Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystemLPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystemPosted Sep 18, 2008 17:27 UTC (Thu) by crimsun (subscriber, #13750)Parent article: LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem
Disclaimer: I am a former Ubuntu core dev (albeit nonpaid).
I feel Greg's keynote was a bit heavy-handed, but certainly a "better job" could be done to contribute more visibly. That said, Ubuntu, as a distribution, is doing a fairly decent job of getting novice users interested in tinkering with the plumbing. While, as a distribution, it is certainly not unique in that regard, I'd like to emphasise one thing:
We're missing the point, which is that it matters not which company is contributing "the most", because Ubuntu is also "about" enabling its users/consumers to become familiar with the plumbing so that they can contribute.
In the end, we're all consumers.
I've mentored several people (and continue to do so). We start with smaller things, like adding quirks to various HDA codec patches in ALSA, and progress to debugging interoperability concerns in the entire audio stack (e.g., why does GNOME's mixer applet throw an error? Oh, because it lacks an HDA codec patch. Let's fix that then figure out why this legacy audio app is abusing the ALSA API, etc.).
Enough already with assigning blame. It's time to demonstrate how "ordinary people" make a difference. In fact, I'm giving a talk at this year's Ohio Linux Fest on just how to empower users to fix their audio stacks.
(Log in to post comments)
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 18, 2008 18:59 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
It's not about which companies is contributing..the most.
It's about which companies are contributing "enough." Is Canonical contributing enough? When Shuttleworth talks about Canonical's business needs, and how Canonical needs to see upstream projects change how they are doing things to better serve those business needs... is Canonical contributing "enough" to those upstream projects to have their business needs seriously considered? Shuttleworth has been very public about challenging core upstream projects like the kernel and X.org to do things differently for Canonical's benefit. It's only fair that Canonical be challenged to pony up the manpower to make that happen.
A significant amount of the heat being generated now is in direct response to public statements Shuttleworth has made. Which other company in that list of companies has a CEO which likes to publicly blog about how he feels upstream projects should be doing things?
If you just stick with actual corporate entities who are paying developers to do open development... is Canonical doing their fair share to re-invest in the open source infrastructure that everyone is using?
Right now, at this very moment in time...
I'll let you in on a little secret. The pacing item in the continued advancement of the open ecosystem are upstream developer manhours.... not downstream integrator manhours...nor even users. The real work and challenges are in front of the upstream projects themselves. As downstream integrators, we should work on increasing the available upstream development manhours, or else we we'll run out of new things to integrate.
-jef
What is enough? Posted Sep 19, 2008 11:33 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] It's about which companies are contributing "enough." Is Canonical contributing enough? That is a good point but Canonical is currently a loss making Linux start up. A well funded and high profile start - but it still is not turning a profit. How much contribution do you expect from them? What level of contribution and where would satisfy you? Shuttleworth has been very public about challenging core upstream projects like the kernel and X.org to do things differently for Canonical's benefit. Well the idea of coordinated releases is not just being sold on the basis that it is good for Canonical but also good for everyone.... The real work and challenges are in front of the upstream projects themselves. As downstream integrators, we should work on increasing the available upstream development manhours, or else we we'll run out of new things to integrate. Here I disagree! The remarkable success of Ubuntu demonstrates that applying large amounts of "polish" to existing software can have an enormous effect on the success of the free software ecosystem as a whole. Clearly we need upstream development efforts but "polish" is also very valuable!
What is enough? Posted Sep 19, 2008 16:37 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Here is what I expect from Canonical. I expect Canonical's CEO to spend far less time publicly speaking about what he thinks upstream projects and contributors should be doing with their time. I think the vast, vast majority of the criticism that Canonical is getting, and why Canonical is being singled out, is because Shuttleworth has made it a point to go to the press and to conferences and talk about interactions with upstream projects as the CEO of Canonical, to better meet Canonical's business interests.
By doing these sorts of things, Shuttleworth has himself raised expectations on Canonical's own participation in the upstream process.
You don't see him singling out other companies by name, no Tivo, or Linspire or Nokia or YellowDog or whomever. There are probably a ton of companies out there trying to build a business around some sort of linux "distribution" in some shape or form and making small but targeted contributions to upstream projects. That's not the issue.
The issue here is is that the very outspoken CEO of Canonical is out making public statements, challenging upstream projects to change how they are doing their work to benefit Canonical...without providing additional resources to those projects.
If Tivo's CEO decided to be as public as Shuttleworth about seeing upstream processes changes, I would fully expect Tivo to be challenged to provide manpower as well. It's really as simple as that.
Canonical is in the spotlight, because Shuttleworth put Canonical in the spotlight.
-jef
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 19, 2008 16:36 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] As downstream integrators, we should work on increasing the available upstream development manhours, or else we we'll run out of new things to integrate.It seems to me, from crimsun's message above, that he and Ubuntu are doing that by providing a training ground for developers new to Linux. Sure, not everyone who tweaks an audio stack or whatever will go on to be an upstream developer, but some will. Not everyone who goes to school goes into research to discover new knowledge, either -- that doesn't mean we should berate schools for not doing enough.
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 19, 2008 16:54 UTC (Fri) by markshuttle (subscriber, #22379) [Link]
I think you must be referring to my call for syncronization and coordination in the stabilisation and release of diverse components in the free software stack. That's based on my belief that it will make all of free software more effective in the battle with proprietary software, not based on any specific advantage to Canonical.
Of course, Ubuntu is best known for our commitment to a firm cadence of releases - we do them every six months, and it works well for us and our users. We took that up from GNOME, who pioneered the approach in large aggregated projects. Other projects, like the kernel, are already converging on a regular cadence of releases. There are lots of examples in nature and in economics that demonstrate the gains in efficiency that come from such syncronization. And every participant, include Canonical and its competitors, would benefit.
I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should do, to benefit Canonical. I'm pointing out that we will all be more successful if we think systemically, and do what nature does.
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 19, 2008 17:29 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
See here's the thing. There's all sorts of ways to synchronize a set of systems. For a vast array of highly non-linear, weakly couple systems, you can get what is called stochastic synchronization. its a pretty fascinating process...very cool...easily demonstrated with a set of weakly coupled pendulums. One of the coolest demos is with a couple of metrones riding on top of a wooden plank which is rolling on top of a couple of full cola cans. Really its a really cool thing to watch happen.
You start out with components, with random phasing and even frequencies somtimes. But through their own natural weak coupling, these components spontaneously reach a state of synchronization for long periods of time,until such time that the weak non-linear coupling interactions takes the system back to an unsyncronized state.
Here's the coolest part, if you try to force these sorts of systems from the outside, you end up breaking their natural cyclic nature by enhancing one of the weak non-linear coupling processes. Your driving force finds some sort of destructive resonance.. and you break the system.
So here's my suggestion to you. Be a weak non-linear coupler. Don't be a strong driving force. Help the naturally complex non-linear system do its thing and find its own stochastic syncronization. Don't break it.
-jef
|
|||||||||||||