Re: GoBSD.com

[Weapon of Mass Deduction <blacklist@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonas Sundström wrote:
> Weapon of Mass Deduction <blacklist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  ...
>
> > Still, in practise, the current situation might be a good idea. 
> > The DragonFly-project is an organisation by and for people.
> > Users, technicians, etc. It might be somewhat better for all 
> > parties involved to have a clear distinction between these 
> > certain parties.
>
>  ...
>
> > Suppose some kernel-developers have a  bit of an
> > argument with some userland-developers. If all these
> > people/parties are involved in the same kludgy 
> > organisation, small differences in opinion can cause 
> > frustration.
>
>
> Where there are people, there's frustration. All projects have it, no 
> matter what. It's more likely signal-to-noise issues that turn the 
> skilled developers away from end-user dominated forums. Which is 
> understandable. At the same time I think it would be bad to separate 
> kernel/system/app developers from each other or from end users. We're 
> all dependant on each other.
>
> In the end it's all about people and communcation. Bad organization can 
> be worked around. Users have to make an effort to "read up" before they 
> go bug developers in a shared communcations channel. (Mailinglist/IRC 
> channel FAQs are good. They help make the informal "house rules" 
> visible so as to ease the friction...) Likewise, developers have to 
> make an effort on their end. Most consumers are not used to having to 
> respect the source of the solution, which may be a problem for some 
> developers. (Our unpaid open-source heroes.)

Yes, but consider the metaphysical side of the coin...
Okay, I would find it nonsense myself really, but many people are 
affected by this.
Some people who post to these newsgroups/mailing-lists are said to
be too busy carping at FreeBSD...
So, with some bad experience in the past, people become frustrated.
This would result in many disliking the whole DragonFly-BSD-OS just
because a small disagreement about some high-level issue.

Well, you will ask now what better situation this separation of concerns 
would realize then...

I think people will be more satisfied knowing that GoBSD (or a generic 
organisation like that) is putting their complaints/experiences on the
agenda. If they would complain themselves, it possibly has far less 
chance of turning out as intended (because of failure of the end-user in 
question to make the developers understand what he/she means, etc.). 
Again I want to point out that it would alleviate the developers and 
other (core) project members, so they can focus on their primary tasks.

> > But with the current concept, the GoBSD-organisation
> > can clearly express its own point of view.
>
>
> I think it would be bad to [completely] delegate such an important 
> thing as listening to the users and external developers. Having said 
> that I do think GoBSD can serve a good purpose as an end-user 
> communications channel.
>
>  ...

I do not mean it should be completely delegated, see:

"Not that it think we should limit contribution of this kind to
this, but why not let it be the standard procedure?
DragonFly-base will still be improved accordingly, just like
you would like to see.".

So I agree with you, actually. :P

> > To put it simply, in technician-language: this will prevent forks.
>
>
> I think the risk of forking has more to do with the people involved and 
> efforts made to keep communications channels open, and less to do with 
> how workload is split across groups of people. (well, I could be all 
> wrong. ´:)

Hehe, in fact distribution of workload is not the main achievement.
This communication you are writing about, is exactly what is involved
in the frustation-argument I have written. :)

> It's interesting though. IIRC, someone wondered if GoBSD was a fork, 
> and you say it'll prevent a fork. :))

Well, if one does not understand things right, striking correlation with 
other messages is purely by chance. ;)

> > Also, consider the following. Is it not a good idea to let GoBSD
> > contribute those tools, frontends, etc.?
>
>
> Yeah, sure. Any development is good. While I'd rather replace a bad 
> back-end than patch it with nicer front-end, it is a temporary measure, 
> and could be seen as constructive criticism. Sometimes however it 
> really is best to not add a front-end, since that merely consolidates 
> the flawed back-end, making it harder to replace later on.

I'm writing of frontends that stand on their own, just like any other
port/programme. So this also doesn't exclude improvements on the 
'back-end'. But you were the one that mentioned it first, remember. :P

> > Including independents
> > who contribute through the GoBSD-channel, of course.
> > Not that it think we should limit contribution of this kind to
> > this, but why not let it be the standard procedure?
>
>
> Limiting users and unproven developers to contributing only through 
> GoBSD?.. I wouldn't want that. Plus, we hardly know what GoBSD will 
> become yet.

As I wrote, I certainly also wouldn't want that. But if GoBSD will
remain a (free) project, I do not have any objection if it would be
decided that high-level contributions are handled by GoBSD standardly.

> > You are totally right about the X-configuration. But harddisk 
> > partitioning is also needed for Windows installs... And simple users
> > shoulnd't perform installs on their own. Mind: *simple* users.
>
>
> Simple users should only use one OS, for simplicity, so they'd only 
> need one partition option:  "Use all disk".. Or just a big button that 
> says "Install".

Windows only has this option for (the highly-technical) unattended 
installs. But I remind FreeBSD (5) also has an option "Automatically
partition the [selected] disk.". So, though I never executed the 
installer of DragonFly-BSD, I expect it is avaible in that too.

> > And I don't think Linux is really that user-friendly...
>
>
> Me neither, but they do have more friendly installers and partitioning 
> tools, and you're often booted all the way to a proper X login. (which 
> is the entry-level expectation of most people)

The X-installation should indeed be better as I already acknowledged. 
But though the installer might not look very modern, it is not more 
difficult to understand, right? Except maybe the keyboard-navigation.
But that can be handled by the ncurses-developers (isn't that the
tool used to visualise the installation?).

> > Why? Manpages and commands are still very technical.
>
>
> While they are an excellent source of much systemlevel information, the 
> system should be built so as to let most people avoid having to read a 
> man page, ever. IMO.

Indeed. Take for example, the question how one can exit a man-screen.
'ESC'? 'CTRL'-'C'? 'CTRL'-'X'? 'ALT'-'X'?
None of those key-combinations work. It can be exited by pressing 'q'...

How is a new user supposed find this out???
It would require him/her to read the manpage presented by executing "man 
man" first...

That's just extremely elaborate and unnecessary.

> > > GoBSD could be the first line of defense, to allow the core devs 
> > > peace 
> > > of mind. It might also grow into a real commercial distro maker 
> > > offering the support most ordinary people expect and need. This is 
> > > no 
> > > easy task though.
> >
> > Well, your first line presents the current concept actually. The last
> > two lines are susceptible to fierce resistance... And I don't think
> > it is the right time to discuss that extensively. :D
> > But let it be clear I'm also no supporter of that. If it is even 
> > possible with the current licensing scheme.
>
>
> Sure it is possible. Anyone can fork the code any day, or simply 
> repackage it á la MacOS X, with some closed source solutions hooked 
> into it. They could charge as much as they like too, unlike with GPLd 
> stuff, where you can only charge for distribution costs + your "value 
> added" stuff.
>
> Anyway, if GoBSD can pull off a positive DragonFly distro, which is not 
> a fork but more of a polish job, sure, why not. 
>
> "Real people" would expect a whole lot more (in terms of support and 
> polish) from BSD than what I think (or speculate) the current BSD 
> projects are willing to commit to. If a commercial distro can provide 
> that, it might work.

Yes, but the pain will be that GoBSD seems then to be arrived like a
vulture to 'exploit' this project. Because the issues it adresses could 
very well be adressed by the DragonFly-BSD-project itself, like you wrote.

> > > Linux distro makers have started caring for real people and their 
> > > usability efforts are snowballing. Can it happen with BSD? I hope 
> > > so.
> >
> > How are they doing? By committing incompatible patches and 
> > introducing
> > custom tools and systems. So my point of view is that we should make
> > things more clear and logical(!), instead of (only) simpler.
>
>
> Yes, this is why I hope DragonFly itself could be the one and only 
> distro, but there will be organizational "growing pains".
>
> Anyhow, I hope not all of this is bikeshed material. :]
>
> /Jonas Sundström.                    www.kirilla.com

LOL, bikeshed material, that's some Swedish saying right? :D
I can't translate it, and it happens to be non-dutch also. :P