More thinking on software bundles for Linux

The post Rethinking the Linux distibution made me revisit some of the ideas which I had in the past trying to address which in my opinion are major limitations in the current main packaging systems:

• No support for multiple versions of the same software
• No support for rollbacks

A software bundle composed of the application and all it's "non core" dependencies can  also add some other benefits:

• Cross Linux distribution delivery
• Fine grain control of libraries and options used by an application
• Reduced complexity with the removal of dependencies management

The disadvantages are:

• Increase on Disk and RAM usage from software containing different versions of common libraries
• Applying security fixes  on dependencies requires re-creating/re-distributing every affected bundle

Possible approach for implementation:

Compiling

Adapt an existing source base build system like Arch's "makepkg", with the following changes:

• Run time prefix must be set to /opt/bbundle
• Build definitions for dependencies must be contained in the master build definition (this will lead to build definitions redundancy across bundles but will remove the risk of breaking builds by sharing dependencies building rules) 

Bundling

The bundle file format should be a commonly used archive format, since tar does not provide indexing, .zip is a better option. Having an indexed archive will allow to reduce download sizes by inspecting the bundle  contents prior to the download and skipping the download for common files found at installed bundles. In order to save on-disk space, the bundle installer should check for identical files across bundles and use hard links instead of duplicating files.

Installing

Bundles installation should be as simply as extracting the bundle archive into /usr/local/bbundle/bundle_name. A watching service must identify .desktop and other exportable resources and make them available from the host desktop environment.

Life changes

It has been more than 1 month since I left the Ubuntu community and started exploring other Linux distros. Meanwhile the increasing personal concerns added to the my country's economical situation prompted to re-evaluate where I am investing my life time.

In short, I need to engage in profitable activities otherwise I may fail to support my family.

While I will always be a strong FOSS supporter, because I believe on it's values. I no longer have the time for significant involvement in non profitable projects.
I will continue using and consequentially involved in the Linux ecosystem because it allows me to be more productive, both on my job and on other projects I may get involved with.

Building RPMs vs Building DEBs

Having a large experience with Debian package building it's refreshing to try something else. Last week I have learned the basics of RPM package building.
Here are the differences I have found so far and my opinions about them.

The RPM .spec file package contains both package metadata (description, dependencies, etc) and compile rules while on DEB you have the data split into different files. I remember that on the beginning it was hard to understand the purpose of all those debian/* files, I have found .spec files easier to understand.

The RPM .specs allows conditional building, during build the build target release can be used to dynamically adjust build flags, dependencies etc. While you can achieve this on Debian using some auto generation mechanism (debian/control.in), it is not naturally integrated in the building system, debian/* contains metadata and rules for a specific target system.

Not so important but a nice feature it's the support for translated description/summary on RPM packages.

Some differences between Fedora and Ubuntu

I have already noted a few technical differences between Fedora and Ubuntu which I am going to comment.

/tmp cleanup
Fedora does not automatically remove /tmp contents on reboot, I prefer Ubuntu's behavior, applications do not rely on tmp contents across reboots and regular users should not be working on /tmp. If there is no other automated cleanup mechanism -did not check yet-, on the long run the user will get a full root file system.

Repository information cache
I don’t have a YUM technical background, so please excuse me if I will write something terribly wrong here.
From an user perspective I have noted that yum does not have an explicit cache mechanism, you don’t need to explicitly update the cache. The good side it automatically gets the required information when a new repository is added and frees the user from a repetitive action. The bad side is that it may introduce some network/time overhead during package management opertions.

Software update policy
I did not read Fedora’s update policy yet but I have noted that they provide regular release upgrades for some software, piding was updated to 2.7.10 from the regular updates repository.

Impressions from Linux Mint 10 Main Edition

Now that I am confident on the Fedora install I could afford to use my other partition and try Linux Mint 10 as suggested by a friend.

The out-of-the box visual experience was one of the best I had so far with a Linux distribution, the menu -mintmenu- seems highly inspired in MS Windows menus, from my reading it's a fork of the SLAB Menu, I really loved the easy navigation and search capability.
Linux Mint 10 is based and compatible with Ubuntu 10.10, the default configuration points to the linux mint repository plus the Ubuntu archives for the usual packages.

Besides the menu they provide their own set of tools, you can easily identify them with ls /usr/bin/mint*, some of them are just wrappers or tiny tools, but it shows they are working not only on cosmetics.

I did not find any documentation about their decision making process or governance in general, but I have sent an email asking for information.

They do care about community feedback, judging from the running poll .
There is a Debian based version (which I did not test yet), and it seems they will be deciding about switching to Debian for other flavors.

I will keep an eye on it, it may be a nice project to join.

First day with Fedora 14

I am starting my adventure searching for a new FOOS project to get involved with. I still think that a Linux distribution is one of the most interesting type of projects. We have so much Free Software that is not reaching yet those who would benefit from it.

Yesterday I have switched from Ubuntu 10.10 to Fedora 14 I have chosen to try Fedora because it has an open governance model with a clear leadership. While there are a clear special capacities from the sponsor (RedHat), at the highest level the project is managed by an Executive Board, the board is composed with a mix of RH appointed and community elected members.

Now back to my first day experience, I was afraid that it would be an hard experience, I use Linux for my primary workstation so it really needs to work.
The install was smoothly, I did found a bug on a specific case of setting up an user with an existing home dir containing invalid symbolic links, nothing serious.

I was able to install all my job required tools using Fedora 64 bits thanks to the multiarch supports which allows to install both 32 and 64 package versions, this is something I could not achieve with Ubuntu 64 bits, ia32libs is not sufficient for my case.
All the software that I needed was available from repositories or as an .rpm from upstream: Filezilla, KeepassX, Zim, X-Chat, Skype, VirtualBox, gnomedo, tsocks, eclipse, cairo-dock, geany. dropbox, pidgin .

During a full work day I have found no significant usability differences between Fedora an Ubuntu.

The only issue I had so far was related yum repository errors, this is one of my next steps, to understand Fedora repository types and package building.

I will also try to understand if the distribution itself is effectively governed as documented.

Stepping down considerately

This is the right time to apply the last guide line from Ubuntu's Code of Conduct.

I have started as an Ubuntu user in 2005, I have found it a promising project mostly because it was aimed at "humans" users, while most similar projects had still a greater focus on developers or development oriented aspects.
Getting involved was easy, the developers could be found on IRC some of them more friendly than others but always there, a point of connection with the community.
As soon I had some know-how I have started participating in the forums, each question was an opportunity for teaching, learning or improving, it was a great experience.

During this stage I have found that a lot of answers were related on how to get a specific version of a software, or people failing to do it. The most frequently answer was teaching how to build from source. That did not seem good to me.
We were promoting all this great thing of Free Software, but we were unable to deliver the latest version meeting a particular need without requesting the "human" user to get some application building skills ?

I have tried to engage the packaging (MOTU) team, It just didn't work for me. I was too eager to cover this need -only partially addressed by the back-ports project-. I did not find the process appealing I had no idea how to improve it, I just had minimal packaging skills.
People were not asking for the proper package, they just needed one that worked without disrupting their system (like they frequently did, compiling or installing from other releases). The GetDeb project was setup, it delivers packages to thousands of users.

Lately I have mostly participated on AskUbuntu.com which in my opinion is Ubuntu's mostly valuable free support center.

I will be looking for other Free Software collaboration opportunities, with a strong leadership that practices open governance and uses decision capacities that comes from transparency, straight discussion and communication.

Thanks to Mark Shuttleworth for setting up a great project and paying the salaries to so many brilliant people.
Thanks to all the Ubuntu users and developers for helping and letting me help building a Free Software and Open Source solution.
.

Ubuntu Community Council Experience

As reported in a previous post I have requested the Ubuntu Community Council for the definition of a control process for non technical driven changes .
Today I have attended to the CC meeting and I would like to share my experience.

I was able to expose my concerns, I got a long feedback from Mark, and as I understood his position and because no one was able to identify actions that worth be taken, everything is fine with Ubuntu change management. If you need more information about changes the recommended process is just to ask Mark he will point you to the right person.

My feeling about the CC board per si, is that, except for Mark which had Canonical/himself all over his conversation, the Ubuntu community was properly represented.
However because the CC lacks any executive capacity, that meeting felt mostly like a social event to get the pulse of the Ubuntu community, not an event to have effective discussion of ideas.

Logs available at: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/03/01/%23ubuntu-meeting.html

Free and Open Source Gaming Challenge Idea

Hello,
sometimes I find myself search for gamins at playdeb, for my friends, family kids or just for my own entertainment.
I believe that there is still a lack of awareness about Free and Open Source Games and we can do something to improve it.

The following idea is to run a FOS gaming challenge, unlike the traditional network based / score based competition this challenge would be about achieving a per game predefined objective for the largest possible number of FOS games. The primary goal is to reward gaming diversity, not expertise.

The idea is presented at:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dnnmb2s_59f64pmhdv

If you like it and have a facebook account, check our facebook page:

If you want to get involved in the discussion and eventual organization of the event please subscribe to the mailing list:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fosgaming-challenge

Please share this idea with those that you believe would be interested in participating, if we can gather the resources and sufficient interest this is likely to be more than just an idea.

Thanks to the GetDeb team mates which helped refining the idea and building up the presentation.

Non technical driven changes to upstream packages

Hello,
today I have sent this request to the Ubuntu Community Council which I believe to be in the interest of the Ubuntu community:

In light of the present Banshee default configuration change but also taking in account past events (bug 642839) I would like to request the definition and implementation of a control process for non technical driven changes.

As far as I understand such process is already in place for technical changes, and covers mostly stability, security and miscellaneous integration driven changes, with review/authorization being granted by the Ubuntu Technical Board when required.

In the absence of a similar review/authorization request process for non technical changes I am afraid there is an high risk of changes being introduced without proper assessment and communication.

This request does not seek in anyway to limit or condition Canonical's business authority for the Ubuntu trademark and product management, however such authority must be used in a way which is transparent to the Ubuntu community.

Software Center validating packages quality

Today I have found bug 712377, it seems that Software Center is going to check packages quality and refuse to install them.

This change is likely to affect many 3rd parties, does anyone know if it is planned to be enabled on Natty and where can we find the change specification/discussion ?

GetDeb: New build server

The packages building server was moved to a new infrastructure, the resources increase decreased the build time significantly.

We have also developed a minimalist report with the name and logs of the packages recently build, you can check it at http://build.getdeb.net/ .

Dear Ubuntu Community Manager

Jono,
could you please provide us some insightful information about what REALLY happened regarding the Banshee music stores default configuration ?

We were firstly informed that there was a negotiation attempt between Canonical and Banshee developers and which terminated with Caconical's terms being rejected.

Now we have your communication which attributes a mishandling responsibility to Cristian Parrino, however it does not provide a clear understanding on what happened.

Is this new a plan a proposal to the Banshee core developers ? Was it accepted by both parties ?
The perception that the Ubuntu community (which Canonical is part of) followed-up up a failed negotiations by communicating an unilateral plan with different terms provides a sense of questionable intentions.

The Free Software License of Banshee grants Canonical the right to manage the announced changes without involving the Banshee core developers, how was that right used ? Did Canonical trustfully considered to establish mutually accepted terms or was this just a mishandling by setting up a negotiation which was not intended ?

Thanks in advance.

Mono and the Open Source Cannibalism

The recent post from Miguel de Icaza demonstrates an incredible sense of business opportunity: Mono delivers what a mobile developer should care about, be everywhere.

Why now ? Has mono reached some significant technical milestone this week ?
Not really, but right now many mobile open source developers, supporters and business partners are concerned, let's remember them that Mono is here.

Who cares about the people involved in projects like Qt and Meego? They are just a bunch of losers, they are mobile developers so they should be using Mono anyway.

Does Canonical support help?

If you have subscribed to bug 439448 you probably be wondering about the effectiveness or even usefulness of bug reporting.
It is a serious usability bug, present on a LTS release, and one year after being reported is not yet clear if it's Ubuntu specific, or the exact component causing the bug. Because it affects many, mostly non experienced users, those more than 300 comments on the bug are mostly wild guesses about causes and workarounds, digging them to find relevant information will be an expensive and futile exercise.

Do you believe that subscribing Canonical's desktop support services would help in cases like this?

If the company can win where the community fails, maybe we can setup a community economical effort to get company paid support.

Why I am still supporting Free Software?

Today I was debating with a friend the relevance of Free Software, he pointed that at the current development rate is very unlikely that Linux (most common Free Software subject) will have a significant end users market share in 50 years. I remembered him that Linux powered devices already a significant mobile market share. He noted that most of the mobile users do not care or do not know that they use a Free Software powered mobile phone – I had to agreed on this.

Later today while providing some answers at askubuntu.com I have kept this debate on my head and asked myself, why I am still supporting Free Software ?

When I started getting involved in free software development, about 15 years ago, I was a young programmer wanna-be, I was eager to learn all these bunch of languages, protocols, libraries, etc. As if it wasn't good enough I could even get help and help other people, which I always loved to do. I never managed to get a job with free software/open source (and probably will never do) but despite having a good job I always felt that working and programming with free software was closest to what I love doing, knowledge sharing.

Today I no longer do programming, except for a few improvements at getdeb and some scripting at my job when I look at code this days is mostly to identify a problem or feature. For me the (open source) code has lost the magic it had a few years ago. Thankfully to my loved wife, daughter and friends I no longer have the required free time or desire to learn/work on what is required to fix bugs or develop new features. I have lost most of the capacity to use one Free Software's fundamental freedoms “The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1)” , I can still do many things with the code, but no longer the ones I wish.

Why am I still here, an Ubuntu member, supporting Free Software yet economically dependent on and surrounded by commercial/closed source software?

I have assimilated the values of the Free Software -without the radicalism of some of it's activists-.
I believe that the ability to keep and expand such freedom is still more important than to use it.
I do not have the social skills usually required to influence or change minds, but I am sure I can reach others in ways that demonstrates the values of Free Software, which are hard to pass, specially for most people -which are not developers- .

Happy New Year 2011