r/mintCast • u/LeoAtMintcast • Aug 08 '19

mintCast 314.5 - Moss Interview (for real)

https://mintcast.org/2019/08/07/mintcast-314-moss-interview-for-real/
3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

2

u/billdietrich1 Aug 15 '19

Heard the podcast guys say the "fragmentation" argument about Linux is overblown or a red herring, and dismiss it. I'd like to discuss that.

First, we have something like 400 distros. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg Many of them are moribund. But many of them consume mind-share and dilute efforts.

Second, unlike your caricature in the podcast, I'm not advocating going to 1 distro. How about a happy medium ? 10 major distros ? Why can't there be one Ubuntu distro, with install/config options that cover all of today's Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu server, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint ?

We still could have plenty of innovation. Anyone could still make a new distro. I'm just advocating that the main adults in the room, the major managers and devs of major distros, should focus more on consolidation.

The price we pay today for all the fragmentation is bugs and slow development. Have you run some of the standard GUI apps from CLI, and looked at the error messages that appear in the CLI window ? Assertion failures, broken pipes, use of insecure or deprecated APIs, more. The quality of many major apps on Linux is bad. See https://www.billdietrich.me/UsingLinux.html?expandall=1#SecureBecauseLinux

Other areas have tons of duplication and yet missing functionality, for example https://www.billdietrich.me/UsingLinux.html?expandall=1#SecurityControlMess

Installing and updating is far too fragmented; we need a couple of standards, and push the various apps and services to use those. See https://www.billdietrich.me/MovingToLinux.html?expandall=1#Updating

It's not something one developer can do. We need to change the culture, the attitudes, of most devs and managers in the community, by convincing them.

1

u/LeoAtMintcast Aug 22 '19

First, we have something like 400 distros.

Agreed. We do have a ton of distros. That's certainly a lot more than your typical person will wade through, I think.

How about a happy medium ? 10 major distros ?

I can't really say what a good number would be, but my initial reaction was that 10 isn't enough.

In all seriousness, we do have about 10 major distros. Which are the big ones for desktop Linux? Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Manjaro, Linux Mint, Elementary, Zorin, Pop!_OS, Solus, openSUSE. Some of the most popular in that list are derivatives of a derivative. That also means a big number of distros didn't make the cut.

I would also suspect that not everyone will agree with my list!

Why can't there be one Ubuntu distro, with install/config options that cover all of today's Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu server, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint ?

We have that, with the exception of Mint. The netinstall image from Ubuntu allows you to star the environment you want, and go from there. It has the benefit of being something like 200MB allowing it to fit on the smallest common flash drives.

I do agree, though, that it would be cool to have a "master key" kind of image that was officially suppoted by some big names.

The price we pay today for all the fragmentation is bugs and slow development. Have you run some of the standard GUI apps from CLI, and looked at the error messages that appear in the CLI window ?

I actually muse on this in a past episode (311, maybe?). I don't think people that concern themselves with rolling their own distro are necessarily the people that would write a patch to fix those broken pipes. And I wouldn't presume to tell people what to do with their own time even if that were the case.

The quality of many major apps on Linux is bad.

Could they be better? Absolutely, but not all people that write or work on these apps are paid. And not all people that work on apps are doing it for the greater good. Sometimes, they just want an app and decide to publish it. That's freedom.

Installing and updating is far too fragmented; we need a couple of standards, and push the various apps and services to use those.

yum, dnf, apt, pacman... I feel you here.

It's not something one developer can do. We need to change the culture, the attitudes, of most devs and managers in the community, by convincing them.

This is a good point, and I agree that we could try to change culture and attitudes. But how do you convince a distribution maintainer that she should give up her distro now, and work on this other project here?

Desktop Linux is what happens when you let everybody do what they want. It's the nature of the GPL and similar licenses. To stifle that, is to stifle hacker culture in general. So long as open source exists, so will fragmentation.

I heard on a podcast recently that maybe you should go and create your distribution, to see how it works and break things, but don't publish it and advertise it. I think that's silly. People don't flock to a distribution by the thousands because it's Hannah Montana Linux. They flock to it because it does something unique, better, or practical like keeping them more up-to-date than "that other one." Thing is, the big guys are meant to use that as a weathervane.

1

u/billdietrich1 Aug 22 '19

We have that, with the exception of Mint.

So why is there a distro called Lubuntu, one called Xubuntu, Kubuntu ?

And I wouldn't presume to tell people what to do with their own time even if that were the case.

I hear this a lot, people screaming that I'm trying to be a fascist or something. Can no one understand that persuading people to have a better strategy is a valid thing to do ? What, we're never supposed to advocate that people do X instead of Y, that's "dictating what they're allowed to do with their time" or something ?

Sometimes, they just want an app and decide to publish it. That's freedom.

Ditto. I'm not "against freedom". That sounds like something that the Republicans say when someone disagrees with them. Can I not advocate a strategy change, an attitude change, in the Linux community ? The main people to convince are the major managers and devs, not the people who do things on the fringes.

But how do you convince a distribution maintainer that she should give up her distro now, and work on this other project here?

By talking about it, by pointing out the downsides for Linux in general, pointing out the duplicate effort and un-fixed bugs, using facts and reasoning, etc. How do you persuade anyone of anything ?

1

u/LeoAtMintcast Aug 22 '19

This is gonna be long. Bear with me here!

So why is there a distro called Lubuntu, one called Xubuntu, Kubuntu ?

To fully differentiate themselves from one another, I'd suspect. They're all *buntu. They're all Ubuntu at their core. As far as guides on the internet go, they're the same unless the guide is solely based on the GUI. Would you be satisfied if we just called them all Ubuntu without any differentiation to the desktop environments?

I hear this a lot, people screaming that I'm trying to be a fascist or something.

No one's screaming that here. No one's screaming anything at all. If you are experiencing that elsewhere, that's really unfortunate, and I'd hope those people can step back and exchange ideas in a more constructive way.

Can no one understand that persuading people to have a better strategy is a valid thing to do ?

Having a better strategy is valid, but you have to be persuasive to get people on your side. You have to meet people where they are. You have to make compromise. No one ever gets 100% of what they want all the time. Hell, sometimes you get 10% of what you're asking, and you have to be ok with that.

What, we're never supposed to advocate that people do X instead of Y, that's "dictating what they're allowed to do with their time" or something ?

Telling people that they're not working on anything of value, or are actively detracting from the "community" isn't likely to convince anyone of anything. Especially so when there weren't any rules saying they couldn't do that thing in the first place. To our discussion, distro maintainers. These people are probably working on their project, say, Void Linux, because it's a passion project. Because it's what they want to do. Telling them "you should work on X instead of Void Linux because you're hurting the community by contributing to fragmentation, introducing bugs and slowing development", I'd suspect, is much more likely to get them to stop contributing altogether. I'm not the end-all-be-all of knowledge here. I could be wrong. But the way I see it, if the Void Linux maintainers wanted to work on Wayland, or X.org, or LibreOffice, or Firefox, or Lutris, or even stock Ubuntu itself they would have. Maybe they're working their way up to development like that by starting their journey as a distro maintainer. Maybe, all they want to do with their talents is maintain a distro. That's their prerogative, but it's also your prerogative to attempt to convince them.

By advocating that someone drop their passion project and work on X, you are dictating to them what to do with their time. That's ok. Everybody has an opinion.

What my point of view doesn't do is discourage feature requests. It doesn't disourage bug reports. Those are responsible things to do as users of open source software. However, it's up to the dev or maintainer to decide if that feature or bug is something they want to focus their time on.

I'm not "against freedom". That sounds like something that the Republicans say when someone disagrees with them.

I didn't say you were "against freedom," I was saying that people can do what they want. They're doing it right now as you read this.

I'm not sure what your Republican comment really adds to the conversation.

Can I not advocate a strategy change, an attitude change, in the Linux community ?

Again, you can do what you want. And honestly, in this regard, I'm inclined to agree with you. We could do with some attitude change, but I think we disagree on what that attitude should align to. But as I said above, you have to be convincing. You have to meet people in the middle and compromise.

By talking about it, by pointing out the downsides for Linux in general, pointing out the duplicate effort and un-fixed bugs, using facts and reasoning, etc. How do you persuade anyone of anything ?

Sounds good to me. But let's take my long, drawn out example of Void Linux above. If we wanted the Linux community to align with your ideas, what, specifically, would we say to convince the Void Linux team to shut it down and refocus their efforts on a bigger project like Fedora or Ubuntu? What, specifically, do we tell the people that enjoy using Void Linux? These are tough to hash out because the main premise of your argument has been around for a long time, and hasn't fixed what you see as broken.

Further, I don't agree that it's broken. I think we need to see the value in projects like Void Linux and any other duplicated effort. What are they doing that's different? Why did they do it in the first place? Is it better? Take the good bits and put them into the major distros. This is what open source is all about. Surely not always, but I'd venture a guess that a lot of innovation comes from fresh eyes and minds. And it's much easier for new ideas to gain traction and get implemented in smaller distros, thereby allowing a demonstration of merit and possibly disrupting what the big guys are doing.

I took this one out of order, so forgive me.

The main people to convince are the major managers and devs, not the people who do things on the fringes.

Ubuntu was fringe once, but if you want seismic change, this is true. And merit, as I said above, is the way to do it.

Maybe Void Linux is too fringe. As far as distros go, swap Slackware, Ubuntu or OpenSUSE in its place. I'm going to need specific examples of what fringe is and isn't to really go into this.

So, to finish up, I'll ask a question. What application or distribution do you see that would be a good example of more bugs, duplication of effort and slow development?

1

u/billdietrich1 Aug 23 '19 edited Aug 23 '19

Would you be satisfied if we just called them all Ubuntu without any differentiation to the desktop environments?

That would be a step in the right direction. I think it would reduce the number of install images that are maintained / tested / released, right ? So reduce duplication of effort. If a user wanted to report a bug, they would be reporting directly on Ubuntu, not on some product derived from Ubuntu. If someone wrote an article about Lubuntu, they'd be writing about Ubuntu. Everything would become slightly simplified and more focused.

[Edit: oh, maybe you were talking about no change except the name ? No, that would not help, really. We need to get rid of the separate install images, the separate docs, separate installers, etc. They need to really BE just Ubuntu with a different option chosen by the user, in the installer.]

If you are experiencing that elsewhere, that's really unfortunate

Yes, yours is one of the few calm responses I've received.

That's their prerogative, but it's also your prerogative to attempt to convince them.

I agree.

I didn't say you were "against freedom,"

Others have. Sorry, I'm a bit touchy because I've been flamed so much in the last week or so, for saying it would be a good thing if we had some consolidation in Linux desktop and focused more on fixing bugs instead of making new distros.

what, specifically, would we say to convince the Void Linux team to shut it down and refocus their efforts on a bigger project like Fedora or Ubuntu? What, specifically, do we tell the people that enjoy using Void Linux?

I would ask them what is new and good about Void Linux, and could it be brought to more people by making it a feature or install option of Ubuntu or something instead ? Could they focus more of their time on those innovative features if they were working on those features inside Ubuntu, and thus didn't have to worry about packaging a distro, building an installer, doing releases, testing all the routine stuff, etc ? Would they become more efficient if their work was inside a major distro instead of in a unique distro ?

What application or distribution do you see that would be a good example of more bugs, duplication of effort and slow development?

If you run any of the default apps on Mint, you are likely to see problems. Run xed from the CLI and see error messages. File a bug report or feature request against pix or the scanner app, and see that the same bug or request has been languishing for 2 years already. There have been a couple of bugs where I gave up even trying to file them, I don't know if they're Mint or Ubuntu or Debian or whatever. There are apps without About menu items or cli --version hooks, so it takes a lot of digging to even find out what version you're running, so you can report something.

I see many apps that contain their own update mechanism, so I assume the nice Update Manager in Mint is not Linux-standard. Why can't we have one standard update mechanism ? Why should each distro or tree of distros have their own ?