Weekly Edition Return to the Front pageSponsored link Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here. |
lca2007: Christopher Blizzard
The keynote speaker on the second day of linux.conf.au 2007 was Christopher
Blizzard, currently with Red Hat. His topic was "relevance," and, in
particular, the relevance of the free software movement to the rest of the
world.
One way to be relevant is to create top-quality products. There was an emphasis on the word "product," rather than "project"; Chris was talking about making things for people. The best products, he says, are those which genuinely change the way we live. The example he used was cellular telephones, which have truly changed the ways in which people communicate. Your editor, often reduced to communicating with his children via text message, is not convinced that all these changes are for the better, but the talk did not address this side of things. The next slide was a marketing shot of the iPhone. Is this a product which will change how people live? Nobody in the audience was willing to argue that it was. Then came Firefox - a project which Chris worked on for some years. Firefox "makes the web less annoying," and makes a point of respecting its users, which is important. It's still not clear that Firefox has changed the way people live, however. Even so, Firefox had some lessons to offer:
How many years, asked Chris, has it been the year of the Linux desktop? Is Linux relevant for desktop users. In general, his answer was "no." Linux is showing up in interesting places, however: the Nokia N800, telephones, and the One Laptop Per Child project. OLPC, says Chris, truly is a relevant project which will be changing lives. It has a well-defined mission - providing computing technology in a way which furthers the education of children in the developing world - and it is creating a product which furthers that mission. To that end, a number of interesting innovations have been made; these include the OLPC display (which, among other things, is readable in full sunlight), the mesh networking feature, and the ability to power it with a hand-operated generator. The sugar user interface also rates high on the list; it has tossed out much of the standard desktop metaphor in favor of a new design aimed at the OLPC's target user base. So, based on this, how should a project make itself relevant? Chris suggests:
A project which follows these guidelines, says Chris, has a good chance of being relevant well into the future. (Log in to post comments)
lca2007: Christopher Blizzard Posted Jan 18, 2007 3:17 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] After many years watching projects come and go.. I can only say that Blizzards's comments are spot on and need to be repeated when any project is started that wants to change the world.
lca2007: Christopher Blizzard Posted Jan 18, 2007 4:33 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] After many years watching projects come and go.. I can only say that Blizzards's comments are spot on and need to be repeated when any project is started that wants to change the world.Agreed, but...there's a certain dissonance between what he says and what he (er, the project) actually does. Items that come to mind include Firefox's insatiable memory appetite, the removal of MNG support even as a compile-time option ("driving from the front" by waiting on standards groups?), the burial of any number of useful and not-that-advanced options in the hideous about:config page, the abysmal performance of the bookmark manager... And those are just the ones I can remember because they interest me; I've seen lots of other examples reported by other folks. I understand that some of it has to do with resources--certainly their Bugzilla is a huge target, given the size of their userbase. But that goes only so far; some of the decisions are inexplicable and, yes, even user-hostile (e.g., moving one of the image-related options, perhaps loop-once or load-only-from-same-site, to about:config, if I recall correctly). Greg
Load-only-from-same-site considered useful Posted Jan 22, 2007 17:47 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] I was shocked when I saw it had disappeared from the options panel. It's about as basic a privacy element as exists. (Think web bug.) I've looked in about:config, and I don't see anything to correct the situation, at least that I can identify.Ah, well...
Re: Firefox Posted Jan 24, 2007 0:50 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] ...Firefox's insatiable memory appetite... I'm not sure I see that. I've had Firefox 2.0.0.1 running continuously now for about 4 weeks on my 64-bit Gentoo system, I currently have 6 windows and 11 tabs open, and it's using about 360MiB of RAM. Is that bad?
Re: Firefox Posted Jan 26, 2007 4:01 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] I've had Firefox 2.0.0.1 running continuously now for about 4 weeks on my 64-bit Gentoo system, I currently have 6 windows and 11 tabs open, and it's using about 360MiB of RAM. Is that bad?Oh my, yes (IMHO)... Mine's been running close to 9 weeks, has 4 regular windows open (closed two or three earlier today) plus the bookmark manager, has a total of 9 tabs, and it's using 100MB (RSS). I consider even that rather hefty, though I've definitely seen worse. (A Netscape 4.x instance hit 950MB once... That was after running for 4-6 months, but still--it wasn't a pretty sight, particularly when it locked up. NN4 never liked big tables...) Btw, I have a parallel instance of Moz 1.7.10 running: same uptime, 3 windows + bookmark mangler, 8 tabs, 65MB (RSS). That's much more reasonable, but then again, I don't work it quite as hard, either. Greg
Re: Firefox Posted Jan 26, 2007 7:15 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] That's impossible! On my 64 bit system running 2.0.0.1 it only takes me about 1/2 day of browsing to hit 900 MB. If I forget to kill & restart Firefox every few hours (thank goodness for session saving), my machine goes into deep swap and I have to either wait 20 minutes for the OOM killer to save me or punch the reset button.
And, once it cruises past 600 MB, Firefox gets unbelievably slow. Click on a tab, wait for 1 second of 100% CPU before it responds, stuff like that. I don't know what's different between your 2.0.0.1 and mine, ldo, but I envy you.
I wonder if it has to do with the types of sites one visits.
Re: Firefox Posted Jan 26, 2007 9:51 UTC (Fri) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] That's impossible! On my 64 bit system running 2.0.0.1 it only takes me about 1/2 day of browsing to hit 900 MB. Do you have nspluginwrapper installed to enable the Adobe Flash plug-in? When I did, my Firefox would only run for a couple of days at a time before I started incurring major disk thrashing and slowness. Since I removed nspluginwrapper, Firefox has stayed up non-stop. At least 4 weeks, like I said. Darn--there doesn't seem to be any easy way to get the exact date and time my Firefox process started--all ps is showing is "2006" ...
Re: Firefox Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:03 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] Darn--there doesn't seem to be any easy way to get the exact date and time my Firefox process started--all ps is showing is "2006" ...Heh...I had the same problem initially, but I found you can use either -o bsdstart or -o start=WIDE-START-COLUMN to get the day and month, at least. Greg P.S. No Flash, no Java here.
Year of the linux desktop Posted Jan 18, 2007 9:17 UTC (Thu) by PhilHannent (guest, #1241) [Link] > How many years, asked Chris, has it been the year of the Linux desktop?
I think there should be a marker for this. To me the year of the Linux desktop would be the year that it gains the largest market share.
However it appears that marketing departartments are perverting the term.
Phil
|
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.