Collaborating as a team or group for Puppy good

News, happenings
Message
Author
jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#76 Post by jpeps »

gcmartin wrote: P.S. The notion that someone passed earlier about my working on teamed projects....dispell it. I have, more that you'll know.
oh....

gcmartin

#77 Post by gcmartin »

jpeps wrote:
gcmartin wrote: P.S. The notion that someone passed earlier about my working on teamed projects....dispell it. I have, more that you'll know.
oh....
That's it? That's all you could display of interest???
Also wrote:..but hey....if you think you can produce a better Puppy by adopting "a radical new approach" than that which has evolved, we all await the final product. I was attracted to Puppy linux specifically because individuals could create and post anything here, without having to go through some team of designated authorities.
I envision we are trying to see if there is a way of using our technology and our resources to make for a simple easy method for us to create something of value to the community....in a comfortable team fashion, where the challenges and results are visible, easily understood and simple to bring whatever useful efforts together to the table.

I was hoping that any contributions you/any could have would be joined, should there be a structure available.

Here to help

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#78 Post by Q5sys »

gcmartin wrote:There seems to be a high frequency of people feeling that in a group there is to be people telling others what to do.
I don't see this expectation (unless of course you are looking at past attempts of working together). I would think that those collaborating with each other would have respect and work together understanding that what contribution they can make would be beneficial to all for the goal.
All we have to go on is what we have seen from past attempts at working together. I for one cannot see the future. The only thing I have to go on is what I have seen in the past when there is an attempt at 'collaboration' between coders and non coders for designing a release. I dont think the coders have too much of a problem collaborating with each other, there are plenty of examples of that on the forum. However during the 'coding phase' there's not much non-coders can do. Their assistance doesn't really come into play until the testing phase when they can help find bugs. What I have seen in the past, and thus the only thing I can base my opinions on... is that when non-coders try to get involved in the coding phase with their recommendations... the moment its not what the coder had in mind; usually everything falls apart. If its along the same lines as what the coder had intended or was invisioning, then its not a problem. While I can only speak for myself, but I probably am not the only one... when I am coding something and someone comes along trying to convince me to do it another way... it comes across like this "Hey, I know you are doing all this work and I know you arent getting anything for it, but I want you to stop doing it the way you want, and do it the way I want.... you know since I'm sitting on my butt not helping in anyway."

Now the way the message is presented also has a lot to do with it. If someone comes along and says 'hey I was thinking about something and I was wondering if there was a reason you are doing X instead of Y. Because Y could be really helpful'. If someone approached it with that method I'd probably be way more receptive and even if I choose not to do it their way, I am given the opportunity to be able to explain WHY Im doing X instead of Y and possibly help them learn something along the way.

gcmartin wrote:I envision we are trying to see if there is a way of using our technology and our resources to make for a simple easy method for us to create something of value to the community....in a comfortable team fashion, where the challenges and results are visible, easily understood and simple to bring whatever useful efforts together to the table.
I dont think you are intending this... but when you say things like that... it sounds alot like you are trying to make the claim that we havent created something of value for the community in the past with our current methods. Our current method has challanges and results are visible as well... after all look at all the development that has taken place without this idealistic dream of collaboration.
I really hope you arent trying to say that. If you were, i'd be saddened by your opinions on what we have accomplished so far. In the past, when people have brought this issue up, they usually have been looking down on the communities past accomplishments; which may lend to some peoples harsh reaction to this concept.

I encourage you to pursue this idea if you feel it will work, but dont expect a warm and fuzzy reception considering the way this has gone in the past. If you are able to get a core set of coders that will be willing to take up your suggestion model of designing a release... run with it.

p310don
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009, 23:11
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#79 Post by p310don »

I've been lurking this thread, as gcmartin's concept alludes to something that I've been wanting to see for the good of Puppy development and promotion.

Let me start by saying, I love Puppy and greatly appreciate the work that is done by everyone who makes it, tests it, distributes it etc.

What I do find frustrating about Puppy is its lack of co-ordination / collaboration. Sometimes there are great features in older puplets that don't always get carried over to newer versions. I love the basic structure of Puppy, and how it all works so well on so much hardware. It's Barry's basic design, and other's contributions that make this great.

Looking at the broader Linux world, Puppy has its detractors and denigrators. There is of course the "run as root" problems that other perceive to be a problem. (BS) But the one that often annoys me is that Puppy is seen as a hobby / toy OS that isn't suited to proper use, or at best a rescue OS. I exclusively use Puppy at home, and I'm sure many people, coders, developers and users alike, also only use Puppy. I find it covers all the tasks I want to do. (windoze on virtualbox in puppy helps sometimes)

My personal view is that for Puppy to get past this sort of talk it needs to evolve, perhaps with a big leap somewhere along the way.

Saluki is mentioned a few times in this thread, and I am currently using it myself. As a user, I have found it to be nice and easy. I do also see it as being almost not a Puppy with its marked difference in appearance to other Pups out there. Having said that, I believe, looking at its respecting thread, that it is one of the most popular Puplets.

Jemimah has created a great version of Puppy there, however, with her busy-ness with her work, the ball has been dropped, so to speak, with Saluki, which is where the Carolina guys have picked up.

If there was a team of developers with Saluki, rather that just one very talented person, Saluki could still be active.

This example is seen with other open source projects, as well as Puppies.

Now the hard part.

How would anyone implement a collaboration system in the Puppy ecosystem, and to what detail would it go? Obviously if murga was a company, and all the forum members were paid employees it would be easy. q5sys, you do this, ttuuxxx you do that, 01micko get this done pemasu build that - and all of you have to get it done by 5pm, now get to work!! Well, that's not the case now, so to work as a group / team, it'd have to be on a project that people / developers WANT to be involved with.

My solution (if that's the right word) would be to start in the planning stage, identifying what people actually want, and then finding developers who want to create that. To find what people want, a popular / democratic vote seems like a good way to go.

Areas to vote on might include:

Hardware to design for? eg laptops, tablets, desktops, legacy hardware etc

Window Manager / file manager?

Browser suite?

Media Player?

Office software?

etc

And then after a period of voting / discussion, devise a definition of exactly what the outcomes of the project are.

Then, and only then, find the developers who have an interest in working on individual tasks as part of the greater product. In this model, if a developer can no longer participate for whatever reason, there is a chunk that can be taken over by someone else to continue to original, stated goal.

This all sound very big business, and as I said before, if this was a business, it would be easy. But this isn't a business, nobody here has any right to demand something be done by anyone. But, if we could create a system to achieve this, then it could be done.

Most important question first though I guess is:

WHO WANTS TO BE PART OF A TEAM TO MAKE A NEW PUPPY?

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#80 Post by mavrothal »

jamesbond wrote:I think we have experimented with this before :)

Saluki, the brainstorming and ideas http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=59496 and http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Puppy6.
Saluki, the puplet http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=73687.
I'm not sure what this suppose to teach us but revisiting those links is striking how the discussion and the pupplet are so far apart!
I think the reason for that was nailed by Jemimah herself early on in the previous discussions
jemimah wrote:IMO, there is only one important question on the table here. Are there multiple people with the skill, spare time, and communication skills who want to work together to build something great from the ground up.

If not, that's fine. Puppy will continue the way it always has.

Two years later is clear that the answer is a sound "No"

As a matter of fact diverging even a little from mainstream woof-puppy means you make something different.
Fatdog and Saluki are good examples of that (and independent entries in distrowatch).
Diverge more and you just drop off the radar (see PupNGo and Subito).

So the new Puppy, is going to be what Barry will say it is and built the way Barry will say it will.
I certainly do not imply that BK is an obstacle in Puppy progress.
I rather suggest that the (group of) person(s) that could develop puppy further, has not been identified by Barry yet.

The fact is that what we call "developers" or "coders" are in their majority what mainstream distros call "packagers" or "release managers" at best. ie they put together available code with the minimal possible modification.
Building an OS from the ground up needs what jemimah quoted above but with Barry's seal of approval to be a "Puppy" or without it to be a "Stray".

So all this discussion looks like group therapy I'm afraid...
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#81 Post by jamesbond »

mavrothal wrote:I'm not sure what this suppose to teach us but revisiting those links is striking how the discussion and the pupplet are so far apart!
You nailed it - this and all your previous posts.

Just to summarise:

Saluki-the-idea shows that collaboration at "ideas" level is not a problem at all.
Saluki-the-puplet shows that when it comes to implementation, it's totally different matter.

Why is a Puppy designed by wisdom of The Crowd run only by One Person?
Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
(and I don't mean those who create pet packages for Saluki - I mean people who are responsible to maintain the *core* component of Saluki-the-puplet - like what Barry does with woof. Those people who would be able to continue Saluki-the-puplet even if / when Jemimah has to be absent for whatever reason.)

My take on the reason is this (from the same post quoted by mavrothal)
jemimah wrote:The fact is, no two people have exactly the same vision. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Teamwork is compromise.
People come to Puppy and this forum for many different reasons. We use Puppy in different ways. Sometimes diametrically opposite.
Need proof? Just answer this without causing a flame war: "What is the web browser that should be included by default?"
That is the real reason why we have an explosion of puplets (and Linux distros in general) - and little, if any, hope of getting the One Puppy to rule them all.
Note that even Saluki-the-idea thread didn't end in any coherent conclusion or agreement.

But all is not lost. "Puppy for Common Good" does not need to be the Puppy to rule all puppies.
If you lower your sights and realise that "Puppy for Common Good" is just one of the many puplets - your chance of success only depends on how you sell the vision and attract people with the right skills. You don't need to attract all of them. Just enough to get it started and going. That's how it works in Valve. That's how it works around here.

I wish you good luck on your enterprise.

EDIT: typo.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#82 Post by cthisbear »

" you know since I'm sitting on my butt not helping in anyway."

These people reading my emails...

Chris.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#83 Post by jpeps »

jamesbond wrote:
Why is a Puppy designed by wisdom of The Crowd run only by One Person?
Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.

Obviously it's useless to start taking votes on what constitutes the "Common Good." There is no Common Good. You like one browser, I like another...the end..

There are plenty of excellent linux projects currently in ongoing development for anyone who seriously wants to contribute. Linux is more for innovative people who want do things a little differently.

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#84 Post by jamesbond »

jpeps wrote:The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.
It wasn't exactly my word. From the very first post of this thread:
... to achieve something for Puppy good... er, I mean 'Public Good'.
Obviously it's useless to start taking votes on what constitutes the "Common Good." There is no Common Good. You like one browser, I like another...the end..
Exactly my point.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#85 Post by Q5sys »

jamesbond wrote: Why didn't we see people rushing to claim their role in building Puppy for the Common Good?
I read this and instantly thought of the old line:

"Those who can't do... coach."

Which then reminded me of the wonderful Budweiser bit on this...
They say those who can't play coach
Apparently those who can't coach...
sit 30 rows back, shirtless, shouting obscenities.
Which made me laugh and I decided to share that with everyone. lol
(Now bringing humor to the table... that's real collaboration, haha)

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#86 Post by jpeps »

jamesbond wrote:
jpeps wrote:The "Common Good" ?? ....sounds like some naive, sophomoric political propaganda.
It wasn't exactly my word. From the very first post of this thread:
... to achieve something for Puppy good... er, I mean 'Public Good'.
I had assumed you were paraphrasing gcmartin.

gcmartin

#87 Post by gcmartin »

...
Saluki-the-idea shows that collaboration at "ideas" level is not a problem at all.
Saluki-the-puplet shows that when it comes to implementation, it's totally different matter. ...
Agreed. That's what we are discussing. Can we not just envision whether this is reasonable, but to develop an approach where we demonstrate that taking this to a little different level is reasonable, beneficial, and obvious.

If the approach we perfect performs usefully, we have demonstrated how loose-knit teaming (collaboration) works to generate an accomplishment. Be aware, that what is shown, above, is that there is the normal process of building something of value. The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners, rather various contributers addressing the same goal, instead of just one carrying the full load?

Everyone here is adding pieces to this in their own way. But, step back a moment and I think each of us can see beneficial approaches. Our past was developed without the benefit of the tools, and ability we have in front of us, today. The technology has advanced with tools we never thought possible 20 years ago. We brought forth the practices of 20 years ago with us today. Now, we can see that "maybe" ...

Here to help
Edited: changed "commoners" to "various contributers addressing the same goal" in line with a suggestion.
Last edited by gcmartin on Thu 13 Dec 2012, 20:25, edited 2 times in total.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#88 Post by jpeps »

gcmartin wrote:The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners instead of just one carrying the full load?
multitude of commoners?

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#89 Post by Q5sys »

jpeps wrote:
gcmartin wrote:The actual production DID, in fact, filter down into a single entity, but, could that process also have been a multitude of commoners instead of just one carrying the full load?
multitude of commoners?
Did I just wake up in Soviet Russia?

EDIT: Ah, I see the word choice was changed.

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#90 Post by Q5sys »

gcmartin wrote:Everyone here is adding pieces to this in their own way. But, step back a moment and I think each of us can see beneficial approaches. Our past was developed without the benefit of the tools, and ability we have in front of us, today. The technology has advanced with tools we never thought possible 20 years ago. We brought forth the practices of 20 years ago with us today. Now, we can see that "maybe" ...
Very eloquently spoken... however doesn't really mean much. Lets look at the past 20 years of Linux development... and see what we find...
Yup what I thought, people doing it the way they feel is best, and when someone disagreed... they went and did it the way they wanted.
That's how Puppy came to be! If it weren't for this attitude none of us would be there. Way back in the day Barry saw linux going one direction and he had an idea to go another. Instead of trying to rally people around and change the direction of the current linux development... he went his own direction, and look what it's spawned.
This forum has over 21000 users, and over 600000 "articles"... The status-quo seems to be working fine. The do-o-cracy method has been working great.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#91 Post by jpeps »

Q5sys wrote: Yup what I thought, people doing it the way they feel is best, and when someone disagreed... they went and did it the way they wanted.
Comrad Jeremiah...she will learn of our new ways!!

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#92 Post by darkcity »

To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.

However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?

The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops.

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

#93 Post by Moose On The Loose »

darkcity wrote:To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.
We almost need a new word because the word "collaborating" has so much baggage. "Volunteer based development" is perhaps a better term to use.
However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?
Scientists seem to have a system that seems to work for this. Folks sort of agree upfront that others are going to aggressively attack every idea they have. With code, we sort of do that when folks look for bugs in each others code. There are some things that I think will help but none of these are software tools they are just things that people should all agree on. Here are a few suggestions:

Some words and terms we should all treat like "protected terms" like the fact that someone who is a doctor can't claim to be a doctor. A classic example is "works on Puppy Linux X.X.X". We should agree that ".. Oh but first you have to install XXX and YYY..." means that it should be said "can be made to work on Puppy Linux X.X.X"

We should agree to "document the heck out of" our code. The basic rule we should use when volunteering to code is the same one as I use for code I do for work purposes. "Assume the guy who has to maintain it is not as smart as you, under a lot of pressure and armed"

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?
Puppy has already met that standard. I have given puppy Linux to 3 "everyday users" as I tend to define them. The only thing that we need to do is make some signs that say "remember not to double click" and put them along the roadside to be seen by those folks on their way into work and back home. We really should add a "click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops.
At the bottom of the market, Android and other Linux are the OSes that are getting the most installs. At the supercomputer level, Linux dominates. The gap in the middle is slowly closing. More an more folks no longer have a desktop machine but instead use a tablet or the like.

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#94 Post by darkcity »

thanks for the detailed response.

This made me laugh 8)
"Assume the guy who has to maintain it is not as smart as you, under a lot of pressure and armed"
"click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
Thats no a bad idea actually, or make a double-click brings a message "only one click is necessary"

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#95 Post by Q5sys »

darkcity wrote:
"click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.
Thats no a bad idea actually, or make a double-click brings a message "only one click is necessary"
or you could spend a whole 5 seconds and change it from single click navigation to double click navigation.

seems alot eaiser than spending the time to code something else.

Post Reply