Users and Developers - Symbiotic Relationship

Message

8-bit · #101 Post by **8-bit** » Sat 21 May 2011, 15:44

puppyite wrote:There is no shortage of intelligent people in this community. Why doesn’t someone offer their own ideas about how to introduce more openness - transparency AND give average users a seat at the table or at least more influence?

Maybe making a constructive suggestion is too hard or maybe it’s just easier to run down those who do.

If you think about it, you already have a seat at the table in that you are a member of this forum and can offer suggestions as to what you would like to see in Puppy.
You can even create a Poll for users to show if they also would like what you suggest.
And if you look, you can find more information about Puppy than you would have known otherwise.

We all are involved in making Puppy what it is by suggestions, testing and submissions of programs and scripts.

Puppy continues to improve and a "seat at the table" is provided by Puppy forums.

If you feel like you are being ignored as to your suggestions on improving Puppy, just remember
"You cannot please all of the people all of the time."

Also, as to transparency, everything that goes into Puppy is available in source code and discussions are ongoing when a new version is created.
So what type of transparency are you talking about.

If it is a few that get recognized as a team so to speak, that is a team of programmers that work on a release with support from the user in bug busting and suggested improvements.

In my case, I wrote a script once that was included in one release of Puppy and then dropped.
Am I upset?
No.
Do I think I should "have a seat at the table"?
Not in the way I think you mean it.
It is enough for me to help where I can and not expect to have statues erected showing what a great supporter of Puppy I am.

harii4 · #102 Post by **harii4** » Sat 21 May 2011, 16:01

There is no shortage of intelligent people in this community. Why doesn’t someone offer their own ideas about how to introduce more openness - transparency AND give average users a seat at the table or at least more influence?

Maybe making a constructive suggestion is too hard or maybe it’s just easier to run down those who do.

Sounds like an "Community Edition"?
Just start an "Community Edition" already!

Good luck in pleasing everyone that works on it.

Some want huge bloated pups and other want it stripped down pups.

jonyo · #103 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 16:13

puppy has outgrown the days of a few folks doing whatever they like, it's a question of dealing with that

users have expectations, you wanna ignore that then good luck

jonyo · #104 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 16:19

harii4 wrote:Good luck in pleasing everyone that works on it.
Some want huge bloated pups and other want it stripped down pups.

That IS the question at this point imo. What IS pup ..exactly or more to a point

A quick google turns up 'puppy belongs to US'

does it or not

jonyo · #105 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 16:31

8-bit wrote:I do not understand what the big deal is.
You want a say in Puppy.
You want it to be made to your expectations.
If BK was a bad guy that forced his OS on you with no options to change anything, I might see that.
But he has went the extra mile and created WOOF for those who are not as adept at creating an OS.
So take the WOOF utility and build Puppy the way you personally want it built.

Puppy cannot and will not be all things to all users in the Official distributions.

So again, just use WOOF to build your own version of Puppy including what you want and excluding what you do not.

And get off your power trip!

the same argument can be made with the current powers that be, any distro of any merit is or becomes more than the few, then what?

IT then becomes adapt or else

WAY bigger fish than pup have become irrelevant

puppyite · #106 Post by **puppyite** » Sat 21 May 2011, 17:06

Polls are a meaningless exercise if devs don’t agree to abide by the results.

Posting in this forum is not a seat at the table, never has been, never will be.

There is no transparency in the current governing system (there is no system).

I have been asking for a more egalitarian method of governance for Puppy Linux. If this can be achieved I will be satisfied with whatever the majority believe is best for Puppy Linux.

My ambitions are spelled out here, also in an update of the OP. I have no desire for power.

jonyo · #107 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 17:14

puppyite wrote:There is no transparency in the current governing system (there is no system).

that's why you often end up with a gabfest

8-bit · #108 Post by **8-bit** » Sat 21 May 2011, 17:54

Irregardless of what you want with your user power trip, BK created Puppy and a lot of the official versions.
He has also learned you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
BK makes Puppy as he wants and only asks for help trcking down bugs so as to create a more stable Puppy.

If you want to be the big wig with a distro, build your own from scratch.
Fat chance of that!
Oh, and be sure to put in everything the majority of users want.
It just might fit on2 DVDs.

I seem to be having flashbacks to prior times and also remember that staying a member on this forum is not written in stone.
I can think of a few members that currently would be no great loss to Puppy or the forum if they disappeared.
If you went on some other forum and posted the types of posts that are going on here, you would be kicked out.

I had better leave this and one other thread alone as I am getting very upset.
I support Puppy the way it is and am happy and thankful that BK and other Developer/programmers have made it available.

Be nice or go home!

jonyo · #109 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 18:00

yes your message is inherent with being involved with puppy bye bye

puppyite · #110 Post by **puppyite** » Sat 21 May 2011, 18:23

My desire is to improve the governance of Puppy Linux and enable average users to have a seat at the table, I don’t see how that harms anyone.

As for what direction Puppy Linux takes I will abide by the decisions of any transparent and egalitarian system that reflects the will of the majority (devs and users), unfortunately we don’t yet have such a system.

RetroTechGuy · #111 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:18

puppyite wrote:Polls are a meaningless exercise if devs don’t agree to abide by the results.

And thus we see what your real desire is, to rule others.

Under what contract should they abide your decisions? What are you offering them? What are you offering them, that they don't already have?

Long ago Barry wrote:You may advise me, but I have no obligation to do anything that you say or expect. If you think I've done something dumb, well, that's just tough.

But Puppyite apparently means to rule, to demand that these free individuals bend to his will...

Daniel Webster wrote:Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

RetroTechGuy · #112 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:20

puppyite wrote:My desire is to improve the governance of Puppy Linux and enable average users to have a seat at the table, I don’t see how that harms anyone.

Daniel Webster wrote:Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

2byte · #113 Post by **2byte** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:21

Puppyite,
I respect and even admire the work you've done with the Puppy Linux FAQ, but it looks to me as if your wish is not to improve the governance of Puppy but rather to impose governance on it. No one has any right whatsoever to Puppy Linux. It is the intellectual property of Barry Kauler. The core of Puppy is the embodiment of one person's idea and he has the absolute right to continue with it as he sees fit. Period, the end.

In my eyes, Puppy is a little Hot Rod that blows the doors off just about any other OS around and we can customize it however we want! It's even available in kit form so we can build our own Hot Rods from the ground up. We even get free new components to bolt on and try out.

Man, what more could you want? Enjoy it for what it is.

James C · #114 Post by **James C** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:23

Has anyone else noticed the resounding groundswell of posts in support of polls and/or committees?
Not.

RetroTechGuy · #115 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:27

8-bit wrote:All this talk about a democracy of users deciding how and what Puppy should be.
For those that want a democracy of a Puppy edition, how about another Community Edition of Puppy?

I have repeatedly suggested this to Puppyite, but he is determine to highjack the current/upcoming version...

He can't simply demonstrate his superior methodology by creating a parallel process for a new version, he has to cram his way down everyone else's throats.

I suspect that he has come to realize that if he tries to demand and rule the devs, that they will jump ship, and he'll have a barge with no motor... Perhaps he believes that he can force their cooperation by cutting off other avenues of programming pleasure for them. How little he understands... They owe no-one any loyalty, as their time is their own. We (users) have no contract with them, other than we enjoy their work and compliment them for it.

jonyo · #116 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 19:36

James C wrote:Has anyone else noticed the resounding groundswell of posts in support of polls and/or committees?
Not.

patience is a virtue and tons of good folks just leave or don't lift a finger

hey rtg you have a vivid imagination

i would say that it behooves a distro to show loyalty to a user-base

puppyite · #117 Post by **puppyite** » Sat 21 May 2011, 20:15

There is merit in what jonyo says. Many who feel they have no seat at the table or say in the process may have already silently moved on.

The fact that a Puppy Linux Foundation ever existed tells me that there is a need for governance. Why it ceased operation is of no consequence at this late date. Whatever the reasons may be I do know that people can change and learn and move forward with new ideas and new methodologies. I have no doubt that there is a better way for Puppy Linux to move forward. I believe that we should try to improve processes whenever and wherever possible. IMO good governance that reflects the will of the majority, developers and users alike, can only enhance Puppy Linux.

RetroTechGuy · #118 Post by **RetroTechGuy** » Sat 21 May 2011, 20:29

jonyo wrote:hey rtg you have a vivid imagination

It doesn't take much imagination to see what someone means when they say: "Polls are a meaningless exercise if devs don’t agree to abide by the results."

We still don't have a contract with these devs, and they really owe us nothing.

i would say that it behooves a distro to show loyalty to a user-base

I think that the several versions of Puppy that I have used, have all done so quite well. Patches and fixes are issued in response to reported problems and requests. I am a very satisfied customer...

If I were not satisfied, there are many other distros for me to use...

jonyo · #119 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 21:04

perhaps you would comment on what some vets have to say?
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 346#525346

jonyo · #120 Post by **jonyo** » Sat 21 May 2011, 21:11

RetroTechGuy wrote:We still don't have a contract with these devs, and they really owe us nothing.

devs that expect nothing can expect the same in return or whatever it is that they put out

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Users and Developers - Symbiotic Relationship