zsh

[txHarleyMan]

Re: zsh

What is it with *buntu? UUID's in place of /dev..... dash in place of bash?

And I am sure there are others I am not even aware of yet.

[txHarleyMan]

Re: zsh

The UUID's I am referring to /etc/fstab. Seems *buntu is the only distro that uses UUIDs causing a lot of rift-raft in the forums. And then there's dash. I am questioning why *buntu seems to go their own direction instead of the standard.

[penguin.ch]

Re: zsh

The UUID's [...] then there's dash.

As well as Ubuntu's perversion of sudo, event.d replacing inittab, to name just the worst ...

I am questioning why *buntu seems to go their own direction instead of the standard.

Or why they keep wasting time on meaningless improvements à la "System Settings" instead of tackling real problems (e.g. Samba integration, X server setup, etc. pp.).

My guess: the "Gods of Ubuntu" want to demonstrate that they know better than mere mortals like you an me :P

[Fenyx]

Re: zsh

Despite taking this thread further out of topic, I can't but help but mention a few things, regarding some of the decisions made by the "Gods of Ubuntu"...

1. Using UUID in fstab. They could have definitely chosen something better. But neither UUID nor the device block naming convention (/dev) are perfect, they both have advantages and disadvantages. Ubuntu chose to gamble on the side of UUID. I can't say it's foolproof. But I don't condemn them for 1) trying to solve some problems 2) using what's available to them. UUID is not an Ubuntu invention.

2. DASH: I'm still not sure about the ultimate benefits of using DASH instead of BASH, but like kubicle said, user shells are still BASH.

3. Why does Ubuntu go its own direction instead of the standard?
Why not? Who creates the standards? Isn't it possible that the current "standards" are actually the product of a change of a pre-existing "standard", which eventually gained wide acceptance, to the point of being called a standard? Who knows, maybe the changes we see today will be the standards of tomorrow? If you believe that a Linux distribution has absolutely no right to make changes, that it should always and forever ship vanilla packages, then Ubuntu might not be for you.

Granted, not all changes are good, but how come every change is seemingly being shot down as a malevolent act of the gods?

4. Why keep wasting time on meaningless improvements?
Again, why not? Who dictates what these developers, who volunteer their time and resources, who don't expect payment, who take time from their lives to work on Kubuntu, what to work and not to work on? There is no central manager who says "Don't work on this, work on that instead". That's not how things work. Developers work on something they want to work on, and no one can force them otherwise. If they can be convinced to work on something else, it's because they want to work on that something else, not because someone has tried to twist their arm.

Also, who says that just because one or two persons are working on System Settings or Adept means that resources are taken away from others? If you tell those persons to stop working on something they like, there is no guarantee that they will suddenly so happily work on something else. There is no guarantee that those persons working on Adept even know how to work on Samba or X. That's not how things develop in the FOSS world, unless you are in a company like Red Hat, Novell, or Mandriva. There's also the fact that most of the Kubuntu developers work on KDE-related stuff. Only a handful are involved in both core stuff and Kubuntu at the same time.

And by the way, all that wasted time on System Settings will make it possible to have a KControl in KDE 4. Here's the news flash: KControl is unmaintained and broken in KDE 4. And guess what control center-like app is actively maintained? Such a waste, right? With no benefit in the end? Of course, System Settings is still in need of fixing. No argument there.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just personally quite disheartened with comments like these. I don't think Kubuntu is perfect. In fact, I get into a lot of arguments about how we do things in development. But whether I win the argument or not (mostly I don't :P), I come out knowing why they make such decisions. I may not agree, but I understand. And I can relay that to people who ask. Then they can make the decision for themselves whether or not things are easier because of what developers have done.

It's not like the gods of Ubuntu have nothing more to do than make life miserable.

[penguin.ch]

Re: zsh

Sorry for the rant.

Don't be sorry - speak your mind!

[Fenyx]

Re: zsh

Don't be sorry - speak your mind!

I do, but only when necessary, and in the proper place, in the proper way. Fortunately, it doesn't happen often. I hate listening to myself rant.

[txHarleyMan]

Re: zsh

Yes, speak up. Don't get disheartened because folks like me don't understand some things and then ask about it. But after 26 years of being a developer myself, you have to weigh cost vs. benefit before plunging into something. I am just not seeing the benefits which in turn I ask the seasoned folks like yourself.

[penguin.ch]

Re: zsh

you have to weigh cost vs. benefit before plunging into something

Only if you develop to fulfill anyone's (e.g. ordinary user's) needs; if you develop primarily for you own fun, you're free to do what you like to (even though others might dislike the results ...).

[txHarleyMan]

Re: zsh

Agreed. Thing is the items I am referring to are global.

[penguin.ch]

Re: zsh

Thing is the items I am referring to are global.

So seems to be the underlying problem (as I understand it, also from the failure of the Kanotix project):

As long as the delevopers don't feel sufficiently motivated to hack "on behalf of" users incapable of doing so themselves, but prefer to focus on materializing their own, rather "freaky" dreams, instead, Linux for the masses will remain a dream (or a nightmare - but that's a different story ...).

[Fenyx]

Re: zsh

I'm not a seasoned developer. I've only joined the team last year. But I've had my own share of arguing (take note, "arguing") with developers about these very questions. And like I said, I don't always end up agreeing with their decisions. But I do end up at least understanding why they made such decision, and understanding that they did them in the belief that they will help users, not just because they think it's fun.

Developing for FOSS projects isn't black or white. It's not "developing for others" versus "developing for fun or because I like doing this". Sometimes, it's more of a "developing something which I find useful or fun, and for others who will find it equally useful or fun to use." This is how some FOSS projects are born and evolve: a developer scratching his itch, which happens to scratch other people's itches as well.

txHarleyMan: Don't get me wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking, and there's nothing wrong with the way you asked or what you asked about. And it's not you. It just so happened I chanced upon this thread, which, in a way, resembles questions, feelings, or presumptions that I've encountered from the beginning.

"Why are they making these changes that makes everything harder or diverts from the standard?"
"Why are they wasting time on this nonsense feature/app? Why don't they just focus on this or that essential feature/app?"

Valid questions, no doubt. But I doubt any developer would not be hurt. For one, it implies that the developers are maliciously/purposefully inserting changes that are meant to be bad. It implies that there is an intent to harm. Whether the effects really bad or not (ugh! remember the hidden / directories?), they can only evaluate after the fact. But in no way does it mean that their intentions are to make users suffer. The other thing that would hurt a developer is to hear something he loves doing, with the intention of helping, be called a waste of time. Imagine, if you really honestly thought that this app that you've put your heart and soul into would be a big help to people, then hear people say that you're just wasting time and should do something else you have no interest or knowledge about.

"The gods think they are better than me."

They always will. Because they are the developers. It's a given presumption. It's they who wade through the source code, who do the packaging, the testing, etc. So surely, they'd at least know some things better than us "mere mortals". But, like the gods of old, they are not omniscient nor omnipotent. They can make mistakes. They do make mistakes. And unless some of those mere mortals who actually do know something better, who can actually prove that they do know something better (by active participation), then they will not know where they went wrong. That's where users, us "mere mortals", come in.

Ugh... I'm ranting again... see what you've done!! :P

EDIT: Believe it or not, most, if not all (I can't statistically speak for all) developers join a distro's team to 1) make the project better 2) for users. Can you imagine how silly it sounds if a developer joins a team to make the distro better for himself? Such a developer would not join a team. That developer would just do things on his own, on his own machine. But the fact that he joins a team, to make the distro better, is a sign that he indeed has users in mind. (Of course, other people have other motives)

But the fact remains that developers will not always be right about users. Just as users will not always be right about their ideas. Unless we communicate across this divide, we won't end up any better than when we started.

[penguin.ch]

Re: zsh

it implies that the developers are maliciously/purposefully inserting changes that are meant to be bad

I do have no intention to argue such crap.

I do, however, remain of the conviction that developers "may or may not" care about how amateurs are supposed to cope with their work ... Technical ingenuity does not necessarily imply ease of use.

(by active participation)

Point taken - but with the last of my machines dying from age, I'll be offline soon enough, anyway ...

Ugh... I'm ranting again... see what you've done!

And I won't feel sorry about having provoked you to do so, since this seems to be one of the (far to few) occasions where one of the "Gods" is actually stooping to talk to us mere mortals.

[Fenyx]

Re: zsh

And I won't feel sorry about having provoked you to do so, since this seems to be one of the (far to few) occasions where one of the "Gods" is actually stooping to talk to us mere mortals.

Hahah! I'm not a god! At least... not yet. > (isn't there a devil smiley in here?)

Anyway, I've taken this thread completely on a different path, so I'm ending it here with an invitation: Join in the effort. Get involved. Get to know the people behind the distro. Jump that wall that you see that divides gods and mortals.

And I hope you'll be able to get a new machine soon. I can't imagine life without a computer.

All that's necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[txHarleyMan]

Re: zsh

I am just curious about the logic behind these changes. Or if you know where an explanation is, point me to it and I will read about it.
Thank you.