Advertisement
Connecting kernel, userspace, and graphics - the plumbing of Linux
Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
A UserLinux manifesto
(Log in to post comments)
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 0:06 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]
What Bruce describes is what I always thought the whole GNU/Linux thing was supposed to be in the first place. No vendor lock-in, all open software that you can run and purchase the support you need for, and you have the option of switching service companies if you have trouble with the one you're paying.I hope it all works out.
-Rob
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 1:15 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
I'm well impressed.So your looking for a name...
GLOSS: GNU/Linux Operating System & Software?
LinGOS (or Lingos): Linux + GNU Operating System?
GoLinux: GNU on Linux? (this name was once used, but the distro is dead IIRC, so they'd probably give it up)
UG Linux: User GNU/Linux?
or maybe a new brandname, and have "<Brandname> GNU/Linux"?
MaGNUm Linux: ?
To me, it's most valuable that the name tells users about the GNU project or the goal of providing freedom, and I understand you may see good marketing value in the name of the kernel... I'll try to think of some more.
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:22 UTC (Wed) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link]
UGLinux is out. In the US "ug" is not a flattering sound.
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:32 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Actually, looking at it, it's also too like "ugliness"
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 13:27 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]
I think UGLY Linux (UGLInix or what ever) would be a great name.Peter Yellman
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 9:46 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]
End User Supported Distribution or EUSD Linux?
A great manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 11:24 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]
EUST--- EUR, USD, ?
Subscribe to the UserLinux Discussion List
Posted Dec 3, 2003 1:26 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
Use this link to subscribe to the UserLinux discussion list.Thanks
Bruce
Subscribe to the UserLinux Discussion List
Posted Dec 3, 2003 9:50 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]
Apparently, the archives aren't going to be open: http://lists.userlinux.com/pipermail/discuss/> You don't have permission to access /pipermail/discuss/ on this server.
;-)
Subscribe to the UserLinux Discussion List
Posted Dec 4, 2003 8:37 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
That's fixed. Now, if someone can tell me how to make Mailman work for HTML mail... It seems to insist on plain text and I would like to "transcend the teletype" for that list. I might have to change the list program if I can't fix it.Bruce
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 1:31 UTC (Wed) by kpirkle (guest, #9178) [Link]
I wonder if anyone has used:Free Enterprise Linux
or
Free Enterprise GNU/Linux?
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 5:26 UTC (Wed) by stuart2048 (subscriber, #6241) [Link]
Or just Felix for short?
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 13:39 UTC (Wed) by fdesloges (subscriber, #291) [Link]
Wow !!!Felix means happy!
That's just brilliant!
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 4, 2003 15:27 UTC (Thu) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link]
Another possible meaning of Felix, according to behindthename.com, is `From a Roman cognomen meaning "lucky, successful" in Latin.' That works too :O) Of course, it's entirely possible happy is more correct. One Web site != heavy-duty research ;O) Either way, I like the sound of it!
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 14:09 UTC (Wed) by sethg (guest, #14970) [Link]
Here's another vote for "Felix"...
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:21 UTC (Wed) by Zakaelri (guest, #15087) [Link]
Yeh. Felix sounds `kick-butt' ;)
Marketing
Posted Dec 3, 2003 1:42 UTC (Wed) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link]
A few things I didn't see addressed in the UserLinux white paper first draft that I believe would be valuable assets are Marketing and User Relations.Marketing:
Marketing needs a small budget, enough to put out proper press releases to the world through wire services. Marketing needs to keep awareness on UserLinux (or whatever the final name ends up being), and create exposure in the media. The marketing arm should encourage a sharp looking web site for "regular users", and encourage a brand consistent image for UserLinux. A strong, practical logo and accompaninying style guidelines would go a long ways.
Marketing shouldn't be necessary, especially considering the price (free) of UserLinux but unfortunately free or not it has to compete with other soulutions and marketing would be very beneficial. As GNU/Linux systems start to migrate to less technical users, more mainstream exposure will encourage use. I know from experience it is much easier to propose use of a free software project to management if they have already heard of it.
Marketing shouldn't control UserLinux, in fact I believe a large asset to GNU/Linux in general is that the systems are not marketing driven. Marketing should impact awareness and usage, not the distribution directly.
User Relations:
It would be nice to have an online suggestion box for less technical users. The common viewpoint of "It's open source, if you see a feature you want is missing, contribute it back" won't scale so readily to less technical users. It would be great to have areas for constructive feedback for less technical users to access.
All in all I find the UserLinux concept very encouraging. I like the fact 'enterprise' concerns are being addressed from the beginning. It would be nice to see marketing be a priority because, like it or not, marketing will greatly encourage adoption.
I think Bruce Perens has a great idea here, and I hope to see it grow into reality.
Marketing
Posted Dec 3, 2003 11:38 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]
I know from experience it is much easier to propose use of a free software project to management if they have already heard of it.I wish that the same could be true for the management of closed, proprietary, software vendors, but the prerequisite to that is, that the CLIENTS of the closed software vendors UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FREE SOFTWARE AND CLOSED SOFTWARE and that the clients also understand, that THEY DO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DEVEOPMENT and some little extra, to keep the development going in general. Hmm, and who are the "clients"? MANAGEMENT, BUSSINESS(WO)MEN, who don't understand the meaning of their dicisions from technological and other points of view OUTSIDE THE MONAY DIMENSION. Just like every nation has a government that the nation deserves, every nation also has the software that the nation deserves----closed, technologically stuck and slowly improving, PATENTED "business secret".
User or ...?
Posted Dec 3, 2003 1:57 UTC (Wed) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link]
This sounds like a good idea, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around it... "User" Linux implies that this is meant for users as opposed to "servers" or "developers" I guess. But this is a distribution meant to be easily deployed by businesses for their workers. BP also frames it as a distribution to create low barrier-to-entry support businesses...But that means that, in all major ways, really, this is not "User" Linux. User Linux would be the Linux that a computer user installs because its easiest to install, migrate to, and use, isn't a step back from their current proprietary systems, and from which support can be found (ie, if a great distribution has no "market share," Joe User will have no friends to help him).
In other words, this system would be meant to *create a space* in which people can easily deploy, support, and collaborate on a common Linux. It is not the EZlinux project, or the Grama Linux project, which is what User Linux sounds like.
Common Linux
Linux Share
Linux Market
Linux Zone
I think these better describe what the idea is... Am I wrong?
User or ...?
Posted Dec 3, 2003 2:39 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
It means that the users are the sponsors, rather than a vendor. Businesses can be users.
User or ...?
Posted Dec 3, 2003 2:44 UTC (Wed) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link]
Sponsor Linux? :)But my point is that your name is misleading. User Linux sounds like it's focus is easy-of-use... This is more Industry Linux, Community Linux...
User or ...?
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:10 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
oh.I made this mistake too. I took "User" to mean no-brainer or newbie. I was surprised when I read that it would target the enterprise. I think "User" would turn a lot of techs off.
But I haven't come up with any more replacements. I think "<Brandname> GNU/Linux" is probably the easiest approach, but what would brandname be... Magnum, Unfettered, Chainless, Libre, Independent?, Untied (heh).
Me too!
Posted Dec 3, 2003 5:05 UTC (Wed) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link]
I'm pretty much with everyone else. There could be a better name than than UserLinux considering this is a general rather than strictly desktop-based distribution. UserLinux does seem desktop-based only, but the name isn't the end of the world. I'm content with the name as is, but here's some names I've liked so far and some more I'm making up right now:
- Magnum Linux (built around GNU)
- Libre GNU/Linux
- GoLinux (provided the appropriate domains and the name could be cleared)
- General Linux (gets the point across, people will remember it too, appropriate though not exciting).
- Prime GNU/Linux
Me too!
Posted Dec 3, 2003 11:48 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]
<I> I like GoLinux</I><BR><BR>
How about GodLinux? Nice abstract, says nothing about Desktops or Enterprises.
Naming Party...
Posted Dec 3, 2003 6:06 UTC (Wed) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link]
I agree, "User Linux" is misleading. I like the name Industry Linux, but we'd like to include GNU.How about Bignu Linux. (Did you hear about the "Big New" Linux?)
Naming Party...
Posted Dec 3, 2003 15:06 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Bignu is good, but how about: "Running Gnu" Linux?it's got linux, gnu, a pun, etc. It's perfect.
Naming Party...
Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:33 UTC (Wed) by Zakaelri (guest, #15087) [Link]
2 puns, actually. That one there was the all-powerful dubble-whammy. I,however, have been able to bag the wily and quite elusive tripple-whammy
pun. It knocked the wind out of me, and I fell off my chair.
As far as Magnum Linux goes... it would be neat, but most people I know
think of a gun when they hear Magnum... which may or may not be what we
are `aiming' for ;)
How about we name it Guinnix? The mascot/logo could be a guenea pig
holding up a cute tankard of the happy drink.
More names
Posted Dec 4, 2003 21:10 UTC (Thu) by mceesay (guest, #2806) [Link]
Here are some suggestions:
- StandardLinux - The intent after all is to create a de facto standard Linux distro adhering to the Linux Standard Base.
- FreedomLinux - Freedom as in the freedoms granted by the GPL
- LibertyLinux - Liberation from distro vendors!
- IndependenceLinux - Vendor independent distro
- IndependentLinux - ditto
- IndyLinux - ditto, but probably not professional enough
Confused about a couple things
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:27 UTC (Wed) by mmealman (guest, #9223) [Link]
Will UserLinux basically have their own stable/testing/unstable branches for the server and workstation branches?How will UserLinux server be any different than Debian stable?
I guess my confusion is if it's going to be based off of Debian, how exactly will it be improving on Debian.
Confused about a couple things
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:40 UTC (Wed) by chill633 (guest, #16013) [Link]
From the manifesto:"Play Favorites
I think it makes sense for an enterprise project to make choices among
the two complete GUIs available on Debian, the dozen web servers, and so
on. Having a bounded set of packages to collectively support and improve
is important, especially at the beginning. Additions to that list can be
driven by what customers are willing to pay for. Expect the initial
choosing to be painful. Of course any of the service providers can make
their own support choices from the full set of software in Debian, for
their own paying customers, overriding our choices."
This means KDE *OR* Gnome, not both in the default install. It means
(almost certainly) Apache. MySQL or PostGres (or Firebird, or...)
While any client could choose to install almost anything they want, the
CERTIFIED, DEFAULT configs will have to whittle down the number of
packages.
More like "Debian Streamlined" than Debian Stable.
Further discussion should probably be moved over to the list server Bruce
set up. http://lists.userlinux.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Confused about a couple things
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:42 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]
Well, I think the main way in which it might differ from Debian is configuration. One aspect is that it will select a list of packages for you. And I think that a lot of Debian packages tend to not do enough configuration at install-time. And what really bothers me is that a lot of Debian packages don't put themselves into a useful state at install time - the user must come along and do more configuration before they will work. The assumption is that the user will want to do that. I don't agree.So, I am thinking about a number of packages that have the sole purpose of configuring another package, and are pulled in with that package by a hook we'll put in the package system. Over the long term, I'd hope that the package maintainers would fold this stuff in to the main packages.
But Knoppix has been there for a long time and Debian folks didn't move to incorporate its features into the main system. So, maybe they need a bit of a push from outside.
Bruce
Confused about a couple things
Posted Dec 3, 2003 3:45 UTC (Wed) by walters (subscriber, #7396) [Link]
Like what packages?
Confused about a couple things
Posted Dec 3, 2003 10:18 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]
> Well, I think the main way in which it might differ from Debian is> configuration.
It sounds promising. However, I wonder whether you (chief developers) will have enough courage to make it in the Right Way from the ground up, throwing away the accumulated since 70-s Unix garbage like /etc mess and providing a clean light-weight configuration API with bindings to all reasonable scripting languages starting with /bin/sh. Or, I'm afraid, it'll become another attempt of cosmetic (de-facto, not in the terms of manpower spent) tidying-up.
Problems with Debian
Posted Dec 3, 2003 16:15 UTC (Wed) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]
I'm a Debian user, and I've encountered several significant, long-term problems with Debian which have been encouraging me to take a long, hard look at Fedora.Problem 1: Installation, installation, installation. Debian requires more kernel patches, more screwing with drivers, and more general pain than any of the commercial Linux distros--by a significant margin. I can turn out RedHat 9 servers with a few mouse clicks, but Debian frequently descends into a twisty little nightmare of hardware problems.
Problem 2: dpkg. While I adore APT, I strongly dislike dpkg. No matter how many RPMs and dpkgs I build, I get tired of dealing with dh_this, dh_that, dpkg_theother. There's about two dozen of these little tools, and they all work via nasty executional semantics and loads of cryptic text files. RPM relies heavily on declarative semantics and two or three command-line tools. If sysadmins want to make local packages, this whole mess needs to be sorted out. (And merging Connectiva's cool apt-rpm features back into apt-get would be a big plus, too.)
Now, Debian has many enormous virtues--which is why I still use it on about half of my personal machines--but it's still not up to par with ordinary commercial distros for business use.
Problems with Debian
Posted Dec 3, 2003 16:33 UTC (Wed) by dilinger (subscriber, #2867) [Link]
Point #1 will hopefully be addressed by userlinux, the enterprise debian sub-project, or whatever springs up (once debian accounts are unlocked).Every company I know that uses debian currently uses custom kernel packages. The kernel images that are distributed w/ debian are generally out of date, and don't include the extra patches/features that redhat kernels include. One of the things we'll be working on is a separate kernel package that looks more like a redhat kernel than a debian kernel. Work must be done to streamline the installation process as well, to actually make use of this new enterprise kernel.
As for point #2, check out cdbs (Common Debian Build System). When I create packages using cdbs, I generally don't have to touch any debhelper commands; as a matter of fact, if you have a standard autotools-using package, you can cut your debian/rules file down to approximately 4 lines. Combine this with the various things available in the devscripts package (debuild & co), and creating debian packages becomes a whole lot easier.
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 4:41 UTC (Wed) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link]
I'm already on it Bruce,right down to the Debian Social Contract. A new gui installer with all the toys and then some....I will mail you directly asap with more info.
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 5:43 UTC (Wed) by EnMasse (guest, #17439) [Link]
Not sure about the trademark'ability of some of these. But here are my naming ideas:Basic/Dry Names
--------------
Standard Linux
Comprehensive Linux
Basic Linux
Common Linux
Universal Linux
Total Linux
Complete Linux
Meta Linux
Premium Linux
Commodity Linux
Framework Linux
Server Linux
Interesting Names
---------------
Blue Hat Linux
Carrier Linux
AMP Linux (playing to Apache+MySQL+PHP killer app for Linux in Enterprise's eyes, no I
don't work for Novell :)
Fusion Linux
TheBase Linux
Replica Linux
BeigeBox Linux
MyLinux
Transact Linux
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 5:45 UTC (Wed) by EnMasse (guest, #17439) [Link]
Oh, and one more:PoweredBy Linux
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 7:29 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Debian is Deborah + Ian. There is nothing wrong if people who start the project put their names on it as long as it doesn't create confusion or unnecessary connotations (e.g. McDonald's Linux or Paine Linux).Also, I think it's important to keep GNU as part of the name if Linux is used in the name. Linux is the name of the kernel, so GNU/Linux would indicate that it's not just the kernel. Alternatively, both GNU and Linux could be dropped to avoid this controversial issue.
Possible names (just to illustrate for my words): Bruce GNU/Linux, FEOS (Free Enterprize Operating System).
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 16:19 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Actually, what I said is that either GNU/Linux should be used, or no "Linux" at all. Doing otherwise would be disrespectful to Debian GNU/Linux, on which the new distribution is going to be based. I don't have a stong opinion in the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate in general, but in this case the choice has already been made by Debian developers.
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 18:31 UTC (Wed) by JamesErik (subscriber, #17417) [Link]
Feo is Spanish for "ugly". FEOS means "the ugly ones". A good name for a Linux distro? I don't know--just pointing it out.
Names
Posted Dec 3, 2003 11:23 UTC (Wed) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]
Better than MyLinux would be:Our Linux
But since that somehow doesn't fit into my mouth at least, why not
Unser Linux
It's even conviniently close to User Linux.
No, I'm not German. But Vår Linux and Meidän Linux are out of the question I guess :-)
henrik
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 7:02 UTC (Wed) by dang (subscriber, #310) [Link]
A very real part of the problem, though, really is application providers like Oracle. If RH enterprise is a "lock in", then it is largly so because some application providers are slow to move and often this slowness matters in ways that mature companies can't accomodate. For example, if you need to run Oracle and want to run it on linux, then it wont take long to find out that things can get unexpectedly wonky if you drift too far away from the distro that Oracle certified against. And they have been traditionally slow to certify. Frustrating. Painful. But real.So it is more than just getting application providers to play along. It is getting them to play aggressively. I hope that they want to. I'm not sure that there is an incentive for them to. If not, then a DBA whose job is a function of uptime seems to have a compelling case to embrace the lock in.
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 12:15 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I was thinking exactly that ...Just leave the dinosaurs like Oracle alone. While we don't believe in "one task, one server", the reality is it pays.
What happens if your Oracle is certified on RH-X, your D3 is certified on RH-Y, your mainframe app is certified on SuSE-Z, ad infinitum ...
And if you've got a mission-critical app, you just leave it running on the supported box and that's it. The big problem is when you don't want to upgrade your app, and then the OS-vendor drops support for that rev...
While, as a SuSE fan, I don't like this "certified for RH" lark, that is what the LSB is there to address, and as people move over to running Free Software or Open Source, the dinosaurs will just disappear. Take Oracle - at the moment it's marketing hot air keeping them afloat. DB2 is marketed far less agressively but is likely to start doing them some serious damage, and MySQL/PostgreSQL are likely to start taking noticeable chunks out of the pair of them before long.
Let the dinosaurs stand tall. The mammals are raiding their nests :-)
Cheers,
Wol
A UserLinux manifesto
Posted Dec 3, 2003 19:48 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
And they have been traditionally slow to certify. Frustrating. Painful. But real.Proper testing takes a lot of time. I don't want to have my bank accounts on an OS/database pair that was tested for only two weeks...
Vendor lock is bad for business.
Posted Dec 3, 2003 15:14 UTC (Wed) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link]
The only one gaining anything from vendor locking is the vendor holding the keys. I think its nice to see linux gaining momentum but it is very important to keep vendors on the ground. It would be bad if only a few dists is supported by the larger vendors of databases etc because thet would make most businesses use them, not because of RH's superiority but because of avaliability of applications. To me the biggest reason i like linux at work is that im not bound to one single vendor.Third party vendors should develop for LSB and not for one specific vendor. Ofcourse they should be able to partner up but its vitaly important to me that i can run any application on any linux dist I choose to use.
Just got an idea for the name - Deed GNU/Linux
Posted Dec 3, 2003 16:38 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Deed GNU/Linux - Debian Enterpize EDition.Rationale - enough talking about software freedoms, enough waiting for companies to come with enterprize solutions for a reasonable price. It's time for use, users, to do something that works for us. It's time for Words to be followed by Deeds. Deed means business. Deed will stand right after Debian in alphabetically sorted lists of distributions. "Deed" is shorted than "Debian", and the distibution will be smaller as well.
Just got an idea for the name - Deed GNU/Linux
Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:39 UTC (Wed) by Zakaelri (guest, #15087) [Link]
To me, Deed sounds a little bit too much like Dead... and at firstglance, that's what I thought it said, too =P