What is Digg?34 Comments
- atezun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Yes, that's why Ubuntu submits all their patches back to Debian. Not all of them work seamlessly, but I'd hardly call Ubuntu parasitic.
- discourse, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18the man makes some valid points. in the face of threats, there is strength in unity!
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17""We often don't know who to talk to upstream"
should be followed with"
"So we're trying to find a solution to push our changes upstream and better contact developers."
Shuttleworth wants Ubuntu to commit upstream, but Debian is so unorganized, and independent developers are so sparse that it IS hard to find someone upstream to talk to about a bug and show them your patch. The point of this *entire* talk was to get people to talk about how we can organize our bug tracking and patches better. Congrats on reading the article. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11"more code management systems that link back to bug tracking systems"
While that would be nice, it still doesn't stop "Bugzilla proliferation" which is what the talk was about; too many times you have to go to a new site, register, post a comment and wait for a reply by email to fix a bug. You shouldn't *need* to do this; you should be able to go to Launchpad, say "I have a problem with such-and-such", and it automatically notify the developer of "such-and-such" with a bug report on whatever Bug Tracking software he's using.
Shuttleworth wants Bugzilla to become "Bugnet", a decentralized, interoperable bug registration station, as a way cutting out the middlemen that have to run from Ubuntu to [Package-Developer] and back. So much time is wasted in Launchpad just trying to communicate the problems and solving already solved problems that it's wasteful; instead of moving forward, we commit the same patch 8 times. - crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Did you read the article?
- xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You clearly have no idea what you are talking about do you? First its hard for any linux distro devs and xorg devs to detect every piece of hardware and widescreen LCD. I had a similar problem as you where my widescreen LCD screens native resolution was not properly detected. You know what I did, I opened up nvidia-settings, and guess what, the nvidia driver detected it, I set my screens resolution and it works. More over sometimes its a simple xorg.conf fix to get your monitors native resolution.
As per gaming, the devs can't do anything unless game developers are willing to write games for linux. Opengl is capable of performing the exact same effects as DX10, its just that game developers write games for windows, windows does not support opengl, opengl is supported via your graphics cards drivers. I hate to beat a dead horse here but the blame solely lies at redmond, and they pushed their proprietary api, then dropped support for an open api. This means that now, devs are forced into writing games using direct x why, because if opengl isn't supported then there is the risk of poorer performance with opengl. Once you use direct x, the problem is since you use a locked up api there is no chance of it being portable, except to now with vista its the xbobx 360. That means if you want to port you have to port the code to opengl and to linux, thats something they do not want to do. If Microsoft wasn't such a monopoly on the desktop you would not of seen opengl dropped from xp and vista, and because they are a monopoly they knew they can drop opengl, and hold something over linux/bsd/mac etc gaming. - GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10From the article:
> "'We need a federated, decentralized system to track bugs and patches.'"
Quite a challenge, but it seems to be at the core of the issue.
The rest of the quote:
> "'At Ubuntu, we use LaunchPad [story] to try to track bugs in a centralized manager, but it doesn't work as well as we would like. ... When a bug is fixed in a federated system, all of the other systems can pick up on the fix,' said Shuttleworth."
I don't know much about LaunchPad, but I'd like to seem more code management systems that link back to bug tracking systems so that builds automatically generate release notes with the specifics of what bugs are fixed by which modules. The easier it is for anyone to find out what bugs where fixed where, the easier it will be for anyone to make effective contributions to testing and fault isolation activities. - alanic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I don't think the two are related. Making sure Ubuntu binaries work with Debian binaries is extra work for Ubuntu developers and is a sure way to get some chaos.
Collecting bugs for open source packages in a central place would surely help bug management, especially when there is someone like Google behind it working to make it better. - gravityboy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@atezun
They don't submit every patch back. They submit very few back in reality. They have an open repository where they automatically dump diffs of the packages. The problem is that many of these patches are amalgamated and take a great deal of work to figure out. Furthermore, many of them are totally useless to Debian. This makes the Debian developers do a lot more work than is necessary to get these patches. The Debian developers, on the other hand, are supposed to actively submit all relevant patches upstream rather than forcing their upstream to wade through them.
@geminitojanus
That's crap about Debian being so disorganized that they don't know who to talk to. First, they have the Debian maintainer listed in the packaging info for each package. Second, the maintainer of any package can be reached by sending a mail to packagename@bugs.debian.org. Third, several websites, including bugs.debian.org, packages.debian.org, and qa.debian.org allow you to easily find the package maintainer for anything in the Debian archive.
It may take extra work for Ubuntu to submit their patches upstream actively, but that's generally what's expected of distros. Fedora has done a fantastic job of pushing changes upstream (for example, AIGLX was done by the Redhat developers and was in the X.org repositories almost at the same time). Shuttleworth singling them out in the article is pretty much crap. If he wants others to centralize around his proprietary bug and patch tracker he'll have to get his own house in order. - ThunderIT, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7This is yet another place where linux could learn a thing or two from the engineering principles behind BSD
the FreeBSD 'send-pr' problem report system is a very effective way to manage problems with both the core system, and even 3rd party applications.
The BSD's seem to be able to work together nicely, sharing features and bug fixes quickly, while still maintaining their independence of vision and goals. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"That's crap about Debian being so disorganized that they don't know who to talk to."
Really? Have you tried to contact a developer through Debian lately? Especially on one of the lesser developed or older applications? The fact you had to rattle off three URLs and an email address perfectly exemplifies the problem. You can try the package-name route, and if you get no replies (for example: if the package isn't actually maintained by the developer), you're up a creek and back to Google you go. If the package maintainer is still around, he may or may not know who to contact about the project about a bug; he might just know a URL to pull the package from a revision control system (and may not have commit access himself, so he can't pass a patch upstream).
I've ran into _every one_ of these problems myself (bad maintainer, maintainer who quit, "abandoned" packages, unresponded emails). One of the "better" things about the Ubuntu system of development is that everything is _right there_, no running around to eighty different sites to find out something you need to know. One email gets you to the maintainer, the maintainer can get you directly to the package and can pass patches upstream if they need to.
I used to swear by Debian, recommended it to people, developed for them, but they have simply fallen off the map behind their own want for too much bureaucracy and "freedom", and Ubuntu has picked up the slack. [And I'm still one of the guys who flogged UserLinux back when Bruce Perens said he quit Debian too; Ubuntu quite simply beat us to the punch and offered everything we wanted to do]. - stinkfart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Timely patches? Doctor heal thyself. I am a very happy Ubuntu user but I'm not in any reality distortion field. Ubuntu bugs, even high priority bugs, often linger for months with no substantive action taken to fix them. Please, Mr. Shuttleworth, lead by example.
- grexeo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This could be a big win for Linux developers (and in turn Linux users). A massive amount of time is wasted every day due to up/down-stream duplicates.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2More Debian users whining over Ubuntu. 70% of Ubuntu patches make it back into Debian, especially on stuff like GNOME. The argument is that in some patches Ubuntu produce do things in ways that only work on the archs they support. Some Debian fans are insane and think Canonical should go way out of their way to support 68000 and other obscure archs or otherwise they will cry a lot about it.
WRT TFA, open source Launchpad and we can get progress on this front. The sole reason for resistance is the fact it is closed source. I know there is a risk of Launchpad creep if you open it but you must take that risk and do things the correct way via communication rather than trying to engineer the situation using closed source. - hobophobe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's not clear from your comment how 'send-pr' allows that collaboration to take place. There are already various bug reporting tools for various linux software and they seem to work just like send-pr does as far as the end-user reporting goes. What does it do that allows this collaboration?
Or, is the collaboration effort separate from the front end used to actually report bugs? - rotten777, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Amen.
Users of linux and open source need to centralize their effort and be more efficient. Anyone who has ever looked at all of the packages that do the same task, well you can only think that there are wasted hours of great programming that are duplicating someone else's work.
I would also love to see a centralized bounty effort. I'd love to be able to go to a website and post "I want a program to do [insert task here] and I am willing to pay $100 to have it working and open source." This will bring people who are weak in programming but strong in ideas the opportunity to contribute. This will also help employ programmers. This will also create a lot of open source "prior art" so when Microsoft patents a 3 year old idea, we can show the open source project as proof they are full of it.
Shuttleworth is absolutely correct. I hope he uses his position and power like this more often. The open minded and logical thought combined with his power could bring a lot of results to the open source community. - wedesoft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Here's an interesting Podcast from last year's OSCON. Mark Shuttleworth is talking about the Ubuntu-Projekt: http://osc.gigavox.com/shows/detail1643.html
The guy really has a detailed idea on how to run an open distribution. - leszek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3do you know how many bugs are sent to launchpad ? About one every 7 minutes:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
I can assure you that a lot of work is done. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They do contribute to Debian, they have to in order to resync every six months. They don't push changes to them automatically because some of them they didn't want Ubuntu patches (some with good reasons).
Plus, there's the utnubu project.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuForDebianDevelopers
http://wiki.debian.org/Utnubu/ - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. Not only that revision console on all the different packages so if a release is XXX compliant, you know it has a particular set of revisions. The "who knows what you're going to get" is a big minus on the high reliability side of things.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1BSD is very different by nature. They tend to follow a more cathedral type method than a bazaar. Yes they accept outside contributions but there is a far more organised hierarchy involved. Linux development tends to be very flat and agile.
- Tweakedenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Just to add to what DestroyFascism said, to make things all level Try installing windows on a blank system and see if you get better then 640 x 480 out of the box.
- Gavagai80, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can do that already: http://www.opensourcexperts.com/bountylist.html?bountytype=1
- xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This is so very true, the bug tracking in ubuntu is bad, though its a great way of sometimes finding workaround solutions for your bugs. I have been a ubuntu user for several years, and there are bugs in the tracker since way back when, and its funny even though Dapper is LTS, I have seen suggestions where people are told to update...... that in my opinion is not an option considering Dapper is LTS, bugs should be fixed.
- grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1> You shouldn't *need* to do this; you should be able to go to Launchpad, say "I have a problem with such-and-such", and it automatically notify the
> developer of "such-and-such" with a bug report on whatever Bug Tracking software he's using.
I would agree with you there. Sometimes you need to create an account and sign up to some list just so you can report a typo, incorrect tab order or some accelerator key that doesn't work. The process certainly should be improved so that the minor annoyances that we all know about but can't be bothered filling in a bug report can be reported and fixed.
On the other hand, I see a lot of bug reports where the user simply needs to be told RTFM. Yes it behaves differently to [insert product name] but we are following [insert standards body specification] and they are not. IMO, bug reports should not be created until you have confirmed with the relevant support list that it is indeed a bug.
Other reports are so vague, not mentioning the OS, product version, hardware, or even which screen they are looking at. "It said it couldn't do this because of some lock problem, there was an error number starting with 84 or 85" really does not help isolate the problem. As a developer, one of the most helpful things you can do is to use a global exception handler log your exceptions and stop pretending the user is going to actually read the error box. Again, the support list is a good first step because you will be told the information you must provide.
I don't have the answers for these problems, I just know that the white noise and wolf crying in bugzillas around the place is counter productive. - Tweakedenigma, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You do have a point, I love Linux but sometimes the BSD guys seem to have the right Idea although I think there are a few things you could learn from us too ;)
- DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@ tweakedenigma .
I can get 1280 x 750 out of the box on windows...
If I install my Nvidia drivers, the OS already has a default list of screen resolutions to choose from and from that, I can properly set my resolution in XP in 3 seconds. This is where Ubuntu failed and it has nothing to do with the drivers regardless. Having to configure xconf is all of the problem! The average user will not know how that's done, and when he / she is shown what it involves, they will shy away from ever doing it. Ubuntu edgy did this just fine, default resolutions and cycles to choose from, Edgy even detected the LCD! this did not happen in 7.04...it was a glaring oversight and a major mistake to leave it out. Seasoned Linux users will know what to do, new to Linux users wont! even half competent at managing an OS (Of any flavor) will find the failure of X conf to even save properly or retain a default list of monitor resolutions amateurish. This should have been fixed before anything else and it still persists in the download and no updates have addressed it....0/10 in my book! I really liked Edgy, 7.04 was a flop.....and only for that reason..at least for me. - techboy2000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Shuttleworth really gets it. He simply is making desktop Linux more usable for the masses. Unlike a lot in the Linux world, he seems to focus on practicality and does less whining.
- mmcgrath, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6Not sure why democracysucks got dugg down. Take a look at how many ubuntu patches made it to Debian (don't forget, Ubuntu is based on Debian). Try grepping through the linux kernel for changes that came from Ubuntu/Canonical. The quote in the article that says
"We often don't know who to talk to upstream"
should be followed with
"So we don't bother" - Yuo122986, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4a googlinux?
- Craga89, on 10/11/2007, -12/+1I prefer glinux, or googlux
- DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0After Ubuntu 7 I think just getting hardware detected properly would be a great start! My widescreen LCD is set at standard 1024 x 760 since X did not make the settings work for anything bigger, this was a HUGE mistake on the part of devs!
Linux also needs to look at getting Game Engines working on Linux! Forget DX10 for all its bells and whistles, why are you not promoting linux as a gamers and multimedia system and coding specifically for it? I can see game platforms working better with linux since the Kernel is open to tweaking. Redmond prohibits it!
So who has the more adaptable system? Get with the marketing! Games will make linux! Cedega and wine is a copout! forget it! - DevastatorIIC, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Linux leaders meet at Google then state they need a more centralized effort? Do I smell Google Linux?
- democracysucks, on 10/11/2007, -33/+5This is sort of hypocritical. Shuttleworth made sure, for no technical reason whatsoever, that Ubuntu packages wouldn't work for Debian. And now he wants collaboration from other groups?
Parasite.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is