No 'Organised' Puppy
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
No 'Organised' Puppy
How to herd cats?
You can't. They just follow the fish.
And believe it or not most Developers are cats not Puppy like . . .
It is why the need for organization is not required in all open source projects
Just as Google is currently 'background managed'
or a film crew get together for the duration of a project
Any committee, any management based on people who are not developers
instructing developers on what to do
is do-do.
I bet you knew that?
So my model of Puppy mis-management is based on
watching out for the developers
BUT doing nothing to interfere
Nor can we decide what they have no intention of implementing
Suggestions are ignored or implemented
Rules are broken
We don't pay them or own them or their actions
and they owe us NOTHING.
What Developers are doing, deciding and directing towards dictates the support we can offer
If they need something, they will ask.
How does this work in practice?
Well PSIP was worked on by 3 people who provided code
HairyWill doing the bulk.
Many testers
We got together
Produced the code - it ended up in Puppy
Anyone notice a structure or committee around?
Barry puts together Puppy
Individuals provide code and announce it on the forum
or on Barry's blog
Puppy gets done. Developer led.
Puppy 4.2 is coming together because Dougal and Whodo
are willing to code it
The rest is fluff
How will 4.3 come about?
No idea.
Emerge it will. By effort. By Developers.
You can't. They just follow the fish.
And believe it or not most Developers are cats not Puppy like . . .
It is why the need for organization is not required in all open source projects
Just as Google is currently 'background managed'
or a film crew get together for the duration of a project
Any committee, any management based on people who are not developers
instructing developers on what to do
is do-do.
I bet you knew that?
So my model of Puppy mis-management is based on
watching out for the developers
BUT doing nothing to interfere
Nor can we decide what they have no intention of implementing
Suggestions are ignored or implemented
Rules are broken
We don't pay them or own them or their actions
and they owe us NOTHING.
What Developers are doing, deciding and directing towards dictates the support we can offer
If they need something, they will ask.
How does this work in practice?
Well PSIP was worked on by 3 people who provided code
HairyWill doing the bulk.
Many testers
We got together
Produced the code - it ended up in Puppy
Anyone notice a structure or committee around?
Barry puts together Puppy
Individuals provide code and announce it on the forum
or on Barry's blog
Puppy gets done. Developer led.
Puppy 4.2 is coming together because Dougal and Whodo
are willing to code it
The rest is fluff
How will 4.3 come about?
No idea.
Emerge it will. By effort. By Developers.
That's it in a nutshell Lobster. Cats take orders from no-one!
The output of any Puppy developer's efforts is simply the result of producing a Puppy version as a hobby to please himself. He doesn't get paid for his work, so he works on it only when it suits him. If he needs money, he would have to find a real source of income for himself - such as a job that he can work at and still do Puppy in his spare time.
But here is the open-source bit: He has no objection to others using the fruits of his efforts if they turn out - as it happens - to please someone else, but take it or leave it. There is no formal structure involved at all. If anyone does express a desire for a particular feature, the request will be considered, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will get implemented.
Can you think of anyone else who works this way?
No prizes for the answer - Barry of course!
The output of any Puppy developer's efforts is simply the result of producing a Puppy version as a hobby to please himself. He doesn't get paid for his work, so he works on it only when it suits him. If he needs money, he would have to find a real source of income for himself - such as a job that he can work at and still do Puppy in his spare time.
But here is the open-source bit: He has no objection to others using the fruits of his efforts if they turn out - as it happens - to please someone else, but take it or leave it. There is no formal structure involved at all. If anyone does express a desire for a particular feature, the request will be considered, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will get implemented.
Can you think of anyone else who works this way?
No prizes for the answer - Barry of course!
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
- ttuuxxx
- Posts: 11171
- Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
- Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Hmmmmm lobster and Garlic Butter, mmm mmmmmmm mmmm
lol http://www.redlobster.com
Anyways, I'm for the "No Holds Barred" scenario. Sounds like what we have now! If its ok with Barry its fine with me. Great idea.!!!
ttuuxxx
lol http://www.redlobster.com
Anyways, I'm for the "No Holds Barred" scenario. Sounds like what we have now! If its ok with Barry its fine with me. Great idea.!!!
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
Actually yes. Unless you can convince me that there was no co-operation between the three developers and the testers. A structure, or committee, doesn't have to be formally recognised to be there. But there is no co-operation with out a real or implied structure.How does this work in practice?
Well PSIP was worked on by 3 people who provided code
HairyWill doing the bulk.
Many testers
We got together
Produced the code - it ended up in Puppy
Anyone notice a structure or committee around?
Nothing can be led unless there is structure. Barry puts together Puppy. Individuals provide code. Barry decides on whether or not that code gets into Puppy. Just because something is developer led does not mean that there is no structure.Barry puts together Puppy
Individuals provide code and announce it on the forum
or on Barry's blog
Puppy gets done. Developer led.
You seem to be moving to a model of shifting developers. That'll be interesting to watch, and it might mean that there will always be a distro with the Puppy name, that may be recognized by the community as an official Puppyu Release, but will it follow Barry's origional ideals, or will it be something different.
[url]http://speakpup.blogspot.com[/url]
Re: No 'Organised' Puppy
Lobster"]How to herd cats?
You can't. They just follow the fish.
they follow the fish I like that
Lobster I agree with your complete above post 100%
and its good to see your well thought out
view point on this issue and still remaining firm to goals set for puppy 4.2
tronkel
But here is the open-source bit: He has no objection to others using the fruits of his efforts if they turn out - as it happens - to please someone else, but take it or leave it.
P.S tronkel I didn't know you that you were a slacker too
big_bass
there are many things that happen behind the scenes
that most people don't consider or give proper value to
1.) just to sort out all the ongoing changes *made with each new release
2..)follow bug reports and soltions
3.)try and isolate updated packages *(used in the newer puppy versions) then either patch them or backport them and patch them
so that they work on a different target puppy version build
4.)maintaining pet package compatibility with numerous versions is labor intensive
5.) whenever a version becomes accepted and development begins by the community
all is abandoned for the next backward incompatible newer version
and we start all over again from zero
instead of having add on pet packages to update your older version (offered)
but only what you want to update taking good ideas from newer versions and older versions and at the same time bolting those on our now *fixed* older versions
6.)roll it all up on very different
live CD that gets quickly dated so we can start the process over and over
yes we are all F'n crazy
big_bass
that most people don't consider or give proper value to
1.) just to sort out all the ongoing changes *made with each new release
2..)follow bug reports and soltions
3.)try and isolate updated packages *(used in the newer puppy versions) then either patch them or backport them and patch them
so that they work on a different target puppy version build
4.)maintaining pet package compatibility with numerous versions is labor intensive
5.) whenever a version becomes accepted and development begins by the community
all is abandoned for the next backward incompatible newer version
and we start all over again from zero
instead of having add on pet packages to update your older version (offered)
but only what you want to update taking good ideas from newer versions and older versions and at the same time bolting those on our now *fixed* older versions
6.)roll it all up on very different
live CD that gets quickly dated so we can start the process over and over
yes we are all F'n crazy
big_bass
big_bass wrote:
Could be that we are indeed all nuts for doing what we do. Up till recently the head nut was Barry maybe. Look at this - an article about how much an "average" distro such as Fedora 9 could be worth in terms of development time spent - converted to cash!
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5325 ... tml?kc=rss
On this basis, how much is Puppy worth? Dunno, 5 Billion US at least? Where is Puppy's share of all this?
Yup, this is crazy!
yes we are all F'n crazy
Could be that we are indeed all nuts for doing what we do. Up till recently the head nut was Barry maybe. Look at this - an article about how much an "average" distro such as Fedora 9 could be worth in terms of development time spent - converted to cash!
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5325 ... tml?kc=rss
On this basis, how much is Puppy worth? Dunno, 5 Billion US at least? Where is Puppy's share of all this?
Yup, this is crazy!
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
cost and development process
From the article:
@big_bass: Yes, we must do something about how development happens. The ArchLinux model could be relevant (it is being discussed there). From this page, there appears to be parallels between Puppy and Arch. More insights about Arch here.
As to covering the cost of development, I did consider it in my recent post, but perhaps it's not yet time to discuss it, or there must be a different way of discussing it.
Puppy's achievement is in making software smaller, so perhaps the cost estimate will be artificially low.By the report's own admission, there is more to writing software than just adding more lines of code. The group acknowledges, in the report, that "The biggest weakness is [the] focus on net additions to software projects. Anyone who is familiar with kernel development, for instance, realizes that the highest man-power cost in its development is when code is deleted and modified. The amount of effort that goes into deleting and changing code, not just adding to it, is not reflected in the values associated with this estimate."
@big_bass: Yes, we must do something about how development happens. The ArchLinux model could be relevant (it is being discussed there). From this page, there appears to be parallels between Puppy and Arch. More insights about Arch here.
As to covering the cost of development, I did consider it in my recent post, but perhaps it's not yet time to discuss it, or there must be a different way of discussing it.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
- darrelljon
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun 08 Apr 2007, 11:10
- Contact:
Re: big_bass' suggestion for how puppy is currently developed
I don't think there can be many arguments
As I said nearly a year ago, what is missing, which Lobster valiantly attempts to inject, is a timeline
IF, someone/the community, were to start [with those who were around] from the beginning....
puppy 0.5?>>>puppy1.0 >>>latest version here
puppy 2.0>>>2.10/12/14/16/17etc>>>>latest version here
puppy 3.0>>>3.01/3.1/3.2>>>>latest version here
puppy 4.0>>>4.1/4.1.1/4.2/4.3/5.0>>>latest version here
PLEASE, with dates/reasons for updates/bugfixes
any branches/derivatives could be shown & DATED
a much simplified version of this, maybe?
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5090 ... e75cr6.png
Anyone able to oblige? > Lobster? WhoDo/Pizzasgood/Raffy? any others?
PLEASE!!
Aitch
PS sorry about the size/hope it self rectifies
edit/changed to URL as I can't change it
I don't think there can be many arguments
As I said nearly a year ago, what is missing, which Lobster valiantly attempts to inject, is a timeline
IF, someone/the community, were to start [with those who were around] from the beginning....
puppy 0.5?>>>puppy1.0 >>>latest version here
puppy 2.0>>>2.10/12/14/16/17etc>>>>latest version here
puppy 3.0>>>3.01/3.1/3.2>>>>latest version here
puppy 4.0>>>4.1/4.1.1/4.2/4.3/5.0>>>latest version here
PLEASE, with dates/reasons for updates/bugfixes
any branches/derivatives could be shown & DATED
a much simplified version of this, maybe?
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5090 ... e75cr6.png
Anyone able to oblige? > Lobster? WhoDo/Pizzasgood/Raffy? any others?
PLEASE!!
Aitch
PS sorry about the size/hope it self rectifies
edit/changed to URL as I can't change it
I would say you are all benevolent gods who provide software mannayes we are all F'n crazy
from computer heaven. The least able amongst you has a thousand
times more skill than I will ever possess. I bow down.
I think organization can come from the inside vs. being enforced from the
outside, so in effect, and there is a great deal of evidence to indicate
this, you guys are extremely well organized,
Whether you think you are organized or not, I thank you all.
structure
@darreljon, having a structure would not really mean red tape. A structure can be support- or control-oriented. We want the first and avoid the second.
Barry himself has acknowledged the usefulness of small group innovation in Puppy. And the community has long been used to meritocracy. Go-oo's page sounds like home:
Barry himself has acknowledged the usefulness of small group innovation in Puppy. And the community has long been used to meritocracy. Go-oo's page sounds like home:
Go-oo is a developer run meritocracy. If you want to contribute something concrete: code, bug fixes, bug triage, significant translation, build-bot maintainance etc. then there is a place for you as a key part of the team.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
- ttuuxxx
- Posts: 11171
- Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
- Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Re: structure
Hey Raffyraffy wrote:@darreljon, having a structure would not really mean red tape. A structure can be support- or control-oriented. We want the first and avoid the second.
Barry himself has acknowledged the usefulness of small group innovation in Puppy. And the community has long been used to meritocracy. Go-oo's page sounds like home:Go-oo is a developer run meritocracy. If you want to contribute something concrete: code, bug fixes, bug triage, significant translation, build-bot maintainance etc. then there is a place for you as a key part of the team.
I just think that free and open is better, If people want to join a group, excellent, and if not "oh well" but the Co-op has red-tape all over it.
I like the "No Organised Puppy" Better it has no
- Attachments
-
- red_tape.jpg
- (9.61 KiB) Downloaded 1161 times
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
Raffy
@big_bass: Yes, we must do something about how development happens. The ArchLinux model could be relevant
Yes . The ArchLinux model could be relevant
and it is but we are all so damn used to using puppy
so ... I finally got a very new way of keeping puppy up to date
you can even replace the kernel if you want to
uninstall whatever you want to
install whatever you want to
this is not theory I am doing it on my machine now
I have to tell you it can be done and I am doing it
now it all depends on if puppy will stay using 4.2
or will unipup be the new standard
this I cant answer but I can say it wouldnt make a difference to me
which would be the standard
I will adjust
btw 4.1 is really nice now that I can hack it
big_bass
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Unipup is a puplet.now it all depends on if puppy will stay using 4.2
or will unipup be the new standard
It is a version of Puppy for specific hardware.
Elements of Unipup, just like elements of Muppy and other puplets
may find their way into 4.2 and 4.3.
4.3 will not be based on Unipup because I do not believe this will be feasible, simply because Barry is likely to strip a great deal of required code to make Unipup fast and sleek
to run on specific and limited hardware.
from Barrys blog
However, UniPup is slowed by the loading time of the bigger 'initrd.gz' file. I have built this UniPup with a separate 'usr_410.sfs', but intitrd.gz has everything else, including all the kernel modules. I intend to cut down the modules somewhat.
Feral or not feral?
So, intriguingly, the Great Super Puppy is made by some hordes of Very Nice Feral Cats?
Hear, hear. I was (and may still) post a question as to how to do updates for Puppy. But a nice How-To, even if brief, would be welcome.Aitch wrote:Please, BB, more info....so ... I finally got a very new way of keeping puppy up to date
you can even replace the kernel if you want to
uninstall whatever you want to
install whatever you want to
Aitch
Bob