[opensuse-project] openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
26 Jul
2010
26 Jul
'10
21:00
Hi all!
Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals
submitted by you, our beloved community. The first one is the "Linux
Distribution Platform Strategy":
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
=== openSUSE, the Linux distribution platform ===
== Goals ==
The goal of openSUSE as a project is to provide a platform for
distributing Linux and software running on Linux to a wide range of
users. This platform consists of tools for creating software
distributions, the openSUSE distribution as base and reference
implementation, and the community supporting the tools and the distribution.
On top of the platform the openSUSE universe consists of more specific
distributions, which make use of openSUSE infrastructure and technology.
Examples are SLES, MeeGo, openSUSE Education, KDE and GNOME live
systems, and could also be for example developer or cloud oriented
distributions and more. So openSUSE provides a way for subteams to
address specific user groups and needs. openSUSE also provides means to
distribute software independent of the environment of the user to spread
Linux based software and make software easily available for use in the
openSUSE distribution and systems based on it.
The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference distribution, providing an
environment for testing the used technology, a stabilizing ground for
common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology and
distributing Linux software. It's targeted at technically interested
users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
on good user experience and making technology available to end users. It
doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
== Activities ==
= Essentials =
* Provide stable set of supported core packages distributions can build
on
* Broad hardware support of components and platforms
* Provide tools for package and distribution building and testing
(e.g. openSUSE Build Service)
* Provide common building blocks for distribution, e.g. installer,
configuration tool, maintenance tools, development tools for web,
native and other applications, and more
* Provide home for overall community and specific openSUSE teams, e.g.
bug tracker, wiki, mailing lists, collaboration tools
* Create the official openSUSE distribution as reference implementation
* Enable, support, and collaborate with specific teams to create their
own distributions
* Enable and support, and collaborate with upstream developers to build
and distribute their software on openSUSE
= Good to have =
* Provide wide variety of packages for further use
* Community for user support
* Work on standards which make it easier to mix components, e.g. free
desktop standards
* Collaboration with other distribution platforms
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
* Bleeding edge technology
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o
openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12
PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9
prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
27 Jul
27 Jul
09:30
Pavol Rusnak wrote:
Hi all!
Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals
submitted by you, our beloved community. The first one is the "Linux
Distribution Platform Strategy":
FYI, it is the height of the European summer holidays, it might not be
the best time to start such a discussion.
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (15.4°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
11:50
On Monday 26 July 2010 22:00:55 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
Hi all!
Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals
submitted by you, our beloved community. The first one is the "Linux
Distribution Platform Strategy":
[...]
All in all a great proposal, I have some clarifying questions and comments.
* Broad hardware support of components and platforms
So, what is the stance on Sparc, HPPA, Arm - do we want all of these as core
part of the project?
* Provide tools for package and distribution building
and testing
(e.g. openSUSE Build Service)
* Provide common building blocks for distribution, e.g. installer,
configuration tool, maintenance tools, development tools for web,
native and other applications, and more
* Provide home for overall community and specific openSUSE teams, e.g.
bug tracker, wiki, mailing lists, collaboration tools
We currently do not provide a complete home, e.g. there's no source
repository. I don't expect that the proposal wants to change this but like to
make it clear that we cannot provide a "complete home".
* Create the official openSUSE distribution as
reference implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd like to
see
this a bit better explained. Reference for what?
Also, isn't the distribution more than just a reference? It's a usable
distribution...
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj(a){novell.com,opensuse.org}
Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
14:01
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 12:50:48 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I think if somebody is doing the work to support one of these platforms it
should be welcomed by the project, but I don't think that any of these
platforms should be an explicit part of the strategy. We shouldn't rule out
any platforms either, of course.
It's a reference for what you can do with openSUSE, so it's of course a usable
distribution, but it's not the only possible distribution you can build using
the tools, packages and other infrastructure of openSUSE. Reference is meant
as a standard example what the openSUSE platform is capable to do.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
* Broad hardware support of components and
platforms
So, what is the stance on Sparc, HPPA, Arm - do we want all of these as
core part of the project? We currently do not provide a complete home, e.g.
there's no source
repository. I don't expect that the proposal wants to change this but like
to make it clear that we cannot provide a "complete home".
Yes, the home for handling the distribution parts is important, but a full
upstream code hosting platform is out of the scope of openSUSE, I think.
* Create the
official openSUSE distribution as reference implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd like to
see this a bit better explained. Reference for what?
Also, isn't the distribution more than just a reference? It's a usable
distribution... 
28 Jul
28 Jul
09:46
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 15:01:28 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
It's a reference for what you can do with openSUSE, so it's of course a usable
distribution, but it's not the only possible distribution you can build using
the tools, packages and other infrastructure of openSUSE. Reference is meant
as a standard example what the openSUSE platform is capable to do.
So the focus does not lay here anymore, but on developing the tools to let developers
build and distribute their software. The fact openSUSE has a bunch of reference
implementations is secondairy.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 12:50:48 Andreas Jaeger
wrote:
I think if somebody is doing the work to support one of these platforms it
should be welcomed by the project, but I don't think that any of these
platforms should be an explicit part of the strategy. We shouldn't rule out
any platforms either, of course.
So it should focus on integrating very well with platforms like gitorious, sourceforge and
launchpad?!?
* Broad hardware support of components and
platforms
So, what is the stance on Sparc, HPPA, Arm - do we want all of these as
core part of the project? We currently do not provide a complete home, e.g.
there's no source
repository. I don't expect that the proposal wants to change this but like
to make it clear that we cannot provide a "complete home".
Yes, the home for handling the distribution parts is important, but a full
upstream code hosting platform is out of the scope of openSUSE, I think. * Create the official openSUSE distribution as
reference implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd like to
see this a bit better explained. Reference for what?
Also, isn't the distribution more than just a reference? It's a usable
distribution...
29 Jul
29 Jul
10:52
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 10:46:32 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
I wouldn't call it secondary. I think having a strong distribution still
should be a primary focus of the openSUSE community as a whole. This is where
it's proven, if all the platform work actually works, so we definitely need
it.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 15:01:28 Cornelius Schumacher
wrote:
This definitely is an important part. As Rajko said in another email in this
thread this is an area which currently lacks and should be improved.
Yes, the home for handling the distribution parts is important, but a
full upstream code hosting platform is out of the scope of openSUSE, I
think.
So it should focus on integrating very well with platforms like gitorious,
sourceforge and launchpad?!? It's a
reference for what you can do with openSUSE, so it's of course a
usable distribution, but it's not the only possible distribution you can
build using the tools, packages and other infrastructure of openSUSE.
Reference is meant as a standard example what the openSUSE platform is
capable to do.
So the focus does not lay here anymore, but on developing the tools to let
developers build and distribute their software. The fact openSUSE has a
bunch of reference implementations is secondairy.
27 Jul
27 Jul
15:25
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
* Create the
official openSUSE distribution as reference
implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd like
to see this a bit better explained. Reference for what? From wikipedia:
In the software development
process, a reference implementation is the
standard from which all other implementations, with their attendant
customizations, are measured, and to which all improvements are added.
Also, isn't the distribution more than just a
reference? It's a
usable distribution...
ntpd is the reference implementation of the ntp protocol, but it is also
a very useful product.
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (15.4°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
18:41
Per Jessen wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
From wikipedia:
In the software development process, a reference implementation is the
standard from which all other implementations, with their attendant
customizations, are measured, and to which all improvements are added.
The reference implementation is the measuring stick that everybody else
uses. "Are we as good as or better than openSUSE?"
To me it means it means we need to excellent in <whatever we define as
core>, good in <what most users would like to do with opensuse> and
reasonably suitable for <everything else>. I understand that there is
no current standard definition to strive towards, but that is our
opportunity to set it!
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (15.4°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
* Create
the official openSUSE distribution as reference
implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd
like
to see this a bit better explained. Reference for what? 
21:08
On Tuesday 2010-07-27 19:41, Per Jessen wrote:
From wikipedia:
In the software development process, a reference implementation is the
standard from which all other implementations, with their attendant
customizations, are measured, and to which all improvements are added.
The reference implementation is the measuring stick that everybody else
uses. "Are we as good as or better than openSUSE?"
The reference implementation is what's obsolete after a few years
usually. Can't let that happen to openSUSE, happened with Debian, sort
of.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
* Create
the official openSUSE distribution as reference
implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd
like
to see this a bit better explained. Reference for what?
28 Jul
28 Jul
07:04
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2010-07-27 19:41, Per Jessen wrote:
The reference implementation is the measuring stick that everybody
else uses. "Are we as good as or better than openSUSE?"
The reference implementation is what's obsolete after a few years
usually. Can't let that happen to openSUSE, happened with Debian, sort
of.
It can't be obsolete and be a refimpl at the same time, it's as easy as
that. When the standard(s) move, the refimpl has to lead the way.
Anyway, because we don't actually have a standard, we have to set it -
if we can't meet our own standards, we've lost the game before it
starts :-(
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (15.4°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
> * Create the official openSUSE distribution
as reference
> implementation
The "as reference implementation" strikes me as a bit odd and I'd
like
to see this a bit better explained. Reference for what?
From wikipedia:
In the software development process, a reference implementation is
the standard from which all other implementations, with their
attendant customizations, are measured, and to which all
improvements are added. 
07:50
On Monday 26 July 2010 22:00:55 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On top of the platform
the openSUSE universe
consists of more specific
distributions, which make
use of openSUSE
infrastructure and technology.
Examples are SLES, MeeGo,
openSUSE Education,
KDE and GNOME live
systems, and could also be for
example developer
or cloud oriented
distributions and more.
This sounds a
description of the status quo. What other derivatives do you have in mind
that would actually represent a growth in overall openSUSE-derived
distributions? How would you measure the potential success of this
strategy?
The only really popular derivative distributions that I'm aware
of are the legally dubious ones that include all the binary drivers, codecs
and firmware out of the box. I'm consciously omitting Debian-Ubuntu from
this because the enormous amount of work invested to make Debian into Ubuntu
makes this unlikely to happen to a reference openSUSE, unless MeeGo bases
completely on us. If that's seen as a realistic aim for this proposal, we
should be honest about it and rename it 'Hook Up With MeeGo' :).
Will
--
Will Stephenson, openSUSE Team
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG
Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
08:15
Am Mittwoch, 28. Juli 2010, 08:50:44 schrieb Will Stephenson:
On Monday 26 July 2010 22:00:55 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
I think Pavol was thinking more of a 'Spin' way of doing things as Fedora
does, but in opensuse one could use the leverage of hazzlefree added obs repos
without having it to put right into openSUSE:Factory or making an external
repository with hard to maintain consitency to the mainline distribution.
As Edu does it right now I think.
For example Fedora tries besides the obvious desktop spins are hardware design
and emulation platform: http://spins.fedoraproject.org/fel/
For more see http://spins.fedoraproject.org/
Problem with Fedora is you need to push these into the official repos afaik,
with obs this could be done much more quickly, dump your special package group
into it's own repo and use kiwi or suse studio to produce a livecd.
But these pieces are mostly already in place imho, there is nothing much to do
here beside get people to create these derivates.
btw this sounds like a rehash of http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-
project/2010-06/msg00694.html except it sounds more like keeping the current
opensuse state as a useful bundle by itself already for regular desktop users.
Karsten
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
On top of the platform
the openSUSE universe consists of more specific
distributions, which make
use of openSUSE infrastructure and technology.
Examples are SLES, MeeGo,
openSUSE Education, KDE and GNOME live
systems, and could also be for
example developer or cloud oriented
distributions and more.
This sounds a
description of the status quo. What other derivatives do you have in mind
that would actually represent a growth in overall openSUSE-derived
distributions? How would you measure the potential success of this
strategy?
The only really popular derivative distributions that I'm aware
of are the legally dubious ones that include all the binary drivers, codecs
and firmware out of the box. I'm consciously omitting Debian-Ubuntu from
this because the enormous amount of work invested to make Debian into
Ubuntu makes this unlikely to happen to a reference openSUSE, unless MeeGo
bases completely on us. If that's seen as a realistic aim for this
proposal, we should be honest about it and rename it 'Hook Up With MeeGo'
:).
Will
09:50
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 08:50:44 Will Stephenson wrote:
On Monday 26 July 2010 22:00:55 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
If I understand the strategy correctly, this one is not about providing a base to develop
spins on (like the 'base for deriviates' strategy) but a platform to distribute
software with and on for a variety of distributions, targeting developers. So very much
focussing on techies, software developers, thus, and not, as the base for
deriviates-strategy, focussing on endusers (through the spins). In this strategy the spins
are just reference implementations, which might be great in themselves but aren't the
core focus of the community.
On top of the platform
the openSUSE
universe consists of more specific
distributions, which make
use of openSUSE
infrastructure and technology.
Examples are SLES, MeeGo,
openSUSE
Education, KDE and GNOME live
systems, and could also be for
example
developer or cloud oriented
distributions and more.
This sounds a
description of the status quo. What other derivatives do you have in mind
that would actually represent a growth in overall openSUSE-derived
distributions? How would you measure the potential success of this
strategy?
The only really popular derivative distributions that I'm aware
of are the legally dubious ones that include all the binary drivers, codecs
and firmware out of the box. I'm consciously omitting Debian-Ubuntu from
this because the enormous amount of work invested to make Debian into Ubuntu
makes this unlikely to happen to a reference openSUSE, unless MeeGo bases
completely on us. If that's seen as a realistic aim for this proposal, we
should be honest about it and rename it 'Hook Up With MeeGo' :). Will
--
Will Stephenson, openSUSE Team
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG
Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
08:26
Heya,
I like this idea even though to me it seems like a rehash of the 'base for
derivates' idea.
Still I am wondering what will happen with the desktops? As a base you sure
need to offer a desktop environment in these times, and people sure want to
mix in gnome, kde and other gui applications, so will these be kept inside or
outside of the 'reference'?
Then most packages aren't really disjunct, so where do I put a library that is
used by two project at once? Will I have to link my project to like 5 other
projects so I can pull in all the dependencies? Will I just _link to the
specific library and thus result in serious obs load?
So if we keep it the current way inviting more 'spins' I'd be fine with
that
as these can mostly be kept completely seperate from the factory tree, but
'core packages distributions can build on' doesn't sound that way to me.
Regards,
Karsten
Am Montag, 26. Juli 2010, 22:00:55 schrieb Pavol Rusnak:
Hi all!
Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals
submitted by you, our beloved community. The first one is the "Linux
Distribution Platform Strategy":
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
=== openSUSE, the Linux distribution platform ===
== Goals ==
The goal of openSUSE as a project is to provide a platform for
distributing Linux and software running on Linux to a wide range of
users. This platform consists of tools for creating software
distributions, the openSUSE distribution as base and reference
implementation, and the community supporting the tools and the
distribution.
On top of the platform the openSUSE universe consists of more specific
distributions, which make use of openSUSE infrastructure and technology.
Examples are SLES, MeeGo, openSUSE Education, KDE and GNOME live
systems, and could also be for example developer or cloud oriented
distributions and more. So openSUSE provides a way for subteams to
address specific user groups and needs. openSUSE also provides means to
distribute software independent of the environment of the user to spread
Linux based software and make software easily available for use in the
openSUSE distribution and systems based on it.
The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference distribution, providing an
environment for testing the used technology, a stabilizing ground for
common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology and
distributing Linux software. It's targeted at technically interested
users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
on good user experience and making technology available to end users. It
doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
== Activities ==
= Essentials =
* Provide stable set of supported core packages distributions can build
on
* Broad hardware support of components and platforms
* Provide tools for package and distribution building and testing
(e.g. openSUSE Build Service)
* Provide common building blocks for distribution, e.g. installer,
configuration tool, maintenance tools, development tools for web,
native and other applications, and more
* Provide home for overall community and specific openSUSE teams, e.g.
bug tracker, wiki, mailing lists, collaboration tools
* Create the official openSUSE distribution as reference implementation
* Enable, support, and collaborate with specific teams to create their
own distributions
* Enable and support, and collaborate with upstream developers to build
and distribute their software on openSUSE
= Good to have =
* Provide wide variety of packages for further use
* Community for user support
* Work on standards which make it easier to mix components, e.g. free
desktop standards
* Collaboration with other distribution platforms
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
* Bleeding edge technology
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
16:43
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 09:26:33 Karsten König wrote:
Heya,
I like this idea even though to me it seems like a rehash of the 'base for
derivates' idea.
Right, both proposals were pretty close and we merged them
into this one. So,
there is no derivates proposal anymore.
best
M
Still I am wondering what will happen with the desktops? As a base you sure
need to offer a desktop environment in these times, and people sure want to
mix in gnome, kde and other gui applications, so will these be kept inside
or outside of the 'reference'?
Then most packages aren't really disjunct, so where do I put a library that
is used by two project at once? Will I have to link my project to like 5
other projects so I can pull in all the dependencies? Will I just _link to
the specific library and thus result in serious obs load?
So if we keep it the current way inviting more 'spins' I'd be fine with
that as these can mostly be kept completely seperate from the factory
tree, but 'core packages distributions can build on' doesn't sound that
way to me.
Regards,
Karsten
Am Montag, 26. Juli 2010, 22:00:55 schrieb Pavol Rusnak:
> Hi all!
>
> Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals
> submitted by you, our beloved community. The first one is the "Linux
> Distribution Platform Strategy":
>
> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
>
> === openSUSE, the Linux distribution platform ===
>
> == Goals ==
>
> The goal of openSUSE as a project is to provide a platform for
> distributing Linux and software running on Linux to a wide range of
> users. This platform consists of tools for creating software
> distributions, the openSUSE distribution as base and reference
> implementation, and the community supporting the tools and the
> distribution.
>
> On top of the platform the openSUSE universe consists of more specific
> distributions, which make use of openSUSE infrastructure and technology.
> Examples are SLES, MeeGo, openSUSE Education, KDE and GNOME live
> systems, and could also be for example developer or cloud oriented
> distributions and more. So openSUSE provides a way for subteams to
> address specific user groups and needs. openSUSE also provides means to
> distribute software independent of the environment of the user to spread
> Linux based software and make software easily available for use in the
> openSUSE distribution and systems based on it.
>
> The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference distribution, providing an
> environment for testing the used technology, a stabilizing ground for
> common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology and
> distributing Linux software. It's targeted at technically interested
> users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
> on good user experience and making technology available to end users. It
> doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
>
> == Activities ==
>
> = Essentials =
>
> * Provide stable set of supported core packages distributions can build
>
> on
>
> * Broad hardware support of components and platforms
> * Provide tools for package and distribution building and testing
>
> (e.g. openSUSE Build Service)
>
> * Provide common building blocks for distribution, e.g. installer,
>
> configuration tool, maintenance tools, development tools for web,
> native and other applications, and more
>
> * Provide home for overall community and specific openSUSE teams, e.g.
>
> bug tracker, wiki, mailing lists, collaboration tools
>
> * Create the official openSUSE distribution as reference implementation
> * Enable, support, and collaborate with specific teams to create their
>
> own distributions
>
> * Enable and support, and collaborate with upstream developers to build
>
> and distribute their software on openSUSE
>
> = Good to have =
>
> * Provide wide variety of packages for further use
> * Community for user support
> * Work on standards which make it easier to mix components, e.g. free
>
> desktop standards
>
> * Collaboration with other distribution platforms
>
> = No focus =
>
> * Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
> * Bleeding edge technology
>
> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
--
Michael Löffler, Product Management
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
08:53
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
All in all, seems like a good proposal, but a couple of comments that
immediately come to mind for me are below:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:00:55 +0200, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference
distribution, providing an
environment for testing the used technology, a stabilizing ground for
common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology and
distributing Linux software. It's targeted at technically interested
users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
on good user experience and making technology available to end users. It
doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
To me, "good user experience" isn't very specific, and in some ways might
come across as contradicting the "no focus" area of "non-technical
users"
- not that technical users can't have a good user experience, but that
there's an implication of 'polish' that's more associated with a non-
technical audience. I hope that makes sense, because it seems at the
moment to not be easy to explain what I mean.
== Activities ==
= Essentials =
[...]
* Broad hardware support of components and platforms
I agree with the comments Andreas and Cornelius made with regards to
other architectures. It might be good to spell that out a bit more
clearly that contributions for non-x86/x86_64 platforms (and whatever
else is considered "standard") are welcome but not guaranteed to be
provided (or something to that effect).
= Good to have =
[...]
* Community for user support
I would consider this essential. Without a community for user support,
there's no feedback mechanism to improve the reference distribution. It
also seems odd to not have this listed as "essential" since providing the
home for the community is considered essential. Put another way, if
having a user support community isn't essential, then why invest the time
and resources in providing the home for that community (not that I think
providing the home isn't essential - I provide the counterexample to
demonstrate this point only).
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
I think we do this now with the main distribution, and that to an extent,
this is an essential goal as well (or at least "good to have") because it
provides a basis for the derivatives to provide that polish. I guess
this perhaps needs to be more specifically defined for me as to what
isn't/wouldn't be included. I couldn't even say what I would take as
implied as not being provided by this statement.
* Bleeding edge technology
With the pace of OSS development, what's considered bleeding edge today
may not be in a month. It might be helpful to have some examples
presented in this discussion to help clarify what might not be included
and how a determination would be made as to when something was no longer
considered "bleeding edge" and would be considered for inclusion. Of
course, I'm thinking in terms a a general guideline, not a hard and fast
rule, because obviously everything's going to be a little different.
For example, some things that may have been included in the past that
might be considered bleeding edge are things like ext4, btrfs, the
original updater that evolved from red-carpet (the first one that was
implemented in Mono back in the 10.x days - back when the resolver spiked
CPU utilization for extended periods of time for many users), beagle, and
even KDE4 (not in its current state, but when it was added to 11.2).
Those technologies might at their inclusion have been considered
"technology previews".
Most of these technologies are no longer considered bleeding edge by the
majority of users (btrfs might be the only exception to that). I mention
them not to "open old wounds" but as examples where the project has
included technologies in a release that may have been considered bleeding
edge at the time. I'm not making any judgments here about the
technologies themselves - but part of the issue I have with this
statement is that 'bleeding edge' in and of itself can be in the eye of
the beholder. For example, while some users may consider KDE4 at the
11.2 release to have been bleeding edge, it's very possible that the dev
team didn't consider it to be because they'd been using it regularly - in
other words, it's can be a matter of perspective, and the perspective
used to apply this label needs to be defined in order for the statement
to have any real meaning.
It might make more sense instead of saying there's no focus on bleeding
edge technology to clearly mark anything that's a technology preview as
such and include it with those caveats. That way, that newer technology
can be tested by those who want to do so, but they know that they are
essentially alpha- or beta- testing. (Of course, it could be argued that
those who do that should be using Factory instead of a numbered release -
and perhaps it will be.)
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
09:17
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 09:53:32 Jim Henderson wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me.
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Ubuntu.
For the definition of what a non-technical end-user is, I like to think of
this as as somebody who never bought a computer magazine. What that then
implies for the actual products, needs to be worked out, but it won't involve
problems like explaining how to use a mouse or what a harddisk is.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:00:55 +0200, Pavol Rusnak
wrote:
Good user experience isn't very specific, that's right. But the important part
is that it is a focus. That we actually care about the experience of the user
and take this into account when taking decisions about what to do and how to
do it. What this means in details of course has to be worked out, but if this
is a serious direction, this is just a natural part of development.
I don't think it's a contradiction to not focusing on non-technical end users.
These are orthogonal issues. Focus on good user experience is one thing, which
users are our target group is another thing. The "polish" will be different
dependent on the target group, but it needs to be done to provide a good
experience in any case.
The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference
distribution, providing an
environment for testing the used technology, a stabilizing ground for
common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology and
distributing Linux software. It's targeted at technically interested
users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
on good user experience and making technology available to end users. It
doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
To me, "good user experience" isn't very specific, and in some ways might
come across as contradicting the "no focus" area of "non-technical
users"
- not that technical users can't have a good user experience, but that
there's an implication of 'polish' that's more associated with a
non-
technical audience. I hope that makes sense, because it seems at the
moment to not be easy to explain what I mean. = Good to have
=
[...]
* Community for user support
I would consider this essential. Without a community for user support,
there's no feedback mechanism to improve the reference distribution. It
also seems odd to not have this listed as "essential" since providing the
home for the community is considered essential. Put another way, if
having a user support community isn't essential, then why invest the time
and resources in providing the home for that community (not that I think
providing the home isn't essential - I provide the counterexample to
demonstrate this point only). = No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
I think we do this now with the main distribution, and that to an extent,
this is an essential goal as well (or at least "good to have") because it
provides a basis for the derivatives to provide that polish. I guess
this perhaps needs to be more specifically defined for me as to what
isn't/wouldn't be included. I couldn't even say what I would take as
implied as not being provided by this statement. > * Bleeding edge technology
It might make more sense instead of saying
there's no focus on bleeding
edge technology to clearly mark anything that's a technology preview as
such and include it with those caveats. That way, that newer technology
can be tested by those who want to do so, but they know that they are
essentially alpha- or beta- testing. (Of course, it could be argued that
those who do that should be using Factory instead of a numbered release -
and perhaps it will be.)
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Fedora.
But I agree with your point that including newer technology as some kind of
labeled previews make sense, and of course sometimes new technology is also
the right way to go. But openSUSE's strategy should not be to focus on always
having the latest technology.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
09:49
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:17:54 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Ubuntu.
For the definition of what a non-technical end-user is, I like to think
of this as as somebody who never bought a computer magazine. What that
then implies for the actual products, needs to be worked out, but it
won't involve problems like explaining how to use a mouse or what a
harddisk is.
The Ubuntu comparison makes this clearer in my mind. Though arguably our
current userbase does include both technical and non-technical users (I
see this in the demographics in the forums, for example - it often makes
for interesting interactions between members of the two groups) - so we
might want to consider that there is a decent size non-technical user
following already that may feel left out with this direction (though it
sounds like perhaps the direction hasn't been previously defined).
The key differentiator here would thus be that we might include new
technology if it makes sense, but the focus is on that ultimate usability
as a reference implementation for re-spins and for a technical audience.
Do you think that captures/restates the idea here?
Or put another way, "always" is the key here - as in "not always, but
perhaps sometimes, when it makes sense" - which would apply to the
examples I provided earlier, or also possibly the inclusion of XEN
virtualisation.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Good user experience isn't very specific,
that's right. But the
important part is that it is a focus. That we actually care about the
experience of the user and take this into account when taking decisions
about what to do and how to do it. What this means in details of course
has to be worked out, but if this is a serious direction, this is just a
natural part of development.
That makes sense to me. I may be thinking a little further down the road
beyond just the strategy, which does mean that the specifics are not
necessarily - "relevant" isn't the right word, because the specifics are
relevant - maybe "as critical at this stage of the discussion".
I don't think it's a contradiction to not
focusing on non-technical end
users. These are orthogonal issues. Focus on good user experience is one
thing, which users are our target group is another thing. The "polish"
will be different dependent on the target group, but it needs to be done
to provide a good experience in any case.
OK, that makes sense to me as well. Needing to define more specifically
that target group (beyond the 'high level' description here) is something
that probably falls later in the discussion.
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end
users
I think we do this now with the main distribution, and that to an
extent, this is an essential goal as well (or at least "good to have")
because it provides a basis for the derivatives to provide that polish.
I guess this perhaps needs to be more specifically defined for me as
to what isn't/wouldn't be included. I couldn't even say what I would
take as implied as not being provided by this statement. > *
Bleeding edge technology
It might make more sense instead of saying
there's no focus on bleeding
edge technology to clearly mark anything that's a technology preview as
such and include it with those caveats. That way, that newer
technology can be tested by those who want to do so, but they know that
they are essentially alpha- or beta- testing. (Of course, it could be
argued that those who do that should be using Factory instead of a
numbered release - and perhaps it will be.)
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Fedora.
But I agree with your point that including newer technology as some kind
of labeled previews make sense, and of course sometimes new technology
is also the right way to go. But openSUSE's strategy should not be to
focus on always having the latest technology.
10:21
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 10:49:49 Jim Henderson wrote:
The Ubuntu comparison makes this clearer in my mind. Though arguably our
current userbase does include both technical and non-technical users (I
see this in the demographics in the forums, for example - it often makes
for interesting interactions between members of the two groups) - so we
might want to consider that there is a decent size non-technical user
following already that may feel left out with this direction (though it
sounds like perhaps the direction hasn't been previously defined).
Right. It's still about focus, so targeting just everybody is not possible or
likely to yield good results. Not focusing the openSUSE distribution on non-
technical users also doesn't mean that somebody else couldn't jump in and fill
that gap. It actually might be a very good and promising project to take
openSUSE and add some more end-user polishing.
The last openSUSE survey seemed to indicate that most users actually are quite
technical users, so I'm not sure how big the group would be we would leave out
with this direction.
The key differentiator here would thus be that we
might include new
technology if it makes sense, but the focus is on that ultimate usability
as a reference implementation for re-spins and for a technical audience.
Do you think that captures/restates the idea here?
Yes.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
11:53
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius Schumacher [mailto:cschum@suse.de]
Sent: 28 July 2010 09:18
To: opensuse-project(a)opensuse.org
Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The
Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 09:53:32 Jim Henderson wrote:
might
I agree - I interpret "good user experience" mostly as "it works out of
the
box" and "you can do normal configuration using a GUI". Technical experts
will always want to edit the config files, but most people (I included) like
to be able to install most of the stuff I use without error messages and
without it breaking other stuff. Some of the stuff I focus more attention
on and delve into the internals, but only some.
One aspect of this which is important is stability - it worked yesterday and
it works (the same) today and I expect it to also work tomorrow, even if
I've updated / installed security patches etc. That's a big factor in
encouraging commercial companies (e.g. ATI) to provide drivers or ported
software (e.g skype) - it costs them money if they have to do extensive
retesting and incompatibility fixing every few weeks.
David
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:00:55 +0200, Pavol Rusnak
wrote:
> The openSUSE distribution acts as a reference distribution, providing
an
> environment for testing the used technology,
a stabilizing ground for
> common components, and a real-life use case for applying technology
and
> distributing Linux software. It's
targeted at technically interested
> users, including programmers and system administrators. It has a focus
> on good user experience and making technology available to end users.
It
doesn't target users with highly specific technical needs.
To me, "good user experience" isn't very specific, and in some ways come across as contradicting the "no
focus" area of "non-technical
users"
- not that technical users can't have a good
user experience, but that
there's an implication of 'polish' that's more associated with a
non-
technical audience. I hope that makes sense, because it seems at the
moment to not be easy to explain what I mean.
Good user experience isn't very specific, that's right. But the important
part
is that it is a focus. That we actually care about the experience of the
user
and take this into account when taking decisions about what to do and how
to
do it. What this means in details of course has to be worked out, but if
this
is a serious direction, this is just a natural part of development.
I don't think it's a contradiction to not focusing on non-technical end
users.
These are orthogonal issues. Focus on good user experience is one thing,
which
users are our target group is another thing. The "polish" will be
different
dependent on the target group, but it needs to be done to provide a good
experience in any case.
19:06
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
Administrator wrote:
I agree - I interpret "good user experience"
mostly as "it works out
of the box" and "you can do normal configuration using a GUI".
I like that interpretation, but I would add something to the effect
of "a minimum of small annoying QA bugs". Not sure quite how to phrase
it, but these are the small irritating things that can easily screw up
the overall picture coz' they give the user an uneasy feeling of "this
isn't quite finished".
Personally, I dislike changing keyboard accelerator keys or the same key
used more than once.
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (19.0°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
11:50
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
Jim Henderson wrote:
The one thing that made ext4 bleeding edge instead of a "technology
preview" was making it default. Not being bleeding edge doesn't mean
excluding bleeding edge software, but it does mean not using it by
default or even depending on it.
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (18.6°C)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
* Bleeding
edge technology
For example, some things that may have been included in the past that
might be considered bleeding edge are things like ext4, btrfs, the
original updater that evolved from red-carpet (the first one that was
implemented in Mono back in the 10.x days - back when the resolver
spiked CPU utilization for extended periods of time for many users),
beagle, and even KDE4 (not in its current state, but when it was added
to 11.2). Those technologies might at their inclusion have been
considered "technology previews".
12:27
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
* Bleeding edge technology
For example, some things that may have been included in the past that
might be considered bleeding edge are things like ext4, btrfs, the
original updater that evolved from red-carpet (the first one that was
implemented in Mono back in the 10.x days - back when the resolver
spiked CPU utilization for extended periods of time for many users),
beagle, and even KDE4 (not in its current state, but when it was added
to 11.2). Those technologies might at their inclusion have been
considered "technology previews".
18:00
New subject: [opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:50:50 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
The one thing that made ext4 bleeding edge instead of
a "technology
preview" was making it default. Not being bleeding edge doesn't mean
excluding bleeding edge software, but it does mean not using it by
default or even depending on it.
Makes sense to me. :-)
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
18:09
Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore...
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://pizzanetti.fr
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
18:42
On Wednesday 2010-07-28 19:09, jdd wrote:
Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Indeed that is simply - unacceptable.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore... 
19:40
* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh(a)medozas.de> [2010-07-28 19:42]:
On Wednesday 2010-07-28 19:09, jdd wrote:
I second that, openSUSE has a large non-technical userbase as one
can easily see by browsing through the opensuse users list or the
forums. In fact, back in the day S.u.S.E. had a reputation of
being easy to install and use (before Mandrake and then
Ubuntu existed).
Apart from that, some contributors might actually be motivated to
create a polished product which is also usable by "non-technical"
end-users.
This proposal smells a lot like Fedora (and its "Spins"), just
without the "bleeding edge" focus.
--
Guido Berhoerster
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Indeed that is simply - unacceptable. = No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore...
20:14
>
>> = No focus =
>>
>> * Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end
users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore...
Indeed that is simply - unacceptable.
29 Jul
29 Jul
11:05
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 19:42:38 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2010-07-28 19:09, jdd wrote:
Note that the platform strategy doesn't exclude a non-technical end user
distribution. On the contrary, it supports it. It just moves it from the
primary focus of the overall community to the focus of a dedicated subgroup.
The platform strategy proposal is also about plurality and providing a space
for different interests, goals and target audiences to exist next to each
other and still be part of an overall ecosystem.
The openSUSE surveys seem to indicate that a majority of our users actually is
technically interested, so it seems to be a pretty natural step to focus on
them, especially as I think openSUSE already excels in that area.
Putting the primary focus of openSUSE on a non-technical end user distribution
puts us in direct heads-on competition with Ubuntu and others on a market,
where we are clearly not the leader. It might not be impossible to change
that, but from a strategically point of view it's certainly easier to act from
a position of strength, and I clearly see the strength of openSUSE in the area
of technical users right now.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Indeed that is simply - unacceptable. = No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore... 
11:56
Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
The openSUSE surveys seem to indicate that a majority
of our users
actually is technically interested, so it seems to be a pretty
natural step to focus on them, especially as I think openSUSE
already excels in that area.
*or* of those (from *all* our world wide users) who learned of the
poll and decided to participate in a non-random, self-selecting,
non-scientific poll, in English the majority are technically
interested and it is those users who participated who are the ones we
care the most about, so it seems to be a pretty natural step to focus
on them and their needs and wants.
except, of course it is not a rational to make such conclusions from
such a poll..
DenverD
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
12:02
On Thursday 2010-07-29 12:05, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 19:42:38 Jan Engelhardt
wrote:
What bothers me about all this "We will focus on this" and "We won't
focus on
that anymore" is that it's completely blurry.
Consider this hypothetical thought: Let end users be the primary
focus and technical users be a secondary target, with a work shift
from Base:System towards KDE. Suppose that there is now a loose group
of individuals that bring back the life to Base:System, perhaps even
more than is done to KDE. The work being done now does not match with
the strategy anymore. What do you do? Who determines where a
distribution is headed, what its primary targets are? What if the
strategy reads end users, but suddenly every developer loses interest
in KDE and GNOME?
My point is, you say primary focus is here or there, and I am
questioning whether you (pl.) are even in the position to declare
such a statement when it's not even clear that the end-user area
receives the most love right now.
There is one strategy declaration that would actually be universally
applicable: Our focus is on what our contributors submit.
On Wednesday 2010-07-28 19:09, jdd wrote:
Note that the platform strategy doesn't exclude a non-technical end user
distribution. On the contrary, it supports it. It just moves it from the
primary focus of the overall community to the focus of a dedicated subgroup. Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Indeed that is simply - unacceptable. = No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end users
with this I wont be openSUSE anymore... Putting the primary focus of openSUSE on a
non-technical end user
distribution puts us in direct heads-on competition with Ubuntu and
others on a market, where we are clearly not the leader.
Sometimes it's better to be better rather than being a leader.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
12:44
On Jul 29, 10 13:02:51 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
If it is blurry, it is not in focus. That simple. :-)
The concept of primary focus and 'focus of a dedicated subgroup' is
irritating, indeed. It is like having two eyes staring into different
directions.
On Thursday 2010-07-29 12:05, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>On Wednesday 28 July 2010 19:42:38 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2010-07-28 19:09, jdd wrote:
>> >Le 26/07/2010 22:00, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
>> >> = No focus =
>> >> * Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end
users
>> >with this I wont be openSUSE anymore...
>> Indeed that is simply - unacceptable.
If that is meant to give usabiltiy some thought, I am all for it.
Because that would help everybody, be they techies or not.
Note that the
platform strategy doesn't exclude a non-technical end user
distribution. On the contrary, it supports it. It just moves it from the
primary focus of the overall community to the focus of a dedicated subgroup.
What bothers me about all this "We will focus on this" and "We won't
focus on
that anymore" is that it's completely blurry. My point is, you say primary focus is here or there,
and I am
questioning whether you (pl.) are even in the position to declare
such a statement when it's not even clear that the end-user area
receives the most love right now.
We can, and we should declare goals. But nothing should prevent a volunteer
to contribute outside of the declared goals or focii.
Let's assume I am a contributor and I have a plan for myself (like, e.g.
I hack this specific application until it behaves like it should).
In that case, I'd decide for myself, how to resolve conflicting project
goals with my own plans. Sure thing such goals would have influence.
Maybe, I'd speak up and challenge the declared goals, or maybe I silently
try to adapt, or maybe the conflict isn't that much of a conflict in the end.
If I am undecided, what next, then declared goals from the project are
exactly what I need. They provide guidelines, where to go.
There is one strategy declaration that would actually
be universally
applicable: Our focus is on what our contributors submit.
Yes, except for one important aspect:
Whenever there is a gap, like something that is urgently needed, but
contributors don't pick it up by themselves. Then (and maybe only then)
we need a person who finds that gap and makes it well known, and explains
the difference it would make, ...
That person I'd call The Manager.
cheers,
JW-
PS: when it comes to focus, it is the *things* that should be aligned so that it
is easy to see a broader picture in one view. It is not the *people* who's view
is to be adjusted.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | jw(a)suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\
(/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
13:18
On Thursday 2010-07-29 13:44, Juergen Weigert wrote:
If it is blurry, it is not in focus. That simple. :-)
The concept of primary focus and 'focus of a dedicated subgroup' is
irritating, indeed. It is like having two eyes staring into different
directions.
That would at least match the chameleon physiology... :D
The idea was to shed light in the area as to what happens when
$contributors (@contributors even) as a whole do, in total,
more work outside the goals. Then we've missed the goal --
or the goal has long been reached hehe.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Note that
the platform strategy doesn't exclude a non-technical end user
distribution. On the contrary, it supports it. It just moves it from the
primary focus of the overall community to the focus of a dedicated subgroup.
What bothers me about all this "We will focus on this" and "We won't
focus on
that anymore" is that it's completely blurry. My point is,
you say primary focus is here or there, and I am
questioning whether you (pl.) are even in the position to declare
such a statement when it's not even clear that the end-user area
receives the most love right now.
We can, and we should declare goals. But nothing should prevent a volunteer
to contribute outside of the declared goals or focii.
Let's assume I am a contributor and I have a plan for myself (like, e.g.
I hack this specific application until it behaves like it should).
30 Jul
30 Jul
10:36
On Thursday 29 July 2010 13:02:51 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
There is one strategy declaration that would actually be universally
applicable: Our focus is on what our contributors submit.
That's not a strategy. A strategy is supposed to give future direction and a
guideline for taking decisions.
Examples always have their flaws, but let's still try to make two to
illustrate it: So for example if we would have decide to drop packages because
we run in some media limit, how would you decide, if you would drop Frozen
Bubble or Emacs. With a strategy focused on non-technical end-users the
decision is clear, we would drop Emacs, with a strategy focused on technical
users the decisions also would be clear, we would drop Frozen Bubble. With
"focus on what our contributors submit" we would end up with a random decision
or a conflict.
Or as another example, how to take a decision, if to give a terminal
application a prominent place in the desktop menu. If we focus on non-
technical end users we wouldn't do it, if we focus on technical users we would
do it. With the "focus on what our contributors submit" there is no real way
to decide that, and we might end up with a distribution, which has Emacs, but
not a terminal, which wouldn't serve anybody anymore.
I would love to see openSUSE as the distribution, where I can be sure that I
always have easy access to a terminal and Emacs (and vim, and others of
course). That's what we are good at, and what many people want.
Sometimes it's better to be better rather than
being a leader.
(I'll refrain from making comparisons to Video 2000 here ;-)
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
11:15
On Friday 2010-07-30 11:36, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Thursday 29 July 2010 13:02:51 Jan Engelhardt
wrote:
In practice, hell will be freezing over before I can get you to drop
emacs from the media to make room for frozen-bubble, no matter how
focused you are on end users :p
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
There is one strategy declaration that would actually be universally
applicable: Our focus is on what our contributors submit.
That's not a strategy. A strategy is supposed to give future direction and a
guideline for taking decisions.
Examples always have their flaws, but let's still try to make two to
illustrate it: So for example if we would have decide to drop packages because
we run in some media limit, how would you decide, if you would drop Frozen
Bubble or Emacs. With a strategy focused on non-technical end-users the
decision is clear, we would drop Emacs, with a strategy focused on technical
users the decisions also would be clear, we would drop Frozen Bubble. With
"focus on what our contributors submit" we would end up with a random decision
or a conflict.
11:53
* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh(a)medozas.de> [2010-07-30 12:15]:
In practice, hell will be freezing over before I can
get you to drop
emacs from the media to make room for frozen-bubble, no matter how
focused you are on end users :p
Accoding to this proposal we'll have an emacs and a vi spin.
--
Guido Berhoerster
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
12:12
On Friday 2010-07-30 12:53, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh(a)medozas.de> [2010-07-30
12:15]:
The discussion was about the openSUSE proper, was it not?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
In practice, hell will be freezing over before I
can get you to drop
emacs from the media to make room for frozen-bubble, no matter how
focused you are on end users :p
Accoding to this proposal we'll have an emacs and a vi spin. 
12:41
Torsdag den 29. juli 2010 13:02:51 skrev Jan Engelhardt:
What bothers me about all this "We will focus on
this" and "We won't focus
on that anymore" is that it's completely blurry.
Consider this hypothetical thought: Let end users be the primary
focus and technical users be a secondary target, with a work shift
from Base:System towards KDE. Suppose that there is now a loose group
of individuals that bring back the life to Base:System, perhaps even
more than is done to KDE. The work being done now does not match with
the strategy anymore. What do you do? Who determines where a
distribution is headed, what its primary targets are? What if the
strategy reads end users, but suddenly every developer loses interest
in KDE and GNOME?
My point is, you say primary focus is here or there, and I am
questioning whether you (pl.) are even in the position to declare
such a statement when it's not even clear that the end-user area
receives the most love right now.
I guess the idea is that when members have voted for, and selected a strategy,
they will respect it, and "abide" by it. And it will also affect what type of
new contributors would come to the project. E.g. noone would join Ubuntu,
who's interested in a high-tech, geeky distro, and noone craving ultimate
stability would join Fedora.
But I share your concern. I think the proposed strategies can only expect to
get minimal support because they are all way too far away from the status quo
and past of SUSE - which is the reason why most people are here to begin with.
Furtermore, the strategy is seen as only affecting volunteers (and boosters I
guess), with apparently no commitment from Novell to the openSUSE strategy
whatsoever.
So I too fear that regardless what ends up being decided, it'll just be empty
words, that won't change a thing in real life.
Without wholehearted support from (most) volunteers and employees, the
strategy will be dead in the water.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
29 Jul
29 Jul
04:20
On Monday 26 July 2010 15:00:55 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
* Provide home for overall community and specific
openSUSE teams, e.g.
bug tracker, wiki, mailing lists, collaboration tools
It was a lot of words about distribution as software platform, but only above
sentence about infrastructure that is base for all other activities. The base
you build upon sets limits what you can and can not do. Discussing what we
want has touch with reality only if we know what we have now.
We get software from upstream, integrate it in distribution and publish
results.
Problem are many places in a workflow that require manual intervention on,
essentially, communication tasks:
- from communication channels to bug reporting, or feature, facility
- from local bug reporting to upstream and vice verse
- from one part of communication infrastructure to the other
- from bugzilla to documentation
- from documentation to various forms of document presentation
and so on.
The problem is software that is not designed to work as one system forcing us
to:
- Move and reformat whole messages by hand.
- Search for information in various places.
- Duplicate efforts because it is often faster to slap some info to user
asking for it, then to find already written.
The basic reason is that not many have understanding of the whole process,
those that have are not connected to other and sharing knowledge is more a
wish then reality.
For instance, do we have any flow diagram that presents path software takes
from origin to user and how user feedback flows in the other direction?
No that I know.
How we can create plans about system that we don't know exactly how it works
and what we have to do to improve it? Having list of problems is not enough if
we don't know how solutions will interact with system. I guess that recent
problems with a wiki are good illustration how otherwise good plans can turn
ugly if applied isolated from the rest of the workflow.
--
Regards,
Rajko
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
30 Jul
30 Jul
13:15
Mandag den 26. juli 2010 22:00:55 skrev Pavol Rusnak:
== Goals ==
The goal of openSUSE as a project is to provide a platform for
distributing Linux and software running on Linux to a wide range of
users. This platform consists of tools for creating software
distributions, the openSUSE distribution as base and reference
implementation, and the community supporting the tools and the
distribution.
I must protest this proposal in the strongest terms :-)
Being a good platform for appliances/derivatives is fine and all, but it
cannot be the officially stated primary purpose/goal of the project.
I don't think existing nor potential contributors will be very motivated by
the idea of working to create a platform for others to "leach" on. While
openSUSE being a good everyday system for themselves is an "accident" or
after-thought.
I think the very small minority of people who are actually interested in
creating derivates and appliances will:
a) tend to use their personal everyday distro anyway (probably one that
focuses on being a good general purpose distro)
b) be "leaches", contributing little or nothing to the project, if they _do_
choose openSUSE as their platform.
If a person asks me "what is openSUSE about? Why should I use it?" And I'd
have to respond: "Oh, openSUSE is mainly about being a good base/reference for
derivatives/appliances", well.. I'd hate to see the expression on his face.
I'm very much against _any_ strategy that doesn't have as its main focus
openSUSE being the best possible everyday OS for <enter some significant group
of users here>.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
13:25
On Friday 2010-07-30 14:15, Martin Schlander wrote:
Mandag den 26. juli 2010 22:00:55 skrev Pavol Rusnak:
I concur. That would feel a bit like Windows -- no office, no compiler,
just the pure base.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
== Goals ==
The goal of openSUSE as a project is to provide a platform for
distributing Linux and software running on Linux to a wide range of
users. This platform consists of tools for creating software
distributions, the openSUSE distribution as base and reference
implementation, and the community supporting the tools and the
distribution.
I must protest this proposal in the strongest terms :-)
Being a good platform for appliances/derivatives is fine and all, but it
cannot be the officially stated primary purpose/goal of the project.
[...]
If a person asks me "what is openSUSE about? Why should I use it?" And I'd
have to respond: "Oh, openSUSE is mainly about being a good base/reference for
derivatives/appliances", well.. I'd hate to see the expression on his face.
14:33
On Friday 30 July 2010 14:15:28 Martin Schlander wrote:
I don't think existing nor potential contributors will be very motivated by
the idea of working to create a platform for others to "leach" on. While
openSUSE being a good everyday system for themselves is an "accident" or
after-thought.
That's not what the proposal says. The openSUSE distribution itself is a prime
component of this strategy. It's not about derivatives, it's about a great
platform, and a great distribution built on this platform.
If you don't read that in the proposal, we should adapt the text to make it
clear, that the openSUSE distribution is a primary focus, not an after-
thought.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
19:18
On Friday 30 July 2010 08:33:38 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
If you don't read that in the proposal, we should
adapt the text to make
it clear, that the openSUSE distribution is a primary focus, not an
after- thought.
Hi Cornelius,
Can someone with experience take time and depict that with a flow diagram ?
Why I'm asking this?
They tend to lower or remove language comprehension barrier from equation.
They describe relations between elements in very concise form, that otherwise
require a lot of text.
Why I'm not doing this?
I have no distribution creation experience.
The best I can provide is some kind of rough sketch that everybody already
knows, but even that I can't provide in a better form then some odp file that
can be stored on the wiki.
Why is this important?
We need strong consent on what to do, and we will have no or weak consent if
many of us have some reservations, ie. "I support idea, but not this part."
Sum of all reservations can be small, but they create dissatisfaction and get
disproportionally more attention in our minds then points that we agree with.
Conversely it takes a lot more energy to handle relatively small amount of
disagreements at every step of planing.
I believe that diagram can help to understand current situation and reasons
for proposals to everybody that doesn't live everyday 8 hours inside the
distribution vendor. Sincerely, it may help even you guys to get better
overview where we are then pure texts.
I don't believe that text of reasonable size can provide amount of information
in one flow diagram.
--
Regards,
Rajko
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
2 Aug
2 Aug
11:10
On Friday 30 July 2010 20:18:51 Rajko M. wrote:
Can someone with experience take time and depict that with a flow diagram ?
What exactly would you like to see in this flow diagram?
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
6 Aug
6 Aug
02:58
On Monday 02 August 2010 05:10:14 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Friday 30 July 2010 20:18:51 Rajko M. wrote:
Example in:
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2010-08/msg00151.html
helps a lot to understand problems that strategy should solve, and as I recall
some problems in the past, it seems that we were hit not once by not having
distro wide defined strategy.
--
Regards,
Rajko
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Can someone with experience take time and depict
that with a flow diagram
?
What exactly would you like to see in this flow diagram?
30 Jul
30 Jul
19:51
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 15:33:38 skrev Cornelius Schumacher:
On Friday 30 July 2010 14:15:28 Martin Schlander
wrote:
Maybe. I read it as saying that creating a polished product is somewhere
between secondary and completely unimportant.
But communicating clearly is probably the most important aspect of the
strategy.
A) Communicate amongst ourselves what we're actually trying to do, so we can
all pull in the same general direction.
B) Communicate to outsiders what openSUSE is trying to do and not trying to do
- and it _must_ be possible to sum this up very clearly in one or two
sentences.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
I don't think existing nor potential
contributors will be very motivated
by the idea of working to create a platform for others to "leach" on.
While openSUSE being a good everyday system for themselves is an
"accident" or after-thought.
That's not what the proposal says. The openSUSE distribution itself is a
prime component of this strategy. It's not about derivatives, it's about a
great platform, and a great distribution built on this platform.
If you don't read that in the proposal, we should adapt the text to make it
clear, that the openSUSE distribution is a primary focus, not an after-
thought.
20:03
don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions :-)
May be we should say:
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
* What are the parts we don't do well enough?? (and discuss how we
could do them better)
* What are the parts we can forget? (and when/how can we stop working
on them)
- For example we could say: we can work for old hardware, but no more
than XX years old (may be 5 years is good?)
- we can promote lxde, but only as a secondary subproject
May be our scope should be: *make a polished openSUSE DVD* (meaning:
all what is not on the dvd don't need to be polished as neatly)
but anyway we have to be a little more practicals
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://pizzanetti.fr
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
21:00
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 21:03:20 skrev jdd:
don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions :-)
May be we should say:
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
No. Not having any clear direction at all as now, is horrible. It's bad for
development and it's bad for marketing. Everybody is completely confused about
what openSUSE is or should be.
Is it a noob friendly distro? Is it a geeky, distro for experts? Is it a
Fedora where you can just dumb all the latest stuff and don't care if any of
it works? Is it a desktop-centric distro or is it a server distro?
I hear all these conflicting points of views constantly - and a lot of the
time people end up being disappointed because openSUSE isn't what they
expected.
You could argue for any of the above "identities" actually matching the status
quo - and that is why openSUSE finally needs to make a decision about what we
want to be.
And the productive poweruser strategy is an excellent proposal for it ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
21:52
Le 30/07/2010 22:00, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 21:03:20 skrev jdd:
if it was so horrible, who would be here to discuss? and why do you
remove from my post the most relevant part?
it's a *fact* that we love the present situation, and we have to know
what can be removed
I quote myself:
* What are the parts we don't do well enough?? (and discuss how we
could do them better)
* What are the parts we can forget? (and when/how can we stop working
on them)
it's more effective to start from the present situation and look at
the possible changes than to try to create some new beast nobody know
what it can do
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://pizzanetti.fr
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions :-)
May be we should say:
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
No. Not having any clear direction at all as now, is horrible. It's bad for
development and it's bad for marketing. Everybody is completely confused about
what openSUSE is or should be.
22:29
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 22:52:06 skrev jdd:
Le 30/07/2010 22:00, Martin Schlander a écrit :
I still don't quite agree. I think most people are here cuz they loved the
situation from 3-6 years ago and before that.
But I do agree that the present situation should play a very prominent role in
the new strategy - and that's what the "productive poweruser" strategy does
-
and another proposal coming up later takes that approach even further as Jan
Engelhardt hinted at :-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 21:03:20 skrev jdd:
if it was so horrible, who would be here to discuss? and why do you
remove from my post the most relevant part?
it's a *fact* that we love the present situation, and we have to know
what can be removed don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions :-)
May be we should say:
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
No. Not having any clear direction at all as now, is horrible. It's bad
for development and it's bad for marketing. Everybody is completely
confused about what openSUSE is or should be.
1 Aug
1 Aug
16:36
On Friday 30 July 2010 22:52:06 jdd wrote:
Le 30/07/2010 22:00, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Everyone who cares. People don't leave right away if oS is in a bad spot. It will
however make attracting new ppl harder right away and decrease enthusiasm of the current
contributors.
Fredag den 30. juli 2010 21:03:20 skrev jdd:
if it was so horrible, who would be here to discuss? don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions :-)
May be we should say:
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
No. Not having any clear direction at all as now, is horrible. It's bad for
development and it's bad for marketing. Everybody is completely confused about
what openSUSE is or should be. and why do you
remove from my post the most relevant part?
it's a *fact* that we love the present situation, and we have to know
what can be removed
Why is that a fact? Most in the community might still love openSUSE but that doesn't
mean they dislike the lack of a clear direction...
I quote myself:
* What are the parts we don't do well enough?? (and discuss how we
could do them better)
We have no focus. We need that to make decisions.
* What are the parts we can forget? (and when/how can
we stop working
on them)
Whatever we decide once we have found a focus most can agree on.
it's more effective to start from the present
situation and look at
the possible changes than to try to create some new beast nobody know
what it can do
Sure, nobody said we should start anew... We must find out what we're good at and
what we all want to do, then focus on that.
jdd
Cheers,
Jos
2 Aug
2 Aug
04:56
Welcome Jos :)
We have no focus. We need that to make decisions.
We can focus first on understanding how software compilations like Linux
distributions work. Current multiplication of proposals seems to confirm that
this is our primary weak point.
--
Regards,
Rajko
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
07:54
Le 01/08/2010 17:36, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
I don't say we don't need better direction, but that we are here
because we like openSUSE better than Debian or Red Hat (for example).
So we should start from the beginning
sorry to say this, but this is plain ridiculous. Nothing is done
without focus. May be we didn't sufficiently *describe* our focus, but
we have one, and nearly nobody begin to choose a focus, because "a
focus", per se, don't mean anything if it's not described in terms of
manpower, time and money
I can't agree. We have to see *first* what we can leave and what we
can't. this is *defining* the focus.
don't forget the initial goals: "we don't have enough manpower to do
all" but nobody said what we don't do well enough!
for example we spend some manpower making openSUSE color and logo in
any product (for example openoffice), and we could stop wasting
manpower there, the distro will still be as stable, good and funny.
If I look at the present situation, I find a very good stable and
appreciated distro, at least by anybody having tried it.
the "stability" problems we sometime have are mostly shared by any
distro (nvidia driver for some kind of kernel, who have them before
the others?)
anyway, I see this discussion go again and again on the same subjects
and I don't see any progress in it, and this makes me thing the method
may not be good.
may be we shoulds weigth as much as possible what is the cost of each
option, before saying we want them or not.
where is the analysis of the present situation (a brainstorming is not
an analysis)?
This analysis can only be made internally, because we have no
knowledge of the manpower already used for openSUSE
* what is the cost of Kde integration?
* what is the cost of Gnome integration?
....
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://pizzanetti.fr
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
it's a
*fact* that we love the present situation, and we have to
know what can be removed
Why is that a fact? Most in the community might still love openSUSE
but that doesn't mean they dislike the lack of a clear
direction... * What are the
parts we don't do well enough?? (and discuss how
we could do them better)
We have no focus. We need that to make decisions. * What are the parts we can forget? (and when/how
can we stop
working on them)
Whatever we decide once we have found a focus most can agree on.
13:17
On Friday 30 July 2010 22:52:06 jdd wrote:
[...]
it's a fact that we love the present situation, and we have to know
what can be removed
It's known that most people hate change and like to keep the status. ;)
The problem with the present situation is that it's not documented. Even
if we decide to keep the present situation, we should document it so that
we all agree on what the present situation is. That one would be already a
good step forward - not the step I like to see but still an improvement.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj(a){novell.com,opensuse.org}
Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
30 Jul
30 Jul
21:13
On Friday 2010-07-30 21:03, jdd wrote:
don't you think:
* we are making circles, without progressing;
* we are leading in a wrong direction
(I know these two statements are somewhat in opposite directions)
In fact they go together. Consider sitting in a carusel; your
perceived tangential direction is always forward, and yet you go in
circles. :)
* we love the present status, where openSUSE is a wide
open
distribution, able to fit servers as well as newbies on desktop;
You can express that opinion in one of the next proposals :p
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
23:52
On Friday July 30 2010 15:33:38 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Friday 30 July 2010 14:15:28 Martin Schlander
wrote:
Please do so since reading (your) proposal reads like that to me too.
IMHO it mostly sounds like the derivatives ones.
My 0,02$ simply are that we already have the tools in place to easily create
some derivatives but all / most people using them just "leach" (e.g. just
monitor #suse for "Hi, I used the studio for ..."). So, IMHO, it is wrong to
put any emphasis on creating derivatives but I would prefer the developers /
power users proposal (nevertheless the current state to create derivatives
should be at least kept on the same level).
If there is any manpower to be spent then please finally make it possible to
e.g. simply sync my pim data to my phone since that apparently still is some
major pita for most devices.
IOW: target the "poweruser" / "developer" and leave "joe six
pack" to ubuntu
and derivatives to debian (at least mostly) but try to get real world use
cases working (yes, I know that is easier typed than done).
regards,
Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
I don't think existing nor potential
contributors will be very motivated
by the idea of working to create a platform for others to "leach" on.
While openSUSE being a good everyday system for themselves is an
"accident" or after-thought.
That's not what the proposal says. The openSUSE distribution itself is a
prime component of this strategy. It's not about derivatives, it's about a
great platform, and a great distribution built on this platform.
If you don't read that in the proposal, we should adapt the text to make it
clear, that the openSUSE distribution is a primary focus, not an after-
thought. 
1 Aug
1 Aug
17:20
New subject: [opensuse-project] openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
Hello,
This arguing over focusing openSUSE developement towards "technical
users" or "non-technical users" is silly beyond belief. There is one
question that needs to be answered before taking any direction at all:
What both groups usually want as soon as installation is finished?
Answers are mainly the following:
1) Stability
2) Functionality
3) Discoverability
- First is obvious but neglected almost universally nowadays when it
comes to Linux distros. Much to improve there.
- Second is harder to grasp. GNOME with dual-panel setup and
Programs/Places/System menus is arguably more functional than KDE
kickoff. Functionality = (action+reaction)/time. This also covers
generic program behaviour, overlapping with stability. A program that
doesn't work as excepted isn't functional.
- Third one, discoverability. The better, more describing word for
"user friendly". While CLI is the pinnacle of functionality, it takes
time to discover how it works. GNOME, on the other hand, has its
features right there to click. They are easy to discover. This
obviously overlaps with functionality.
Getting at least those three common nominators in order should be
enough to create something that appeals for everyone.
Take it easy,
Otso
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
22:38
On Sunday 01 August 2010 11:20:58 Otso wrote:
Hello,
This arguing over focusing openSUSE developement towards "technical
users" or "non-technical users" is silly beyond belief. There is one
question that needs to be answered before taking any direction at all:
What both groups usually want as soon as installation is finished?
Answers are mainly the following:
1) Stability
2) Functionality
3) Discoverability
- First is obvious but neglected almost universally nowadays when it
comes to Linux distros. Much to improve there.
That is something that software developers today easily forget, and not only
in Linux. The deadline is main goal, not what comes out on that deadline. I
really like last news from GNOME that 3.0 is delayed. It is far more
responsible then pushing it out just to respect deadline.
- Second is harder to grasp. GNOME with dual-panel
setup and
Programs/Places/System menus is arguably more functional than KDE
kickoff.
Or GNOME with a single panel. The key here is that double panel.
After using once upper panel with Programs-Places-System menus it is for me
must have and I create my own. The same case is with KDE, but second panel has
different functionality then in GNOME, as kickoff provides more functionality
then openSUSE GNOME Main Menu (whatever is exact name of Main Menu that appear
on installtion).
Functionality = (action+reaction)/time. This also
covers
generic program behaviour, overlapping with stability. A program that
doesn't work as excepted isn't functional.
In that part, interpretation what is "as expected" depends on previous
experience.
- Third one, discoverability. The better, more
describing word for
"user friendly". While CLI is the pinnacle of functionality, it takes
time to discover how it works. GNOME, on the other hand, has its
features right there to click. They are easy to discover. This
obviously overlaps with functionality.
Not always.
It has hidden things that surprise even long time computer user.
Getting at least those three common nominators in
order should be
enough to create something that appeals for everyone.
+1
Take it easy,
Otso
--
Regards,
Rajko
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
2 Aug
2 Aug
11:19
On Sunday 01 August 2010 18:20:58 Otso wrote:
Getting at least those three common nominators in order should be
enough to create something that appeals for everyone.
Stability is a common element for all target users, but what functionality and
discoverability acttually mean depends highly on the target audience. For some
people a command line tool with a good man page is perfectly functional and
discoverable and a great user interface, for other people a GNOME UI or
something else works better.
There are not many absolutes in user interface design and knowing the audience
of the interface is an essential prerequisite for doing it well.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
18:54
New subject: [opensuse-project] openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
On 02/08/2010, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de> wrote:
On Sunday 01 August 2010 18:20:58 Otso wrote:
Last time I checked (about 5 minutes ago when I opened Konsole for
sed), powerful CLI and modern GUI can coexist without any problems.
There is absolutely no stepping on advanced users toes if good,
easy-to-operate, nice looking and stable GUI with sane defaults is
made priority.
I used OS X extensively for 2 years 2005-2007, and I was quite happy
with it because I could revert to good old *nix command-line wizardy
if the GUI couldn't do what I wanted (which was often the case). The
existence of pretty GUI didn't interfere with my "powerusing". At all.
Using KDE isn't stopping me from doing what I want either, on
contrary, having Plasma *not* to crash would be quite helpful.
Arguably, it's much easier for advanced users to cope with a
easy-to-use GUI that has nice defaults and great stability, than it is
for total newbie to tweak everything out of necessity. Powerusers can
and will tweak their systems anyway, so concentrating efforts in
satisfying our needs (I assume everyone on this mailing list is a
poweruser) is hopeless. We have Yast and CLI tools and know our way
around them anyway.
Take it easy,
Otso
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org
Getting at least those three common nominators in order should be
enough to create something that appeals for everyone.
Stability is a common element for all target users, but what functionality
and
discoverability acttually mean depends highly on the target audience. For
some
people a command line tool with a good man page is perfectly functional and
discoverable and a great user interface, for other people a GNOME UI or
something else works better.
There are not many absolutes in user interface design and knowing the
audience
of the interface is an essential prerequisite for doing it well.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
6 Aug
6 Aug
00:10
On Monday 02 August 2010 19:54:01 Otso wrote:
On 02/08/2010, Cornelius Schumacher
<cschum(a)suse.de> wrote:
No arguments against it. Still doesn't mean you don't have to make a choice when
it comes to where you put your focus. Eg it ain't to crazy to remove all manpages and
use slim versions of the GNU tools on a livecd focussing on newbies, while that choice
would be ridiculous when aiming for powerusers. And even if you would not have any
choices, and powerusers' needs never bump into those of newbies, it helps to make
clear who you're focusing on. Be it for attracting developers focused on helping
newbies (or powerusers) or simply in your communication towards the users.
IOW yes, we must make a choice here. Of course that choice can be to initially optimize
for newbies but try not to limit powerusers or anything. It ain't black and white,
but there must be a focus SOMEWHERE. If you don't have an agreed-upon strategy, on
part of the community can do one thing, the other part the other thing - and thus both
will loose out.
Of course you could decide upon such a thing, for example: the Gnome team focusses on
newbies, the KDE team focuses on powerusers/developers/gamers. Nothing wrong with that, as
long as it's clear where the focus lies.
Grtz
Jos
On Sunday 01 August 2010 18:20:58 Otso wrote:
Last time I checked (about 5 minutes ago when I opened Konsole for
sed), powerful CLI and modern GUI can coexist without any problems.
There is absolutely no stepping on advanced users toes if good,
easy-to-operate, nice looking and stable GUI with sane defaults is
made priority.
I used OS X extensively for 2 years 2005-2007, and I was quite happy
with it because I could revert to good old *nix command-line wizardy
if the GUI couldn't do what I wanted (which was often the case). The
existence of pretty GUI didn't interfere with my "powerusing". At all.
Using KDE isn't stopping me from doing what I want either, on
contrary, having Plasma *not* to crash would be quite helpful.
Arguably, it's much easier for advanced users to cope with a
easy-to-use GUI that has nice defaults and great stability, than it is
for total newbie to tweak everything out of necessity. Powerusers can
and will tweak their systems anyway, so concentrating efforts in
satisfying our needs (I assume everyone on this mailing list is a
poweruser) is hopeless. We have Yast and CLI tools and know our way
around them anyway.
Getting at least those three common nominators in order should be
enough to create something that appeals for everyone.
Stability is a common element for all target users, but what functionality
and
discoverability acttually mean depends highly on the target audience. For
some
people a command line tool with a good man page is perfectly functional and
discoverable and a great user interface, for other people a GNOME UI or
something else works better.
There are not many absolutes in user interface design and knowing the
audience
of the interface is an essential prerequisite for doing it well.
--
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum(a)suse.de>
Take it easy,
Otso
3914
days inactive
3924
days old
60 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
Administrator -
Andreas Jaeger -
Cornelius Schumacher -
DenverD -
Guido Berhoerster -
Jan Engelhardt -
jdd -
Jim Henderson -
Jos Poortvliet -
Juergen Weigert -
Karsten König -
Martin Schlander -
Michael Loeffler -
Otso -
Pavol Rusnak -
Per Jessen -
Rajko M. -
Stephan Kleine -
Will Stephenson