tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post4355427771449194786..comments2023-10-25T07:10:58.697-07:00Comments on Coder's Log: Shame Ubuntu shamezeenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04142631863736897222noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-28599525535580693502008-07-03T16:33:00.000-07:002008-07-03T16:33:00.000-07:00It's also worth noting that GNOME 2.22 went final ...It's also worth noting that GNOME 2.22 went final on March 12nd, and the Ubuntu 8.04 beta was published on March 20th. Due to the synchronized release schedules of the two projects, individual GNOME components land in the Ubuntu development branch in pieces all along the development cycle, and the final GNOME release is complete around time for the beta release. <BR/><BR/>This means that there was actually a full, released GNOME 2.22 that we could talk about in the beta release notes, as opposed to the alpha ones, where it made more sense to expose individual GNOME components as they arrived in Hardy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-91990108546170142552008-07-03T05:19:00.000-07:002008-07-03T05:19:00.000-07:00As the person who contributed the g-s-m blurb and ...As the person who contributed the g-s-m blurb and screenshot, among others, to the pre-beta release notes in question, I thought I'd point to some facts.<BR/><BR/>I found it appropriate to include the improvements in g-s-m in the Alpha 4 release notes because it was among the notable user-facing improvements that landed in Ubuntu Hardy between Alpha 3 and Alpha 4. I also find Steve's decision (as release manager) to remove my blurb correct, simply due to the very significant difference between the nature of the pre-beta milestone release notes and beta release notes. Ubuntu beta releases are typically exposed to an audience which is orders of magnitude larger than the audience testing the pre-beta milestones. This audience is also a different one in terms of their expectations from the OS they are about the test, their reasons for testing it, and the kind of contribution they can make to the release past that point, if any. Thus it makes every kind of sense to present them with a different, more consolidated set of notes regarding the new features. The g-s-m revamp was relevant information to a pre-beta milestone tester. It was not very relevant to a beta tester, at least not to the degree that necessitated including it as a separate item in the list of new features.<BR/><BR/>As Mark has pointed out, there has been no casual relation between Karl's request, (which was parallel with requests other upstreams and has been pointed to release note contributors and brought up in the last Ubuntu Development Summit by Jorge) and the removal of g-s-m from the list.<BR/><BR/>We've had a constructive session dedicated to the status of release notes and new feature listings (which we want to separate), with attendance of community contributors to these documents, Steve, Jorge, Jono and a group of Ubuntu developers, where we reviewed important criticisms regarding the release notes, including but not limited to concerns from upstreams regarding the credit given to them, last minute edits (improving the coordination - the GVFS blurb I had written was "updated" by someone else in the beta release notes at the very last minute, causing a lot of confusion and misinforming users - I take full responsibility for this going unnoticed), the distinction between "release notes" (which should consist more or less of errata, caveats, significant changes that may require user intervention in upgrades, and be of a technical nature) and the "new feature tour" (which should be oriented towards non-technical users). We have a list of action items (which I can provide at request) from this meeting whose fruits I'm sure you will be seeing in the release notes and new feature listings for Intrepid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-57082005690401048522008-07-01T02:22:00.000-07:002008-07-01T02:22:00.000-07:00Profane and sarcastic yep... I'll admit that, mayb...Profane and sarcastic yep... I'll admit that, maybe it would have been appropriate to drop the single profane word, but after reading your initial post it seemed that you were giving the wrong kind of example. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clear concise explanation as to why the feature was dropped (both yourself and anonymous). It seemed suspicious that it was removed in the way it was, but I will accept this explanation. <BR/><BR/>I've passed my telephone number onto your secretary in order for you to contact me directly. Please take this opportunity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-37422934071701461772008-06-30T20:07:00.000-07:002008-06-30T20:07:00.000-07:00https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyHeron/Beta?action=inf...https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyHeron/Beta?action=info<BR/><BR/>Ubuntu Wiki article history, article: HardyHeron/Beta<BR/><BR/>Article version 18, editor: SteveLangasek, edit summary: drop gnome-system-monitor - users don't choose OSes for system monitors<BR/><BR/>That's why it was dropped from wikiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-83234946207798913282008-06-30T11:51:00.000-07:002008-06-30T11:51:00.000-07:00Karl, I don't really know how to respond to your c...Karl, I don't really know how to respond to your comment. I gave one high profile example of a place where Ubuntu gives clear credit - not by any means the only place - and your response is profane and sarcastic.<BR/><BR/>I've spoken now with the folks who draft the release announcements. The specific feature you're talking about was dropped from the release announcement simply because the announcement was too long and we needed to focus on the items which would have the biggest impact on the most users, and that specific feature didn't make the cut. That editing was done by folks who had no involvement in your emails with other people in Ubuntu. There was absolutely no causality between you asking for a link to your personal link and your personal name rather than the Gnome name, and the removal of that feature from the announcement. None, whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>Now, there's lots of value in us figuring out how best to credit everyone who does amazing work in free software, with that work. I think Jorge, Jono, and others are very happy to speak for Ubuntu in this and to make sure we're doing the right thing. I would think Ubuntu has always tried to be outstanding in this regard, as I said earlier, but everyone is open to improving. But that conversation will be a lot more productive if it's not abusive, and if the goal is a shared one - to establish a best practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-78551185921035175572008-06-29T05:43:00.000-07:002008-06-29T05:43:00.000-07:00"We would never try to pretend that work done by s..."We would never try to pretend that work done by someone else, which we are bringing to a wider audience, was done by us."<BR/><BR/>This instance does not seem to reflect that stance at all. <BR/><BR/>"If you run Ubuntu, you'll know that we devote a very high-profile menu item to the "About GNOME" dialog box."<BR/><BR/>No more high profile than, erm, any GNOME desktop, on any distribution... hmm<BR/><BR/>So you're saying you've defended the an important part of GNOMEs attribution, and credits from being removed from Ubuntu?<BR/><BR/>Oh how very fucking brave of you...<BR/><BR/>lol, seriously if that's the best you've got to offer... It fails to justify anything, in fact it illustrates a mentality of others who work at canonical to start taking credit for the whole GNOME stack.<BR/><BR/>Removing that _STANDARD MENU ITEM_ I don't think is a fair option to ever be considered, and it points to a climate of /taking credit/ rather than /giving credit/<BR/><BR/>Would you like me to take that spade off you so you don't dig yourself in any deeper?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-14910379013026697842008-06-29T04:45:00.000-07:002008-06-29T04:45:00.000-07:00I actually had to check...sabdfl is Mark Shuttlewo...I actually had to check...<BR/><BR/>sabdfl is Mark Shuttleworth.<BR/><BR/>Now this unfortunate fracas will probably end up getting picked up by some old-world ("mainstream") computers rags as well. Controversies sell ad space. :-(<BR/><BR/>Your next move, Lattimer and Zeenix?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-67185750658231966862008-06-29T00:04:00.000-07:002008-06-29T00:04:00.000-07:00I don't yet have all the facts behind the decision...I don't yet have all the facts behind the decision, but I can see that you would have reason to be upset if they are as you describe. I can also see that the release managers may have felt it better not to get into a situation where they set a precedent of having to meet every request like this for any feature in a release of GNOME which becomes a release of Ubuntu. I've asked the Ubuntu team to let me know what factored into their decision, and will come back to your blog with some answers in due course.<BR/><BR/>In the meanwhile, I'd like to comment from my own perspective. At Ubuntu we see ourselves as working very hard to bring innovation in the free software community to a wider audience than it would otherwise receive. And that's a unique contribution that we can make. Everyone plays their part in the ecosystem, everyone makes the contribution that they are most interested in doing, the thing they will find personally most rewarding and satisfying. In the case of Ubuntu, we want to bring the brilliant work of the whole community to the world, predictably and smoothly. That in itself is, I think, an amazing contribution to the open source world - remember what it was like without that? When you had to wait an uncertain amount of time before you could have a fully-supported, properly maintained secure distro of your recent releases? I feel good about the contribution we make just on that level, so it hurts to be accused that "Canonical only makes a meager contribution". If we didn't do the work we do, lots of people wouldn't actually have GNOME on their desktops, lots of bugs would not get filed, the system would not improve at the same rate. Just because we think it is important for us to focus more on that than, say, X or kernel development, is not a good basis for accusing Canonical of not contributing. In this world, we need both farmers and chefs.<BR/><BR/>We would never try to pretend that work done by someone else, which we are bringing to a wider audience, was done by us. And we have a good track record of celebrating, very publicly, the contributions of individuals who have done brilliant work. That's the best way to say thank you and also the best way to encourage more innovation, more perspiration, more participation. I can point to plenty of examples where this sort of public praise, thanks and credit has been made.<BR/><BR/>In this specific case, I'll find out why the team chose to drop the feature from the release announcement. I am absolutely sure it was not out of a desire to take credit for someone else's work. It may have been that the team did not want to set a precedent for the final release in the actual announcement, as opposed to on the web site.<BR/><BR/>If you run Ubuntu, you'll know that we devote a very high-profile menu item to the "About GNOME" dialog box. I've defended that on many occasions, because I think it's vital that a distribution be a conduit for people back to the original projects that actually provide a home for the innovation that makes free software potent. Yes, Canonical does innovate, and does contribute upstream, and it is pretty revolting to read community leaders twisting facts to suggest otherwise. But we recognise that the vast majority of the amazingness in any distro release has come from the work of thousands of OTHER folks, whether that be GNOME, KDE, GNU, kernel, X, Debian or any of the hundreds of communities that help shape the free software platform today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-53488275698271151802008-06-28T19:23:00.000-07:002008-06-28T19:23:00.000-07:00This is the dumbest blog entry I've seen for a ver...This is the dumbest blog entry I've seen for a very long time;). I felt forced to comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-83501864187527631912008-06-28T16:26:00.000-07:002008-06-28T16:26:00.000-07:00"As no other distribution included this I think it..."As no other distribution included this I think its fair to simply ignore them."<BR/><BR/>Ok, so let me get this right. You prefer distros that completely ignore your hard work? At least ubuntu pointed out your hard work for others to see...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-89793103345842109622008-06-28T09:34:00.000-07:002008-06-28T09:34:00.000-07:00Get over yourself. Does your ego really need this ...Get over yourself. Does your ego really need this much stroking?<BR/><BR/>The community needs people to work together. This sort of divisive attention seeking is distracting and counterproductive to the goal of creating better software.<BR/><BR/>Keep contributing and producing great software and recognition will come by itself; you don't need to demand recognition. Nobody likes a whiner.Kennethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324635210368849845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-79151764365308620052008-06-28T08:45:00.000-07:002008-06-28T08:45:00.000-07:00Post polarizing garbage to planet.gnome.org and po...Post polarizing garbage to planet.gnome.org and polarized garbage you get in comments. Shame on zeeshan?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for tearing community even more apart than it was before.<BR/><BR/>Howabout trying to get things fixed rather than brake them even more?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-74796683572642964562008-06-28T07:17:00.000-07:002008-06-28T07:17:00.000-07:00..and Ubuntu ships binary blob junk, left right an.....and Ubuntu ships binary blob junk, left right and center. Right ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-89070521312714048272008-06-28T07:08:00.000-07:002008-06-28T07:08:00.000-07:00uhh, Ubuntu submits patches upstream ??uhh, Ubuntu submits patches upstream ??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-54881222427250824722008-06-28T05:39:00.000-07:002008-06-28T05:39:00.000-07:00Ubuntu constantly contributes to upstream. We fil...Ubuntu constantly contributes to upstream. We file bugs in launchpad, and then we file them upstream. We link them together using launchpad so that when we update one of the bug trackers the other one gets updated.<BR/><BR/>Stop the fud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-18527545922444498902008-06-28T05:12:00.000-07:002008-06-28T05:12:00.000-07:00Dear Karl, dear Zeenix,how can you be sure they dr...Dear Karl, dear Zeenix,<BR/><BR/>how can you be sure they dropped you from the beta release notes based on you credit request?<BR/><BR/>And if so have you ever thought that they did because they can't listen any distributor from any package?<BR/><BR/>The only thing your were right that they have to do a better communication on such requests or may creating a thanks to page that listing all developers and contributors.<BR/><BR/>BTW i can't see any word about your great work on the Gnome System Monitor in Fedora 9 or OpenSuse 11.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-10938498765028713362008-06-28T02:27:00.000-07:002008-06-28T02:27:00.000-07:00The email conversation --On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 21:...The email conversation --<BR/><BR/>On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 21:15 -0500, Jorge O. Castro wrote:<BR/>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyHeron/Alpha6<BR/>> <BR/>> I can't find a page for gnome-system-monitor, shall I just link up to<BR/>> gnome.org?<BR/><BR/>To be honest, on this one I put in the effort, without a company<BR/>affiliation, I think it might be nice to attribute it to me :)<BR/><BR/>K,<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Result;<BR/><BR/> * NO REPLY FROM JORGE!<BR/> * Item removed from release notesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-21406382757142730212008-06-28T01:13:00.000-07:002008-06-28T01:13:00.000-07:00Shame!?I find it somewhat unfortunate that a whole...Shame!?<BR/><BR/>I find it somewhat unfortunate that a whole project is publically ragged into disrepute due to what was probably the decision of a single maintainer.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Mr Lattimer and the Ubuntu maintainer in question or other Ubuntu representatives really exhausted private avenues to settle this issue before grabbing the megaphone.<BR/><BR/>Both parties certainly have some valid arguments on their side, and against them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-45310710671147151582008-06-27T22:23:00.000-07:002008-06-27T22:23:00.000-07:00Most of the comments here just keep repeating the ...Most of the comments here just keep repeating the same off-the-mark points over and over.<BR/><BR/>The complaint posted at PGO had nothing to do with not being credited. The complaint had to be dropped altogether from the list of new features in response to e-mail from the author.<BR/><BR/>We can only guess what the author wrote in those mails, but why was his program dropped altogether from the list? This is the only question you need to consider.<BR/><BR/>At least his program was mentioned for the beta, that's a little credit for him. Then he asks if could be credited in full and they <I>remove <B>all</B> his credit</I> (apart from the obscure logs). If the two latter events are causal, it's obviously a hostile reaction and <I>this reaction is the center of question, nothing else</I>. Whether he deserves full credit in the announcement or not <I>is entirely irrelevant to the question posed by Zeenix</I>.<BR/><BR/>Also, why is it illegitimate to criticize Ubuntu on PGO as certain people here imply? I find that a little disturbing. And the guy writing "These last few days I really wish you were not on planet gnome." - go Anonymous coward, go!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-74219386429220910262008-06-27T21:52:00.000-07:002008-06-27T21:52:00.000-07:00Whatever happened there, maybe this code is sill i...Whatever happened there, maybe this code is sill in beta maybe the guy you mention could not well self-market. <BR/><BR/>But I just stop here to say one thing I am most un-happy with Maemo about. <BR/><BR/>Maemo community at large sets Ubuntu as an Open Source idol, but that how Maemo got it wrong. <BR/><BR/>Ubuntu does not believe in Upstream and Ubuntu does not give back to community.<BR/><BR/>In that regard it appears OpenSuse or Fedora Project are much better. <BR/><BR/>Save Maemo by correcting its role models and by Making it a true FOSS upstream of ITOS. Start today !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-89082148103029362062008-06-27T21:51:00.000-07:002008-06-27T21:51:00.000-07:00"Plus if you don't like it, stop writing GPL code ..."Plus if you don't like it, stop writing GPL code and that's it."<BR/><BR/>Most likely written from someone who doesn't do any GPL coding. This is not something we want to propagate. Obviously the writer of this comment doesn't understand the huge benefits gained from the GPL ecosystem. People are taking it for granted as a given.<BR/> <BR/>I like Rob Taylor's post about respecting upstream because the truth is if you are getting most things from upstream and you tell them to bugger off they might just take you up on that and in the end you are a left with nothing. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.<BR/><BR/>I am very disappointed in the disrespect given by some of these posts for someone who essentially gives his time to benefit those posters. It seems what is supposed to be a gift culture is turning into the give me culture. But then again I'm heartened by the fact that it is simply propagated by the vocal anonymous coward minority.<BR/><BR/>I would also like to address the complete BS rewrite of history the XFree86 comment brought up. X.org was formed mainly because one person on the XFree86 team was holding back the modernisation of X and making brash, illogical decisions. Kicking Keith Packard, one of the most productive and respected hackers out of XFree was the last straw which prompted a majority of the X developers to jump ship and form X.org. In the end the people who deserved credit got it. If you are going to come to an argument please come armed with facts otherwise you are just some banana republic trying to argue on the assumptions of your own distorted world-view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-38674243782209616802008-06-27T17:55:00.000-07:002008-06-27T17:55:00.000-07:00"The Ubuntu developers are moving very quickly to ..."The Ubuntu developers are moving very quickly to bring you the<BR/>absolute latest and greatest software the Open Source Community has to offer. "<BR/><BR/>That's about it, they do not say they made everything themselves...<BR/><BR/>Plus if you don't like it, stop writing GPL code and that's it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-36916734841674466692008-06-27T17:53:00.000-07:002008-06-27T17:53:00.000-07:00Hmm, Jorge says the release notes had the links in...Hmm, Jorge says the release notes had the links in and I believe him, so my above rant is probably invalid (though http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/804features certainly doesn't have that many links, though at least most projects that implement the features are mentioned by name)<BR/><BR/>The point still holds however - its in the interest of every open source downstream to highlight and promote their upstreams. I think downstreams could do more work in this respect and upstreams could do more in terms of providing community entrance points for upstreams to use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-61323571682317427982008-06-27T17:36:00.000-07:002008-06-27T17:36:00.000-07:00The discussion we had was simply to link features ...The discussion we had was simply to link features talked about in their marketing material to the relevant projects. No big credits, no big hassle, would be good as entry points for newcomers to the community, would be good for all. But the end result was that Karl trying to make this point resulted in this rather than a constructive outcome.<BR/><BR/>I like Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but really, why not provide a) recognition of the open source projects they tout as major features and b) why not contribute back in this simple way.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The same argument could go for a lot of distros and other packagers of open source projects - its a win-win situation to provide a small help to stimulating individual projects. Is bravado really more important than making your source material stronger?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575421168816814786.post-41519382589251058372008-06-27T17:28:00.000-07:002008-06-27T17:28:00.000-07:00Its incredible how much people have missed the poi...Its incredible how much people have missed the point of this.<BR/><BR/>The point is that they were marketing my work as their own. As no other distribution included this I think its fair to simply ignore them. Even though I use one of those distributions, I didn't expect attribution from them because they weren't using it for marketing purposes.<BR/><BR/>Ubuntu were using it for marketing purposes, and they were implying they had done the work.<BR/><BR/>I think the Ubuntu trolls need to wake up to the fact that all Ubuntu ever did was make it easy enough for you lot to use linux without whining about the basics...<BR/><BR/>The rest of us were already users, and developers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com