(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

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!!

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.

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.

thanks for the detailed response.

This made me laugh

"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"

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.

Moose On The Loose wrote:

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.

No paranoia, it's just that linux is non-commercial, so those with the time and skills to develop are going to do it how and when they choose. I'm not sure where the desire for everyone to use linux comes from.

the Linux kernel is a commercial project, the difference is anyone can see how its made, ie open source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw35:32

darkcity wrote:the Linux kernel is a commercial project, the difference is anyone can see how its made, ie open source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw35:32

hm...I thought I was on the Puppy Linux Forum....

There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.

Here to help

gcmartin wrote:There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.

I dont think anyone is running away... I think we have just decided against the concept and are going back to what we were doing before. Now you ask those of us who see obstacles to stop and step back a moment and think. Well let me return the favor...

Stop and step back... and read what ideas HAVE already been put forward in this thread that have for some reason been completely ignored by the 'collaboration' crowd. It's a perfect path to follow. (quoted below so you dont have to open a new page unless you want to)

p310don wrote: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.

So how could this work... well here's an idea... it might work if someone gets off their butt and starts doing something. That's not directed at anyone in particlar, but there is always 'talk' about collaboration, or talk about a community release, or talk about trying a new direction. Who is the person who is going to step forward and take that first step to make it happen? For obvious reasons it has to be someone who wants some part of puppy to go in that direction. So one of you pro-collaboration people... take that step. Start the discussion of a new community release or whatever you want to call it. If some part of it is something I'd like to work on, I'll pitch in. If nothing there interests me... I'll quietly work on the projects I already am working on. But I'm not going to commit to working on something without having any idea what that may be.
So follow the great suggestion that was put out already... and start doing something. Stop talking about doing something and actually do it.

To paraphrase the good book:

Talk is cheap.

There are so many great open source projects underway. Here's a link to the eclipse developmental process:

http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_pro ... Engagement

2.1 Open Source Rules of Engagement

Open - Eclipse is open to all; Eclipse provides the same opportunity to all. Everyone participates with the same rules; there are no rules to exclude any potential contributors which include, of course, direct competitors in the marketplace.
Transparent - Project discussions, minutes, deliberations, project plans, plans for new features, and other artifacts are open, public, and easily accessible.
Meritocracy - Eclipse is a meritocracy. The more you contribute the more responsibility you will earn. Leadership roles in Eclipse are also merit-based and earned by peer acclaim.

Thanks@Q5sys and @JPeps

What appears to be happening here is to determine what would work in this community, given the mindset and talent this community has. And to attempt to define a structure that would be attractive and comfortable. With these ideas engulfed, the next step is to make a step with something that the community can rallye around. We are now at just the ideas stage, but, we are approaching something that might be a launch stage.

This would be a specific PUPPY creation. And, as one can see, it will be pioneering effort, unseen as yet, and on a bit of a larger scale with a larger community of persons using today's technology. as we create something. The intent for this to be a very very easy collective (please no more comments about language nuances or political defamations. We are just trying to envision how to easily work together.) And to see if whether we can envision, model and test.

As has been demonstrated by the contributions in this thread, all are finding this an idea to ponder.

Here to help

gcmartin wrote:Thanks@Q5sys and @JPeps

What appears to be happening here is to determine what would work in this community, given the mindset and talent this community has.

My point in posting was that linux projects don't require some radical shift in ideology in order to function correctly, as you insinuate. Also, note the statement regarding "meritocracy." People that don't contribute acquire zero status in the pecking order, and virtually all development is achieved by a few individuals, as noted in their project reports.

http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project ... .tmf.xtext

gcmartin: your posting style is like a bad group therapy experience, where the leader interprets what he/she thinks (in his/her infinite wisdom) the other group members are doing.

Was having a look at Zigbert's PMusic Language thread:

http://208.109.22.214/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=
36842&sid=35c6d54ba9d7044ec1131c3eddfd9637

To me, this looks like a great example of people collaborating from all over the world (using BK Mo Manager, the man's a dynamo) for Puppy good.

Suppose if you were building a Puppy from scratch, one might be best to use some benchmarks of what areas of the OS have been successful in the past, and what needs sorting.

Like combining Uncle Jack and Aunty Alsa and Lord Wineasio into one speaker icon+right click menu on the desktop with a slider for low latency (high cpu use) to high latency (low cpu use). At least that would be three less things that one had to tweak about with. Some kind of streamlined audio subsystem. It's a bit too much like LEGO at the moment (imo).

I should imagine that would be a massive project in itself, and might seem like a waste of time compared to other aspects of Puppy that developers may be more concerned about. (Of which I know not)

Collabs just happen I guess, and hopefully the fruits are kept and the knowledge added to improve on what has gone before.
Not talking about weapons building here tho', purely fun and open source.

jpeps wrote:gcmartin: your posting style is like a bad group therapy experience, where the leader interprets what he/she thinks (in his/her infinite wisdom) the other group members are doing.

Ya know... at first when I read that my response was 'damn thats harsh'. But then after a few minutes of it rolling around in my head I went back and re-read some of his older posts... now that you mention it... it pretty much is like every group therapy session Ive ever seen in a movie.
Shall we dub GCmartin the PL community group therapist? lol Afterall he does end every post with "here to help".

Looking at creating something (a collaboration approach) is not therapy. Is it? Without getting too far off, does trying to refine ideas and thoughts mean we are in therapy?

Hopefully we learned something that tweaked our look at this. Hoping...

Here to help

gcmartin wrote:Looking at creating something (a collaboration approach) is not therapy. Is it? Without getting too far off, does trying to refine ideas and thoughts mean we are in therapy?

Hopefully we learned something that tweaked our look at this. Hoping...

Here to help

I think you missed the point of what he was saying...

gcmartin wrote:Hopefully we learned something that tweaked our look at this.

You are talking in the 2nd person plural. You keep talking as if 'YOU' are 'WE'. Thats pretty much the cliche group therapy thing, or elementary school teacher line...
"Now class, what have we learned today?"

I dont know if thats just your personal style of talking or what... but it can be kinda freaking annoying. Talk about yourself, talk about what you have taken from this thread and ask what the rest of us have taken from this. You and I are distinct entities. Please do not lump me in with you and everyone else. "We" are not some borg collective that has a mutual goal and drive.
If you want talk about your thoughts... make it clear they are yours. If you want to talk about what you hope I may have gotten from something, thats fine too.
Perhaps its not your intention, but it comes across as very passive agressive. Most of your comments are about a collective "We" or "Community".
Everytime you ask a dev for something its always because, "it will help the community" or "we need this".
Can you please stop trying to talk for everyone? You have your voice, stand up for what you think and feel. respect everyone else to let them stand up for what they think and feel.

gcmartin wrote:Looking at creating something (a collaboration approach) is not therapy. Is it? Without getting too far off, does trying to refine ideas and thoughts mean we are in therapy?

Hopefully we learned something that tweaked our look at this. Hoping...

Here to help

I don't know about "we", but obviously you're not learning anything.

"Collaborating ..." somehow wouldn't that be a "we" .... Further, the ideas that many have contributed here, collectively, is a "we" in this thread. If you feel that you were NOT a part of the thread, then I sorry, but you were one of us....thus "we". In its own way, this thread can be thought of as a kind of collaboration, although it would not meet the strict interpretation.

That's neither double-talk or partial or personal. This topic is being moved in the wrong direction. Its intention is NOT to annoy anyone of "us" (that's we or a wei or ...).

If we should venture toward something should it have a means to provide a "vent" tank for those who have an expressed need to use it? This, can be a useful area in a collaboration, as well.

Great interaction as it also give clues on needs that should be included in a model. It may not be obvious, but "we" are learning thru the interactions we, indeed, are having here, for example, a need for a vent tank, maybe.

Thanks for any of your cooperation. Those specific comments are helpful in there own way.
Envisioning a model, defining it, structuring it would allow the last step...a project. It would be hoped to be obvious and transparent.

Here to help

Puppy ES bug tracker-
http://bugs.puppyes.com.ar/