Hello,Its a "Do-ocracy" so lets "Do it"..
See:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 852#544852
A good read for anti- or apathetic PLUG people
- good for you, Jay, love the quote -raffy wrote:Talk about being in the right place at the right time.....
Another benevolent dictator steps up, and does it!Its a "Do-ocracy" so lets "Do it"..
raffy wrote:It looks to me like this is the only "usergroup" in this forum
Yes, raffy
Now that we've resolved our misunderstanding, hope to see PLUG back there soon, eh?
Aitch
Thanks for getting me going. But, that's a little too simple. And, WhoDo's original proposal is not simple. Let me try:Aitch wrote:Hello again Jady
A simple definition : Puppy Linux Users Group
Here is WhoDo's original proposal
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=68265
and this the current thread
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=69437
Aitch
The PLUG (Puppy Linux Users Group) is a structured gathering of problems, suggestions, etc. concerning the development of Puppy Linux, managed by a select group of volunteers who will summarize all voices gathered from the forum and submitted to the PLUG by Puppy users.
Is this definition correct?
Felicitations & Facilitations, Rev. John G. Derrickson
Wrote fast. Goofs happen. Tell me.
Wrote fast. Goofs happen. Tell me.
I think the whole idea is misguided. What I mean is that LUG (Linux User Group) implies a *local* group of users who can meet in a certain physical location from time to time. Setting up a forum or forum section does not do that.
Of course, a forum or forum section for a specialized purpose is a good idea. But calling that a LUG is completely misleading. The original purpose of the proposed PLUG was mainly to get a unified voice which could represent Puppy users before the developers. That is not really a bad idea, but it depends on the developers being willing to listen and take the users wishes into account. I have seen no indication, so far, that any of them are willing to do that -and I'm pretty sure I know why. It's simple. Users have no idea what their suggestions might entail. Devs are usually either uninterested in the ideas, or don't have the skills to implement them. And explaining why that is so to a 'user' is already a huge waste of time.
Do-ocracy is not just a suggestion (good or bad). It is The Way Things Are (tm). It is the way all open-source projects get their work done and Puppy is not any different(even though it is debatable how open-source Puppy is...). There is no evidence to suggest that Puppy could ever achieve any other sort of system. Remember that the teams are really small and only one head is calling the shots. Even some pretty good devs have been unable to get their changes incorporated into the 'main' Puppy -whatever that might be. So, they usually create their own spinoff -every one of them wildly different from all the rest, so their is never any consistency between versions.
I agree that having a dialog between users and devs can be a good thing. But it depends on the devs being willing and able to deal with at least some of the users requests. I dare anyone to get a concensus on *any* single item here! As an example, say a user or a hundres wqould like to see Puppy come with a just single browser. Has their ever been a concensus on that question? No! And their never will be. How many threads have there been about that? And how many spinoffs have been created mainly to satisfy just that one difference (of having a different browser).
Only a top-level reorganization of priorities, goals and leadership would possibly allow for some sort of resolution to the problem. Remember that a LiveCD is very limited by nature -I mean any changes at all require some sort of personalization, so the very nature of the beast encourages the spinoff syndrome. There are many ways around this problem and none of them are new. But the only one implemented for Puppy is the idea of 'remastering'. Custom-built ISO's would go along way toward solving the problem of what to include or exclude in the finished ISO. A build-service where approved devs or team-members could build new software on an *official clean machine* to provide officially-accepted packages for anyone who wanted them. These devs could work from a TODO list of requests from users for software -or from their own ideas or from a TODO list created by the devs/leaders themselves.
Of course, a forum or forum section for a specialized purpose is a good idea. But calling that a LUG is completely misleading. The original purpose of the proposed PLUG was mainly to get a unified voice which could represent Puppy users before the developers. That is not really a bad idea, but it depends on the developers being willing to listen and take the users wishes into account. I have seen no indication, so far, that any of them are willing to do that -and I'm pretty sure I know why. It's simple. Users have no idea what their suggestions might entail. Devs are usually either uninterested in the ideas, or don't have the skills to implement them. And explaining why that is so to a 'user' is already a huge waste of time.
Do-ocracy is not just a suggestion (good or bad). It is The Way Things Are (tm). It is the way all open-source projects get their work done and Puppy is not any different(even though it is debatable how open-source Puppy is...). There is no evidence to suggest that Puppy could ever achieve any other sort of system. Remember that the teams are really small and only one head is calling the shots. Even some pretty good devs have been unable to get their changes incorporated into the 'main' Puppy -whatever that might be. So, they usually create their own spinoff -every one of them wildly different from all the rest, so their is never any consistency between versions.
I agree that having a dialog between users and devs can be a good thing. But it depends on the devs being willing and able to deal with at least some of the users requests. I dare anyone to get a concensus on *any* single item here! As an example, say a user or a hundres wqould like to see Puppy come with a just single browser. Has their ever been a concensus on that question? No! And their never will be. How many threads have there been about that? And how many spinoffs have been created mainly to satisfy just that one difference (of having a different browser).
Only a top-level reorganization of priorities, goals and leadership would possibly allow for some sort of resolution to the problem. Remember that a LiveCD is very limited by nature -I mean any changes at all require some sort of personalization, so the very nature of the beast encourages the spinoff syndrome. There are many ways around this problem and none of them are new. But the only one implemented for Puppy is the idea of 'remastering'. Custom-built ISO's would go along way toward solving the problem of what to include or exclude in the finished ISO. A build-service where approved devs or team-members could build new software on an *official clean machine* to provide officially-accepted packages for anyone who wanted them. These devs could work from a TODO list of requests from users for software -or from their own ideas or from a TODO list created by the devs/leaders themselves.
amigo, my friend
Thank you for coming forward and expressing what, I, too, suspect to be a common feeling amongst devs, but up until now, has not been voiced
That said, and putting aside the issue of the LUG, I'm sure you'll agree there still remains a huge forum problem of information chaos, not just development chaos, and collectively, we, users and devs, are struggling to help both noobs and seasoned puppians keep their favourite distro running on an ever changing hardware, and software
We either do nothing, or do something to try to clear up some of the mess already created, or simply add to it and wait for the inevitable
Any devs who can't see that coming, need to get away from their screens more often, IMHO
John M has given approval, and several of us would like to at least start towards this process.
I love the stuff people like you and Joe are doing, as with 01micko and playdayz, ttuuxxx, John Biles and so many others....but the bottom line is...
we are all using puppy, in one form or another, so to have a group called Puppy Linux Users Group, who 'meet' on the forum, would seem as logical as the code you all write
thanks again
Aitch
Thank you for coming forward and expressing what, I, too, suspect to be a common feeling amongst devs, but up until now, has not been voiced
That said, and putting aside the issue of the LUG, I'm sure you'll agree there still remains a huge forum problem of information chaos, not just development chaos, and collectively, we, users and devs, are struggling to help both noobs and seasoned puppians keep their favourite distro running on an ever changing hardware, and software
We either do nothing, or do something to try to clear up some of the mess already created, or simply add to it and wait for the inevitable
Any devs who can't see that coming, need to get away from their screens more often, IMHO
John M has given approval, and several of us would like to at least start towards this process.
I love the stuff people like you and Joe are doing, as with 01micko and playdayz, ttuuxxx, John Biles and so many others....but the bottom line is...
we are all using puppy, in one form or another, so to have a group called Puppy Linux Users Group, who 'meet' on the forum, would seem as logical as the code you all write
thanks again
Aitch
...I guess you could look at it this way,...
LUGs are usually local groups that can meet in person. But Puppy is just so spread all over the planet!!! Like,...there would be absolutely NO WAY this nitehawk down here in Florida could meet in person with say,...Bugman out in his "boonies" up there in (I think it's Montana)??? And where in the thunder is Lobster??? And then all of the Puppiers in Oz. (and the UK)...etc. etc. etc. Ah, yes,...and Nooby in Sweden.....(also,...Puppiers in Israel,...yadda,..yadda, yadda........)....
You get the picture. Besides,...I'm in a little Poduck Corners area of Florida,...and not only are there NO LUGs,...I bet there's NO linux users,..PERIOD!
LUGs are usually local groups that can meet in person. But Puppy is just so spread all over the planet!!! Like,...there would be absolutely NO WAY this nitehawk down here in Florida could meet in person with say,...Bugman out in his "boonies" up there in (I think it's Montana)??? And where in the thunder is Lobster??? And then all of the Puppiers in Oz. (and the UK)...etc. etc. etc. Ah, yes,...and Nooby in Sweden.....(also,...Puppiers in Israel,...yadda,..yadda, yadda........)....
You get the picture. Besides,...I'm in a little Poduck Corners area of Florida,...and not only are there NO LUGs,...I bet there's NO linux users,..PERIOD!