! Ya! And then if some JERK OFF wanted to learn how YOU made it work you could just say RTFM Windows Fanboy! YA! And then, oh, wait...
So what you're saying is, "If you're an FOSS zealot bent on making everyone use FOSS as their primary desktop OS in the next 10 years, it's bad."
I think FOSS dominating the desktop would probably be about as bad as MS doing it in the end, because corporations/companies love standardization, and someone will always find a way to make money off a standard.
Or, to put it another way, I don't think that Ubuntu/Redhat/whatever having 85% of the desktop market would be any less evil than Microsoft having it.
He's over there.
SPLITTER!
Welcome to slashdot, where reading the article you comment on has been sadly optional since 1997.
I just don't get what the problem is with people doing what they like. It's the whole POINT of FOSS for chrissake. Stop treating it like it should be some sort of religious movement and anyone who isn't actively contributing towards the defeat of evil commercial software is committing high treason.
"our current package format is somewhat similar in idea to Gentoos ebuilds but is completely incompatible due to the many technical differences."
I'm so exited that someone has finally stepped up and created one more custom Linux distribution. I think we were all feeling disempowered by the lack of choice afforded by the only 300 or so Linux distributions out there. Now that there are 301 mutually incompatible Linux distributions with their own directory layout, package management system, and configuration system, I finally feel like I have enough choices.
I'm glad that the authors didn't spend their time doing something worthless like writing new software that we don't already have, or improving an existing distribution. Instead, they did the smart thing and spent months making a Linux distribution, of which they can say (from the article) "Just don't expect anything to work (seriously!)."
Yay for new, incompatible, and broken Linux distributions written to satisfy some random guys questionable engineering sense!
Hip Hip Horay!
Microsoft got and maintained their monopoly by using dirty tricks. If Ubuntu got 85% of the desktop market, and kept itself open source (most portions of Ubuntu are covered by the GPL, so this is something they'd have to do), then any evil would instantly be mitigated by someone forking a non-evil alternative. That's why the GPL can be a good thing--try to close people off, and people can tell you to fuck yourself.
As for standards, nothing stops different distros implementing the same standard. The trouble is that almost everybody in the FOSS world is convinced that their standard is better than the next one, so there is often a total lack of harmonisation. It's getting better as the space matures, but still isn't perfect.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
[EricIdleMode=1]
"Another of the fine European Linux distributions, Exherbo Linux speaks to the casual user and developer alike and what it say is "Get Out", rather like a compiled version of the Amityville Horror. With packages that work as advertised primarily because they are advertised as not working, no install media, no support, and a declared lack of interest in supporting such features as "Usability", Exherbo takes truth in advertising to previously unseen, and indeed unsought for levels.
If you have found Slackware Linux to be far too overrun with friendly advice for the new user, and Linux in general to be degraded by a desire for it to do useful work for people, then Exherbo Linux is almost certainly the distribution for you."
[EricIdleMode=0]
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I think you're missing the point.
The last thing Linux needs is a new distro.
If the people behind this can code, then they should code on one of the countless projects already out there. They would be more helpful to that FOSS "community" I keep hearing so much about, and they'd be more likely to get attention, recognition, and maybe even some money in the future.
The cornerstone of open source stuff is building off of the work of others. Sometimes it's blatant stealing/copying (be it design or chunks of code), sometimes it's not. But it's always done with the intention of improving something that already exists in some form. Very rarely does the "community" create something new and original concept-wise.
This is fine, even if it's a little opportunistic/parasitic. Look at what's out there (often for $$$), and duplicate their design and implementation and wrap it up in a free package. You even get the opportunity to add/improve/fix things, and you aren't burdened with compatibility or support concerns.
A major benefit of open source projects is that of hindsight - they can see what worked and what didn't work in that corporate product, and leverage that without the need for the initial years of design/revision and $$$. The "community", however, if a bunch of cocky nerds who fear the fork and will abandon a project if they smell the touch of corporate. (Much like birds abandoning their chicks if they smell humans. They don't actually do this, but it's a good analogy.)
Seriously - a project forks, and two different groups get to do the proper thing and build off of once code base instead of one group having to go back to the drawing board. Then people bitch.
Ubuntu is bundled with Dell machines, the NUMBER 1 OEM in the world. Ubuntu gets exposure and corporate support. It's shit, lost it's way, and it's name is no longer true to it's meaning. What?
Whenever I see a new project start up, be it another IM client, browser, e-mail client, media player, window manager, etc I laugh. There seem to be a lot of intrepid go-it-alone programmers (and small groups) who fail to utilize either the hindsight advantage or the existing code base advantage. It's a serious waste of time to reinvent the wheel. Linux needs more distros like I need more nipples. Sure, they're fun to play with and all, but I think I've already got more than enough to get any nipple-related jobs done.
Open source projects on any scale will never be able to compete in terms of design (process + time), research, or $$$ with their corporate counterparts. Open source projects of any significant scale MUST make effective use of the available resources - programming skill and time from contributors, free design and market research from similar corporate products, and the testing and continued project support the community provides.
Open source is agile, but it cannot afford to spread itself thinly. Another Linux distro is just a bad idea.
oh boy, YALD.... Just what the world needs.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"That's what I dislike about the FOSS attitude."
There's a kind of people that are always upset because the world in not the way they'd like instead of trying to understand it. Just a fact of life.
"If we had one hundred developers working on one project rather than one hundred projects by one developer each, then we'd see much better quality software."
The point is not that if we had one hundred developers... The point is that *You* Don't Have One Hundred Developers. If you want to have one hundred developers, you'd better pay them, and then they'll move at your command.
Meanwhile, the expectable output of one hundred people (not "developers" but just plain people of any kind) moving by they own interests (not yours) is that they'll wander wherever they like to, probably one hundred different paths.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, the whole point is to create a copyright license that allows collaboration between developers, without being able to pull an evil trick and renege on your half of the agreement. The difference between a fork and a branch is easy to spot: hostilities directly before the fork. I think their website is quite clear on where they stand.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I do not think that Linux should dominate the desktop. In fact, I think that's a rather absurd idea. What I think is that choice should be possible. I know what my choice is, too.
Also, I do not think that the masses identify Ubuntu with Linux. It really depends on what part of the `masses' you are in contact with.
And on top of that, I think you are underestimating the masses: if developers switch to $NEW_DISTRO, then the masses will follow. They are not idiots. For example, the `masses' that were using Linux before Ubuntu came to be were using something which was clearly not Ubuntu, and they were unidiotic enough to switch.
The fact that the possibility of better things exists is what keeps OSS going, despite what the moderators that saw my previous post as flamebait seem to think! I really cannot believe you can be at the same time an OSS suporter and think that attempts at building better things is bad.
Yeah, FOSS developers should all be slaves to a "movement" rather than geeks that like to scratch their own itches. They should all be forced to code what the community needs rather than what they want to work on. That will do wonders for incentivizing people to code on FOSS software.
The whole point of FOSS in the first place is to give people the freedom to do EXACTLY what these guys are doing. Pissing on that is pissing on the philosophical basis of and reason for sharing code.
These guys are experimenting with ideas that are too disruptive for existing distributions to experiment on themselves, and they wouldn't be able to get anywhere with due to the inertia involved in a larger project. The lead has already said he's made more progress on his ideas in months than he was able to in years as part of Gentoo. If the ideas end up being valuable, then other distributions can run with proven solutions. If they don't end up working out, then what's the big deal? - the community now knows that the idea wasn't that good, and some coders learnt a huge amount playing around with their fun new ideas.
It isn't a distro yet, although it isn't that anyone got their ego dented, remember it's for Gentoo users and their egos are unassailable. Now that word has got out that someone actually got a fully functioning installation of Gentoo and kept it working for six months, these guys had to create a distro which doesn't work at all and announce it with a site that tells everyone to go away.
They aren't setting out to reinvent the wheel as such, just taking strategic measures to maintain their 1337ness.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Why the hell is this news? a new distro comes out every few seconds.
SLOW FUCKING NEWS DAY
"Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
Ok, so this is yet another gentoo-inspired distro. What would be really nice, is, if a packaging system came out that would allow non-root users to build stuff in the gentoo style. I mean, with dependency checking/automatic downloading, etc. Just give it a value for the prefix variable, and let it configure and build everything you wish. Ok, I know that gentoo has tools for doing such things, but they are not so user-friendly, nor do I think that they really fully support this mode of operation.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I'm pretty excited about this. I've used Gentoo for nearly 5 years now. It's served my purposes well, but 5 years is a long time, and if these guys are not dealing with legacy stuff, then I hope they can improve. Great luck to them!
"cease to exist, giving my goodbye, drive my car into the ocean, you think I'm dead, but i sail away, on a wave of mu
Haleluja, praise be, be Healed! The second Exodus is here. Exherbo will lead themselves to the promised land.
And we Gentoo-ers can finally breathe a breath of fresh air. Finally the ex-Gentoo developers Poisonous People Clan have decided to do their own damned thing and leave Gentoo, leave Gentoo alone.
I wish Exherbo the best of luck. Good fucking riddance.
No, it's not that something better may come along. The problem would be that it is just different enough to break everything. Redhat puts it's files in one location; Ubuntu another. Slack another. Each one of these differences need to be accounted for by developers. That means things are more likely to break when trying to use software built on redhat on slack. You can't even take the installer packages from RH to Ubuntu.. so now i have to go and find the same program again, just in a different package format. If there is even one of the system you're running at the time.
At least with Windows the number of locations to put things is smaller; system wide installs go to Program files. Configuration files get written to the user's profile. You can ask the OS what those locations are.
It is pretty funny how you take a new Linux "distro" that doesn't work, has no way to install it, and posts its announcements on LIVEJOURNAL, and somehow that's front page-worthy.
/. reported on Songbird 0.1. And yeah, a year (or two) later, still no stable Songbird.
Curious. My friend Jon made the same comment when
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If anything, this variety that annoys you forces people to build things on such a way that such reorganizations are possible. Automake, for example, is one outcome of that, and it achieves the amazing feat of allowing 97% of developers to simply not care about the issue of where things are to go in the final install. RPM and its build structure is similar, for different set of issues.
At least with Windows the number of locations to put things is smaller; system wide installs go to Program files. Configuration files get written to the user's profile. You can ask the OS what those locations are.This is exactly the same for Linux, in any normal distro, for 95% of the software out there. The locations for `usual' stuff are completely normalized. If you have a non-system package that puts its stuff in odd places, then that is a bug in that software package, much as it is a bug in 50% of all windows apps not to look for "My Programs" using the OS-way, resulting in very sad messes because of localization and what not---not to speak of the debacle of UAC and the I-want-my-app-to-run-as-root-simply-because-I-do phenomenon.
Yes: you need to sometimes use a different packaging utility. For the standard user, that is irrelevant, as she will in most cases double click on the package and have the system do whatever is correct---this is just a matter of having the mime type associated with the proper app and, again, if your distro does not do this, it is a bug in your distro---and there is even PackageKit to abstract the innards and present a common interface to most common tasks.
In the end, people will do whatever they want, without absolutely any regard to `The Year of the Linux Desktop' strategists, who tend not to be the ones writing the code... And it is good that they do: doing exactly that it is how we got what we've got now, so I can but have very big hopes for what's to come.
From the "Planet" page http://planet.exherbo.org/ on the website:
... ?
First of all, Exherbo was announced because some elements of it will be discussed at an upcoming conference. Rather than having a blank page and let people start various rumors it seemed wise to at least let people know what was going on.
-and-
Unfortunately Slashdot picked up the announcement because some tard decided it would be a great idea to submit it to them. We did not do that ourselves because, as we state on the website, we have no need for users at the moment and exherbo won't fulfill users demands for the foreseeable future.
So, you've all had lots of fun, criticising people who were quietly going about having their fun. And your point was
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
In the Free Software world, competition and collaboration are often the same thing. With compatible licenses then two 'competing' projects can easily use each others' code when it makes sense to do so.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If anything, this variety that annoys you forces people to build things on such a way that such reorganizations are possible. Automake, for example, is one outcome of that, and it achieves the amazing feat of allowing 97% of developers to simply not care about the issue of where things are to go in the final install. RPM and its build structure is similar, for different set of issues.
.Net, there's the Environment.GetSpecialFolder, for example. But that's a Win32 API so it's not limited to .Net usage. Is there a similar API in Linux? Or do you just have to "know" where things should go, or rely on automake?
The thing is, automake shouldn't be seen by an end user. When I installed on Linux, automake only appeared if I was compling from a tarball. Otherwise, RPM did whatever to install... but that forces distro makers to manage installation instead of the developer following a set of guidelines. Also, automake can fail. Then what good is it? I've had it fail on more than one occasion.
This is exactly the same for Linux, in any normal distro, for 95% of the software out there. The locations for `usual' stuff are completely normalized. If you have a non-system package that puts its stuff in odd places, then that is a bug in that software package, much as it is a bug in 50% of all windows apps not to look for "My Programs" using the OS-way, resulting in very sad messes because of localization and what not---not to speak of the debacle of UAC and the I-want-my-app-to-run-as-root-simply-because-I-do phenomenon.
Yes: you need to sometimes use a different packaging utility. For the standard user, that is irrelevant, as she will in most cases double click on the package and have the system do whatever is correct---this is just a matter of having the mime type associated with the proper app and, again, if your distro does not do this, it is a bug in your distro---and there is even PackageKit to abstract the innards and present a common interface to most common tasks.
So what does Linux offer a developer to ask to OS where things should go? In
"The philosophical basis and reason for sharing code" ?
The philosophy that information wants to be free, money is the devil, Ballmer shouldn't throw chairs, etc. is bullshit. Sorry.
The practical reasons people share code are to save time and reduce the introduction of errors.
Sure - it's hard to get good results by asking developers to work on shit they don't want to work on, especially if you don't pay them. But letting them run off and do whatever they want is a detriment to the "community", just as "Do What You Feel Day" was a detriment to Springfield.
Open source zealots will die waiting for the year of the Linux desktop, copyright/patent reform, etc. because they can not get organized and work together for more than 5 minutes.
They can be to a degree yes, but I'm not sure that's as true as you think it is though, as different programs may be so different that a lot of the code isn't very compatible. Rip out Kopete's webcam interface and put it into Gaim? The developers laughed at me for even suggesting that one. If you make things more modular, though, and have some standardized points of communication, then switching out programs, using different programs, sharing code, etc, is easier. If an entire Linux distro, from the kernel to the desktop, was a big wad of code with no standards, you couldn't easily do things like program a new desktop environment, or a new window manager, because switching to those would be very difficult. If you have standards though and can all be on the same page about interprogram communication, this becomes a million times easier. Thanks to freedesktop.org it's much simpler to make different window managers for example to allow users to easily run and switch between them. So, where and when this can be done in a great way, kudos go to those programmers, for giving everyone else in the world more freedom by being more easily able to add on, change, remove, and use a program. The easier it is to make choices/changes and to adopt and use different programs, the more freedom you and everyone else has.
If Gaim and Kopete had both used a standardized plugin system, porting a webcam or other plugins between the programs would be cake.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Huh? That wasn't even close to my point and ignores the rest of the comment altogether. I notice you snipped off the previous sentence to remove its context.
The freedom to implement your own ideas and take existing code in a new direction is a very important concept for open source developers.
The attitudes you mention are far more likely to come from the "movement" type zealots (usually bitter Windows refugees) that are usually not open source developers themselves. It's these types that loudly make proclamations about what the "community" should and shouldn't do all while not contributing much (eg code, support, docs etc) themselves - although they probably mistakenly think shrill advocacy is a useful contribution.
The best thing for any FOSS community is having enough passionate motivated developers. Lose that and you will soon find the community stagnates. Telling someone to stop doing what they want to do and to do what you want them to instead is counter productive.
More likely the official distro of "Troll Suckers Unlimited". ... or maybe Micro$oft trying to break /. !
Even normally sensible people don't seem to have read beyond the article and home page of the website.
But I can't help wondering if this isn't a viral marketing campaign
into the Linux market with it's very own "FOSS Vaporware".
One way or another, it got the attention of
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Of course! But automake makes it trivial for the developers/distributors to adapt to local conventions. It is developers who have to package things for users. A package that requires the user to even know of automake to install is broken.
When I installed on Linux, automake only appeared if I was compling from a tarball. Otherwise, RPM did whatever to install... but that forces distro makers to manage installation instead of the developer following a set of guidelines.What issue are you talking about, specifically? I never have this problem you speak of, and I have not only lots and lots of free software installed, from my distro, from other distros and compiled by hand, but also proprietary software, and I have not seen this problem.
Also, automake can fail. Then what good is it? I've had it fail on more than one occasion.Everything can fail. What's new?
In any case, a developer that considers automake as an user-level installation thingie is beyond help...
So what does Linux offer a developer to ask to OS where things should go? InAs I said, only a idiotic developer sees automake as an user level installation tool.
There are standard locations for essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to install, and essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to function is placed in standard locations. Developers need to be aware of the standard conventions (the LSB, for example), and that is not in any way different to needing to know the relevant .Net API.
Sabayon. That's gotta' be one of the worst mashups of a Gentoo-based Linux distro I've ever seen. I know Sabayon was supposed to be a gaming-oriented distro, but did they have to uglify it and bloat it the way they did?
Of course! But automake makes it trivial for the developers/distributors to adapt to local conventions. It is developers who have to package things for users. A package that requires the user to even know of automake to install is broken.
.Net API.
Yet for many OSS projects, this is the only want to install.
What issue are you talking about, specifically? I never have this problem you speak of, and I have not only lots and lots of free software installed, from my distro, from other distros and compiled by hand, but also proprietary software, and I have not seen this problem.
Well the fact that there are at least two completely different ways to install software on Linux doesn't help. The fact that each distro seems to create their very own package management amplifies the problem.
Everything can fail. What's new?
Automake or even RPM installations have failed for me many more times than installtion of programs on Windows. Windows has an entire API available to developers to consistently install programs. Why isn't there such a thing in Linux?
There are standard locations for essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to install, and essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to function is placed in standard locations. Developers need to be aware of the standard conventions (the LSB, for example), and that is not in any way different to needing to know the relevant
I don't see it much different. The API exists to help developers adhere to the guidelines. In the Linux world, it seems to be individual distrubutions to provide ways to install programs. As I said, the problem is that Redhat puts some files in different locations than a Deb based distro. Does the LSB even address that? Why doesn't the LSB include some kind of installer API?
Then complain to the developers of those OSS projects. You do understand that no one is in a position to tell every OSS developer (whatever that may mean!) to stop being a fool and provide a sensible way for their app to be installed.
What issue are you talking about, specifically? I never have this problem you speak of, and I have not only lots and lots of free software installed, from my distro, from other distros and compiled by hand, but also proprietary software, and I have not seen this problem. Well the fact that there are at least two completely different ways to install software on Linux doesn't help. The fact that each distro seems to create their very own package management amplifies the problem.What are those two completely different ways you have inmind? You can't possibly mean `from sources' and `using package management'... The only reason you do not have this problematic alternative with non-OSS software is because you do not have the source!
It does not matter what package management a distro picks: if it is a user-oriented distro, and it is good at that, then the user will have absolutely no interaction with the package tools apart from pointing, clicking, and so on. I know absolutely computer-illiterate people who from time to time install apps on Ubuntu and Fedora, and who do not know that the underlying packaging systems are different.
What you are complaining is about half-finished attempts at interfaces to packaging systems. But the variety of packaging systems is irrelevant to your problem: your problem lies entirely with the `half-finished' part. Again: what's new?
Everything can fail. What's new? Automake or even RPM installations have failed for me many more times than installtion of programs on Windows. Windows has an entire API available to developers to consistently install programs. Why isn't there such a thing in Linux?Well, from the developer's point of view, RPM is an API. So is the debian packaging format.
You have had failures installing, I haven't in ages (at least, since I left Slackware, which characteristically has a utmostly primitive pacaging system) What problems have you had? With what packages? How can you possibly tell it is not the developer's fault instead of the package format's, and that they would not have screwed up using any other API?
There are standard locations for essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to install, and essentially everything 95% of the software out there needs to function is placed in standard locations. Developers need to be aware of the standard conventions (the LSB, for example), and that is not in any way different to needing to know the relevantWhat files? Why are apps dependent on where those files are?
Do you know that an RPM file does not have hard-coded the locations where its files will be put, but instead at rpm-installation time the rpm program reads a configuration file which tells it where the different pieces should go? And that it is trivial to install a rpm in a debian box configured to have it follow the debian standards? I am quite sure dpkg allows fore exactly the same.
Then complain to the developers of those OSS projects. You do understand that no one is in a position to tell every OSS developer (whatever that may mean!) to stop being a fool and provide a sensible way for their app to be installed.
.Net that's how I can plug custom code into an installer. It's actually part of my assembly. In Linux, deployment seems totally seperated from development. I wouldn't say RPM is an API so much as it is a container format which is created by running a command line program.
Well, complaining usually gets you "this is free, take it or leave it." Also, why bother, when with Windows any software you buy will have an installer.
What are those two completely different ways you have inmind? You can't possibly mean `from sources' and `using package management'... The only reason you do not have this problematic alternative with non-OSS software is because you do not have the source!
So you concede that exposing Automake to users is bad, and when I say that there's a lot of OSS software "installed" that way, and the other half is installed via a package management system, you quipe it's not a problem in Windows because I don't have the source? As a user, I don't care about the source. I just want the software that works. I don't care how a cow is milked, I just want to be able to drink the milk.
It does not matter what package management a distro picks: if it is a user-oriented distro, and it is good at that, then the user will have absolutely no interaction with the package tools apart from pointing, clicking, and so on. I know absolutely computer-illiterate people who from time to time install apps on Ubuntu and Fedora, and who do not know that the underlying packaging systems are different.
Right, because they are only given the option of installing software that's been packaged. Have any of your users found software that WASN'T packaged for their system, and wanted it installed? Have you had a user that found a package, but couldn't install it on Fedora because it was a deb package? As a developer, I've come across such things, and I'm not talking about development software either. IM clients, torrent cilents, etc.
What you are complaining is about half-finished attempts at interfaces to packaging systems. But the variety of packaging systems is irrelevant to your problem: your problem lies entirely with the `half-finished' part. Again: what's new?
It becomes relevent when I put on my developer hat and need to figure out how to package my software. Do I choose RPM, DEP, this new package format? I need to create a package for all three? At this point I WOULD consider releasing just an Automake "installation," just so I don't have to package my software a hundred different ways. This is the point I'm trying to make and that is why I think developers release tarballs with an automake install.
Well, from the developer's point of view, RPM is an API. So is the debian packaging format.
Really? I can write a code module and plug it in? Maybe just be inheriting a class? In
You have had failures installing, I haven't in ages (at least, since I left Slackware, which characteristically has a utmostly primitive pacaging system) What problems have you had? With what packages? How can you possibly tell it is not the developer's fault instead of the package format's, and that they would not have screwed up using any other API?
You totally missed my point. Ya, it's partially the developers fault, because they didn't create their installer properly. It's also the platforms fault, because package management is not part of every single Linux setup. There's no standard way for your package to see if another one is installed; there's no standard way for a developer to upgrade an existing package. So that when I simply tried to upgrade the Kopete package, for example, it just said "no." I had to dig out the relevent upgrades. Which weren't packaged by Redhat y
If they tell you that, then do not use their software. Consider it the analogue of a non-free-as-in-beer software developer charging you a billion dollars for their app: would you buy it at that price?
What are those two completely different ways you have inmind? You can't possibly mean `from sources' and `using package management'... The only reason you do not have this problematic alternative with non-OSS software is because you do not have the source! So you concede that exposing Automake to users is bad, and when I say that there's a lot of OSS software "installed" that way, and the other half is installed via a package management system, you quipe it's not a problem in Windows because I don't have the source? As a user, I don't care about the source. I just want the software that works. I don't care how a cow is milked, I just want to be able to drink the milk.No. I was just trying toguess what are these `two completely different ways of installing apps' you referred to but did not mention.
Right, because they are only given the option of installing software that's been packaged. Have any of your users found software that WASN'T packaged for their system, and wanted it installed? Have you had a user that found a package, but couldn't install it on Fedora because it was a deb package? As a developer, I've come across such things, and I'm not talking about development software either. IM clients, torrent cilents, etc.You seem to believe that someone releasing the source of some app should magically make it installable for anyone. That does not apply in the Linux world, because most people will have no idea of how to proceed, and it does not apply in the Window world, because of the same reason, and I'd say it does not apply in any world.
I consider `releasing an application' for users to mean `releasing it in user usable form'. That someone wrote an IM client and put the source somewhere in the internet is not releasing it in a user usable form. If the IM client developers simply puts the source out there, then he is not making it available for users. `User usable form' means packaged in a way users can use it. The developer may not care about doing it, but that is his prerrogative.
You should note that there is quite a lot of people who've somehow managed to get past this insurmountable amount of problems you keep talking about, commercial and non-commercial, open-source and non-open source. It surely could be easier (but I would not want to use an internet-facing IM client written by a developer who cannot grok the rpm .spec format...), but as usual, every could be easier.
Those movement zealots are the ones the open source developers have to pander to.
Sure - anyone can go ahead and do what they want.
Go for it, just don't expect praise from the community. But a new distro does nothing for open source in general, nor does it do anything for the users, specifically.
I have the cure for cancer, I just need to finish the last few tests and write it down.
I'm tired of working with those asshats that share my lab. I would rather spend my days making porn. I'm sure they'll get it eventually anyway, they have my notes.
More power to me, right?
There is a very small number of people who are able and willing to program for free. When these people abandon projects, projects often die. When these people start new projects, they dilute and confuse they market.
"The best thing for any FOSS community is having enough passionate motivated developers. Lose that and you will soon find the community stagnates. Telling someone to stop doing what they want to do and to do what you want them to instead is counter productive."
You're right, except for the fact that there are NOT enough passionate, motivated developers to go around. Losing even one programmer can kill a project instantly. The current system is dangerous - at any given time development could simply stop for a project you like/depend on.
I would love to see a larger open source development body that assigns people to projects under their umbrella. Maybe even pays some of them. Let them pick and choose projects, but also maintain the power to assign them to a project if needed.
Oh wait - that sounds familiar...
If they tell you that, then do not use their software. Consider it the analogue of a non-free-as-in-beer software developer charging you a billion dollars for their app: would you buy it at that price?
.spec format...), but as usual, every could be easier.
Let's put the upper level more realistic for an end user; $400. Yeah, I'd pay that. If it was an application that targeted commerical tasks, say Photoshop, yes I'd pay more. At the end of the day, I need software I can use, so software that is difficult to install isn't useful.
No. I was just trying toguess what are these `two completely different ways of installing apps' you referred to but did not mention.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
You seem to believe that someone releasing the source of some app should magically make it installable for anyone. That does not apply in the Linux world, because most people will have no idea of how to proceed, and it does not apply in the Window world, because of the same reason, and I'd say it does not apply in any world.
I didn't mention releasing of source at all. Having the source or not is irrelevent to this topic, in my mind. Now releasing software, yes, it should be installable by someone on the target system. Which is the problem with the number of Linux distros; typically the target system is tied to a particular package manager. Hopefully things have changed an RPMs can be used on debs and debs on RPM systems without change or knowledge of the format by the user; ideally the LSB would standardize on the best one. On Windows, you have the Windows Installer API, and that's it. Easy for developers and end users.
I consider `releasing an application' for users to mean `releasing it in user usable form'. That someone wrote an IM client and put the source somewhere in the internet is not releasing it in a user usable form. If the IM client developers simply puts the source out there, then he is not making it available for users. `User usable form' means packaged in a way users can use it. The developer may not care about doing it, but that is his prerrogative.
The IM client was packaged as an RPM though.. which didn't help, because of the problems I mentioned.
You should note that there is quite a lot of people who've somehow managed to get past this insurmountable amount of problems you keep talking about, commercial and non-commercial, open-source and non-open source. It surely could be easier (but I would not want to use an internet-facing IM client written by a developer who cannot grok the rpm
I never said it was insurmountable, I said it throws up challanges needlessly. As a developer, I don't want to package my application 18 different ways. As a user, I want a single consistent way to install and manage my applications. It's an obsticle, and given that I had problems with it, I couldn't imagine say my sister not having problems. If you only get your software from your distribution supplier, I guess you'd be ok. The problem is that developers whose software DOESN'T get included have a problem of getting installed.
The IM client I was talking about was Kopete. And it wasn't that there was something wrong with the package, it was that the newest version would ONLY work with the newest libraries for KDE, which broke other applications on my system (once I satisfied the 30 or so dependencies I needed to update). It also broke some applications installed via automake.
Maybe things have improved, like I said. But that was my experience with Mandriva in 2006. After Linux on the desktop for five years, I finally threw up my hands in disgust with all the nonsense I had to go through whenever I tired to update my system or install new software, and it drove me to not only go back to Windows on the desktop, but to replace my long running Linux server.
Anyway, I'm not trying to bash Linux, but unless there have been signficiant updates, Linux has a long way to go in t
I didn't mention releasing of source at all. Having the source or not is irrelevent to this topic, in my mind. Now releasing software, yes, it should be installable by someone on the target system.
It is relevant in so far you seem to consider that if someone releases the software in source form, it should be installable by end users. I, on the other hand, only consider software to be released to users when it is released in a way they can be expected to handle.
99% of Windows users will not be able to install software which is not packaged, and you clearly do not consider that as a fault in that platform. Why do you think that regular users not being to install software which was not packaged for them is a problem in the Linux platform (whatever that meay mean)?
I never said it was insurmountable, I said it throws up challanges needlessly. As a developer, I don't want to package my application 18 different ways. As a user, I want a single consistent way to install and manage my applications. It's an obsticle, and given that I had problems with it, I couldn't imagine say my sister not having problems. If you only get your software from your distribution supplier, I guess you'd be ok. The problem is that developers whose software DOESN'T get included have a problem of getting installed.
Your sister would never have that problem, because she is probably not even aware that there is another way to install software apart from nicely packaged packages trimed for their platform, whether that platform be Linux in some variant or Windows.
The IM client I was talking about was Kopete. And it wasn't that there was something wrong with the package, it was that the newest version would ONLY work with the newest libraries for KDE, which broke other applications on my system (once I satisfied the 30 or so dependencies I needed to update). It also broke some applications installed via automake.
But then you were trying to do something that even the Kopete developers did not intend users to do (I trust them enough to not take them for idiots). Clearly, they based their latest release on versions of libraries which are not yet common. They evidently did a release intended for integrators. Integrators should not have any problem setting up things and, in turn, packaging the package for end users.
If installing the newest KDE libs broke existing apps, then the new libs were not compatible with the old ones and therefore either they were intended to break compatibility (if that is the case, I am sure the KDE people have set things up so as to have parallel installability) or there is a major bug. In the second case, well, shit happens; in the first, then you must have done something wrong. You will say that is should be easier to do this correctly, but you should take into account that what you tired to do is change a basic library on which the whole desktop depends (if you are using KDE,at least), so that is a seriously major change to your system, which should be considered only when doing system-wide updates. And users simply do not do that.
Maybe things have improved, like I said. But that was my experience with Mandriva in 2006. After Linux on the desktop for five years, I finally threw up my hands in disgust with all the nonsense I had to go through whenever I tired to update my system or install new software, and it drove me to not only go back to Windows on the desktop, but to replace my long running Linux server.
Clearly, an example of YMMV.
Anyway, I'm not trying to bash Linux, but unless there have been signficiant updates, Linux has a long way to go in this area, and my claim that having too many distros / package managers is part of the reason. Take all the good ideas from each one, and make ONE that works really well, and make it part of the LSB. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thi
It is relevant in so far you seem to consider that if someone releases the software in source form, it should be installable by end users. I, on the other hand, only consider software to be released to users when it is released in a way they can be expected to handle.
If the developers have said "this is the only format we're releasing our software in" then yes, I consider it released. Plenty of projects refuse to make distro specific packages. So they are using automake as their "installation API." So you would consider such projects "never released." Which to me shows an attitude problem in the community.
99% of Windows users will not be able to install software which is not packaged, and you clearly do not consider that as a fault in that platform. Why do you think that regular users not being to install software which was not packaged for them is a problem in the Linux platform (whatever that meay mean)?
99% of Windows software is packaged and not claimed to be released without some kind of installation package. My whole point is that maybe if linux finally settled on ONE way to manage application installations, more developers would ensure to package their software. As it is, there are a huge number of applications which don't have any kind of packaging beyond automake, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. Developers targeting Windows though wouldn't even dream of NOT making an MSI package. So yes, it's a platform problem.
Your sister would never have that problem, because she is probably not even aware that there is another way to install software apart from nicely packaged packages trimed for their platform, whether that platform be Linux in some variant or Windows.
That's just silly. It's not possible for her to find software she would like to install, and be confronted with the choice between tgz (whatever that is, she'll think) or RPM (which notes that it's for Redhat, which she's not running). I know I was hit with that; went looking for some software to fill a need, found it, and because I know what a tgz was able to go that route, although with the problems I mentioned. To say it won't happen is denying reality.
But then you were trying to do something that even the Kopete developers did not intend users to do (I trust them enough to not take them for idiots). Clearly, they based their latest release on versions of libraries which are not yet common. They evidently did a release intended for integrators. Integrators should not have any problem setting up things and, in turn, packaging the package for end users.
Except that they also said the only fix to the problems Kopete was having was to upgrade. Not trivial problems, problems of not being able to connect at all to MSN or Yahoo, when they were changnig the protocol almost daily. So they WERE telling people to upgrade. So what is a normal user (or me) supposed to do? Wait a few months until Mandriva releases a new version, and just not have IM?
That instance shows that package management is broken (because I had to do all the work of finding the OTHER updates) and that Linux isn't immune to DLL hell either.
If installing the newest KDE libs broke existing apps, then the new libs were not compatible with the old ones and therefore either they were intended to break compatibility (if that is the case, I am sure the KDE people have set things up so as to have parallel installability) or there is a major bug. In the second case, well, shit happens; in the first, then you must have done something wrong. You will say that is should be easier to do this correctly, but you should take into account that what you tired to do is change a basic library on which the whole desktop depends (if you are using KDE,at least), so that is a seriously major change to your system, which should be considered only when doing system-wide updates. And users simply do not do that.
I can't tell you why it broke. It should not have happened either way. I install
At the very most, it shows an attitude problem in me. I in no way represent any community whatsoever!
Well I meant the attitude that they consider it "released" when they throw up a tarball with automake. Anyway, I hope you don't think I'm bashing Linux for the sake of bashing. I think this (and other things) are ligitment problems holding it back from wider adoption. Unfortunatly many times the community just flat out refuses to acknowledge the problem, even though their users are insisting it is a problem.
I find that attitute more than anything to keep me from wanting to try Linux again; when my users say something doesn't work for them, it just doesn't work for them, and I need to find out a way that will.