Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

News and discussion about development of the Debian OS itself

What name should Debian use?

Poll ended at 2007-05-14 12:23

Union (both "un-ion" and a pun on what is actually a "fork")
8
26%
Fission (pun on a particle "breaking up")
10
32%
Radical (pun on "radical ion" + managing the root ("radix") window)
0
No votes
Ion3-deviant (play on Debian + variant and the idea that modified versions are broken)
0
No votes
Iceparticle (following an established trend...)
13
42%
 
Total votes : 31

Postby ksandstr » 2007-05-08 16:37

Whatever you call it, _please_ don't go with anything that's got "WM" at the end. That's plainly retarded, like "PCLinuxOS".
ksandstr
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-07 14:28

Postby llivv » 2007-05-08 16:46

'
Last edited by llivv on 2019-02-17 05:05, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
llivv
 
Posts: 5488
Joined: 2007-02-14 18:10
Location: cold storage

Postby Pobega » 2007-05-08 17:13

tuomov wrote:
Pobega wrote:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't quite understand what you mean about the FOSS herd. I originally thought you were upset about Debian taking too long to upload Ion fixes (New versions with bugfixes), but apparently it has become more than that. Could you please explain (Here or in a PM) what gets you angry about the FOSS community? Again, I'm probably missing something quite obvious.


You may thank the Arch Herd for the license change: they were the last drop. I will not have my work corrupted with Xft patches, and still be called by the name of my work.

If the herd wants support for the pile of crap called Xft in something called Ion, they should fix distributions and fontconfig [1]. Until then, I'm boycotting it. But that is unlikely to happen -- no, the herd can not accept that FOSS sucks, that their mighty heroes have created a load of shit that makes life hard for those that don't go with the herd -- those who want clear crisp unblurred fonts.

And, besides, Linux (and consequently *BSD as well) is generally turning into such a clusterfuck of steaming shit [2], that I'm unlikely to be using it for much longer. And on Windows, nobody gives a rat's ass whether the software is FOSS or not.

Any reasonable distributor that simply wants to distribute supported versions of my software instead of (silent) forks and ancient unsupported versions, should have no problems with the additional terms. But Debian has never been reasonable.


It isn't Debian's responsibility to have the newest version of your program in it's stable branch though. If the user wants new features it is his/her responsibilities to read the changelogs for newer versions of their favorite package, or to submit bug reports to the package maintainer.

The package maintainer's job is to, quite obviously, maintain the Debian package. It is not your responsibility to say anything besides "I do not support Ion *.*.* anymore, contact the package maintainer or ugprade".

As for Arch Linux, that seems a bit irresponsible on their part; But again, it is not your responsibility to troubleshoot and support problems created specifically and individually by distributions.

It's a shame that the FOSS community is losing someone who I personally consider to be insightful and smart, I enjoyed your window manager in the time I used it. Maybe you'll rethink your opinions, but I understand that GNU/Linux isn't for everybody.

Good luck in whatever path you choose.
Jabber: pobega@gmail.com
Pronunciation: Poh - Bay - Guh
User avatar
Pobega
 
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

Postby tuomov » 2007-05-08 17:24

llivv wrote:It seems to me (repeating myself here) that there is much more of a user push towards gui tools where (user) doesn't have to have a clue.


GUI tools are not the problem; the problem is the tunnel vision of GUI -- or more appropriately, WIMP GUI -- tools, as well as other things (such as blurred fonts), without regard for anything else. This results in what could be described as an ethos of "either you're one of us (developers), or an idiot user". The progression of different levels of users between those extremes -- and users with different needs, that still need to use the same software -- is forgotten and abolished: there becomes a noticeable "expertise gap" (cmp. "wealth gap"). FOSS no longer stands for choice, for there is no choice in ever more complex systems unless your expertise is at the level of a developer (of that particular piece of software), or at least a professional system administrator.

[I should admit that Ion is also far from perfect, and too complex. However, different standards should be applied to such marginal alternatives, as to core system and other essential software that practically everyone has to use -- the only alternatives being so drastic as Windows.]
tuomov
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-07 19:57

Postby llivv » 2007-05-08 18:44

'
Last edited by llivv on 2019-02-17 05:07, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
llivv
 
Posts: 5488
Joined: 2007-02-14 18:10
Location: cold storage

Postby benh » 2007-05-08 23:17

tuomov wrote:Any reasonable distributor that simply wants to distribute supported versions of my software instead of (silent) forks and ancient unsupported versions, should have no problems with the additional terms. But Debian has never been reasonable.


I have no intention of causing Debian to distribute ancient or heavily modified versions. However, I cannot in good faith promise to package and upload new versions within a specific time limit (and neither can any other maintainer, since there are other constraints on updates to the archive). So Debian cannot accept your trademark licence. Thus I am forced to make a much large modification than any of the existing patches, to change the name of this package.
User avatar
benh
Debian Developer
Debian Developer
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-07 11:46

Re: Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

Postby benh » 2007-05-08 23:20

ecc wrote:
benh wrote:Feel free to write-in additional suggestions. If there's a really good name, I reserve the right to pick that and disregard the poll results.


I suggest particle-man ( http://www.tmbg.org/band-info/songs/lyr ... anSTD.html )


You know, I thought of that but I forgot to put it on the poll.
User avatar
benh
Debian Developer
Debian Developer
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-07 11:46

Re: Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

Postby trey » 2007-05-09 03:24

WHY CANT WE MOVE IT TO NON-FREE FFS
trey
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 2005-06-09 17:47

Postby jobezone » 2007-05-09 04:18

Chose fission, but I like the man. Just hope his ideas get contagious among the FOSS development people.
The Debian Documentation website contains the FAQ, Installation Manual and the Release Notes for Etch. They're helpful if you want to learn more about debian!
User avatar
jobezone
 
Posts: 220
Joined: 2005-06-12 07:20
Location: Portugal

Postby tuomov » 2007-05-09 06:02

benh wrote:I have no intention of causing Debian to distribute ancient or heavily modified versions. However, I cannot in good faith promise to package and upload new versions within a specific time limit (and neither can any other maintainer, since there are other constraints on updates to the archive).


There are ways around that, provided by the license:

* You could distribute packages that include the version in the name, and something like "may be out-dated" in the one-line description shown by e.g. apt-cache search.

* You could have the package display a notification that it may be out-dated (with dialog, or whatever is usually used).

* You could have the package (or install tools) actually check whether there's a new release (from Debian's site and mirrors, preferrably), and only notify then that the package is out-dated. I think this would generally be a good system to have, to notify of possible security issues etc., that have not yet been fixed. (Didn't Debian promise to take care of these promptly?)

You see, there are very reasonable ways to comply. The user just heard of Ion and installing it (by simply typing 'apt-get install ion3' without thinking about it), must just be let to know that the version is old and unsupported, so no point in coming to complain to me, just like with significantly changed versions. Apt-get etc. are sometimes too easy and convenient: that's the problem.

Edit: You could also make the out-datedness notification use a dead man switch. In its crudest form, if the package is more than 28 days old, it starts complaining. A more refined form would check (unless the user has disabled this) some listing on Debian's site for the dead man bit.
Last edited by tuomov on 2007-05-09 07:11, edited 1 time in total.
tuomov
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-07 19:57

Re: Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

Postby chrismortimore » 2007-05-09 06:03

trey wrote:WHY CANT WE MOVE IT TO NON-FREE FFS
Dude, no need to shout ;)
Desktop: AMD Athlon64 3800+ Venice Core, 2GB PC3200, 5x320GB WD 7200rpm Caviar RE2 (RAID5), Nvidia 6600GT 256MB
Laptop: Intel Pentium M 1.5GHz, 512MB PC2700, 60GB 5400rpm IBM TravelStar, Nvidia 5200Go 64MB
User avatar
chrismortimore
 
Posts: 862
Joined: 2007-04-24 06:34
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Postby Pobega » 2007-05-09 10:59

tuomov wrote: * You could distribute packages that include the version in the name, and something like "may be out-dated" in the one-line description shown by e.g. apt-cache search.

That would fill up the repositories, and make APT a pain in the ass to use (I'd hate searching for something and finding 30 versions of it). I don't think the developers will change how they update the repositories for this one package.

tuomov wrote: * You could have the package display a notification that it may be out-dated (with dialog, or whatever is usually used).

Again, I don't think the developers will go out of their way to do this. Of course, nothing it stopping you from programming a utility into Ion3 that will warn the user when there is a new version on your site/their current version is 28 days old (Maybe put the release date in a file and compare it to the current date?)

tuomov wrote: * You could have the package (or install tools) actually check whether there's a new release (from Debian's site and mirrors, preferrably), and only notify then that the package is out-dated. I think this would generally be a good system to have, to notify of possible security issues etc., that have not yet been fixed. (Didn't Debian promise to take care of these promptly?)

APT already does this, using update-notifier. Of course, not everyone uses update-notifier, but once you go to install a package APT warns you that you have outdated packages; The only way to miss an update from Debian's repositories is if you just don't use APT.
Jabber: pobega@gmail.com
Pronunciation: Poh - Bay - Guh
User avatar
Pobega
 
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

Postby tuomov » 2007-05-09 11:25

Pobega wrote:That would fill up the repositories, and make APT a pain in the ass to use


It's done with the kernel.

Of course, nothing it stopping you from programming a utility into Ion3 that will warn the user when there is a new version on your site/their current version is 28 days old


This belongs in the installation phase; I don't like software "calling home" when you use it. In the installation phase, the package is downloaded in any case. Of course, Ion could check that only during first use of a new version, but users that get the package from my site know that it is the latest; it's the distributions that are the problem.

APT already does this, using update-notifier. Of course, not everyone uses update-notifier, but once you go to install a package APT warns you that you have outdated packages; The only way to miss an update from Debian's repositories is if you just don't use APT.


That was not the issue: the issue was that the package maintainer might not have time to make a new package within 28 days. But he should have time to insert a notification somewhere, that the present package is not up to date. Or he could simply just not press the dead man switch.

Also update-notifier seems to be for a completely different purpose: present users getting notifications of updates. Might I reiterate, that I don't care about users using old versions -- if some version works for them, fine -- they know when they installed it, and if they've been using it for very long, should know to look for a new version, if they run into problems. I care about new users getting old versions, or people having their Ion updated to old versions, when they want to install it for the first time, or update it. Same with significant modifications: users that have modified their own copy, know it; they don't necessarily know that the distribution has modified the version in such a manner, that the author wants to have nothing to do with it.
Last edited by tuomov on 2007-05-09 11:39, edited 1 time in total.
tuomov
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-07 19:57

Postby Pobega » 2007-05-09 11:57

tuomov wrote:
Pobega wrote:That would fill up the repositories, and make APT a pain in the ass to use


It's done with the kernel.

Wait - Packages in the Debian repositories are done in the kernel? I originally thought you meant that the package maintainers upload packages like ion-2.3.59, ion-2.3.62 for the package names.

tuomov wrote:
Of course, nothing it stopping you from programming a utility into Ion3 that will warn the user when there is a new version on your site/their current version is 28 days old


This belongs in the installation phase; I don't like software "calling home" when you use it. In the installation phase, the package is downloaded in any case. Of course, Ion could check that only during first use of a new version, but users that get the package from my site know that it is the latest; it's the distributions that are the problem.

Yeah, I don't like when software calls base either, and it's a dirty way to do it but I think it's the only way possible that would work on every distribution without having to go through conversations like this on eight different forums.

tuomov wrote:
APT already does this, using update-notifier. Of course, not everyone uses update-notifier, but once you go to install a package APT warns you that you have outdated packages; The only way to miss an update from Debian's repositories is if you just don't use APT.


That was not the issue: the issue was that the package maintainer might not have time to make a new package within 28 days. But he should have time to insert a notification somewhere, that the present package is not up to date. Or he could simply just not press the dead man switch.

Oh, okay, now I get what you mean. That would be a good idea I suppose, but I still think the program would just end up in non-free (I know you don't care though) and would just say "This version is not guaranteed to be up to date", or something along those lines. The only downfall to being in non-free is a lot of people (Including me) refuse to download from non-free unless it's completely nessecary (i.e. firmware for some hardware), but considering what you want to be the final result I guess that can't be a bad thing.

tuomov wrote:Also update-notifier seems to be for a completely different purpose: present users getting notifications of updates. Might I reiterate, that I don't care about users using old versions -- if some version works for them, fine -- they know when they installed it, and if they've been using it for very long, should know to look for a new version, if they run into problems. I care about new users getting old versions, or people having their Ion updated to old versions, when they want to install it for the first time, or update it. Same with significant modifications: users that have modified their own copy, know it; they don't necessarily know that the distribution has modified the version in such a manner, that the author wants to have nothing to do with it.

Well, you could always put something in Ion telling the person your homepage; And maybe grabbing the current version number against their current working version, and in bold red print echo "Your version of Ion is outdated and no longer supported by the original author". Again, we don't want to call home, but this is the best way to get the point across throughout all distributions in my opinion.
Jabber: pobega@gmail.com
Pronunciation: Poh - Bay - Guh
User avatar
Pobega
 
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

Postby tuomov » 2007-05-09 12:19

Pobega wrote:Wait - Packages in the Debian repositories are done in the kernel? I originally thought you meant that the package maintainers upload packages like ion-2.3.59, ion-2.3.62 for the package names.


Code: Select all
$ apt-cache search kernel-image
kernel-image-2.6.14 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.14.
kernel-image-2.6.7 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.7.
kernel-image-2.6.6 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.6.
... and the list goes on ...


(On second thoughts, those may be my custom kernel packages that stupid apt-cache includes in the list. There are various variants of the kernel in any case, and a few source versions.)

Yeah, I don't like when software calls base either, and it's a dirty way to do it but I think it's the only way possible that would work on every distribution without having to go through conversations like this on eight different forums.


It's the distributions' problem, and nagging is best done in the installation phase.
tuomov
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-07 19:57

PreviousNext

Return to Debian Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

fashionable