[clue-tech] Interesting sidux/smxi news

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 18, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Collins Richey wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>  
> wrote:
>> Collins Richey wrote:
>>>
>>> Any of you that have tried Sidux (a KDE distro based on Debian sid
>>> with locally developed kernels and other extras) have probably used
>>> the smxi maintenance utility. Smxi (and a few related utilities)
>>> provides a standard, automatic way of performing dist-upgrades,  
>>> kernel
>>> upgrades, holding back packages with nasty dependency chains,  
>>> relinki
>>> proprietary video (and other) modules, cleanup crud, etc.
>>
>> I thought the packagers who make the packages and the regular package
>> managers (and also which repository you choose to use and what goes  
>> in it --
>> garbage in, garbage out) -- could already do all that!?
>
> Not in a well coordinated fashion. In particular on sid, packages with
> incomplete dependency chains appear all to frequently.

So let's create a new distro and new tools!  That'll fix the problem!   
LOL!

> But you succeeded, as usual.
>
> Maybe someday there will be a Nate distro which does everything just
> right. Oh, but that would require actual work instead of carping, and
> you've made it abundantly clear .that you want PCs to just work with
> no effort on your part.

Ahh, come on now.  I wasn't personally going after you.  Maybe you  
have time to deal with this madness, but I live in a modern society  
where I have a specialized job that is NOT developing software.  I do  
this new thing called trading my work for money, and then buy software  
from those who spend their working days making it, and use it.  I also  
use some of this new-fangled open-source stuff.  (GRIN)

So if you're saying I'm not an open-source developer -- Yep.  You got  
it.  I'm just a guy who USES the stuff, and administers machines that  
run on quite a bit of it.

The fact that developers and "fans" tell me how wonderful it's all  
going to be someday is intriguing, but the real problem is, I stopped  
drinking that particular kool-aid in the last couple of years, and  
instead point out the serious flaws in the approaches that people  
drinking the kool-aid get all excited about.  That seems to bother  
you.  I'm not sure why.

People throw out words like "evil" about closed-source software  
companies, following RMS around like he's some shining example of  
success.  That kinda got old on me a number of years ago, too.

People that get all "religious" about operating systems fascinate me a  
bit too -- I used to be a little like that in my younger years, but as  
I grow older I see it for what it is... a way to artificially motivate  
people to do free work.  Okay, fine.  I'm not buying anymore, though.

You're out playing the part of the "marketing division" for a group of  
programmers who expound "libre" in software.  That's fine.

But in reality, anyone who's not a developer with ample time on their  
hands, and probably also part of their clique -- is at the the "it's  
time for a complete redesign!" mercy of these developers, just as much  
as they're under the thumb of Microsoft or Apple's marketing  
departments dictating to their devs what to code and how much to price  
it.

I think it should be stated more often and clearly that right now,  
people need to be just as careful with open-source "free" software  
distros and software as they do with closed-source stuff and DRM.   
Both can blow up in your face quite equally.  Let's take a real-world  
example -- people who rely on older versions of distros or even  
commercial Unix, are more often than not today, left out in the cold  
for security packages.  They're told, "We did that once for you, but  
if you want it now, you have no choice but to upgrade.  Security isn't  
as important to us as moving on."

Yes, even the big closed vendors do this, but they're required (often  
by law) to announce end-of-life dates and maintain products by their  
customer base.  XP vs. Vista is a good example of the customer base  
having a say by simply not buying.  I think more folks should at least  
THINK about the option of not "buying" distros that do similar or even  
faster upgrades in the Linux world, and not have a large group of  
cheerleaders shouting them down saying, "Change is great!"  (Sound  
like any recent political campaigns, if you're following such things?   
Change for the better is good.  Change with no planning or reason, is  
just change.  Who cares?)

In the case of closed stuff, if you're BIG enough you might have some  
leverage with the authors/creators.  Stop paying your software bill,  
hope it's big enough, and hope they listen.

With open-source the answer is always... "If you don't like it, start  
writing code."  Download the free stuff, but if you don't like it,  
tough.  The community isn't going to listen to you -- no matter how  
sane your requests are.

Neither one is a thriving, healthy relationship with the end-user,  
really.

Balance is better, but like political parties, people are forced to  
"choose sides", by licenses like GPL -- which has done more to  
restrict TRUE freedom in software for years, than say ... the BSD or  
Artistic licenses ever did... resulting in a lot of problems for all.

When the end-users get a real say in which changes/options they want  
(as I pointed out, one of the original goals of the Debian project,  
but I don't agree that it's ended up that way) in distros, then  
software will be truly "free" as in "freedom".  Right now the only  
users getting that say are corporations with deep pockets (in the case  
of RedHat), and billionaires who get to call the shots (Mark  
Shuttleworth and Ubuntu).  And developers.  Devs get final say in open- 
source, but some of the stuff devs want makes little sense to the end  
user.

That's all I've been saying lately.  We'd be smart to (as a community)  
be a bit more introspective about this problem.  I truly do still  
believe that Linux and open-source has the power to be great, but  
lacks the proper incentives and motivation to become great.  "Good" is  
where most OS's are at these days, for most users.  Having "good" for  
"free" (as in beer) is nice, but when "good" turns sour because of  
unnecessary changes and wackiness... (just like Vista, I might add)...  
it's not a better user experience than the pay stuff.  And the pay  
stuff is ONLY $100.  (And your soul, so they tell me.  I dunno, I  
don't think I'm going to hell for using pay/closed software.  It also  
seems reasonable to objectively judge the free stuff against the pay  
stuff, but it bothers people I guess?)

Not everyone can or will be a coder.  That's the huge fallacy behind  
open-source, is that "anyone can fix it".  No they can't.

Ironically if you really boil it down, the reason people PAY RedHat is  
not to make new software, as much as SLOW DOWN the madness.  If you're  
lucky, RedHat (the business) actually regression tests some of the  
code that flies out of the projects they rely on for their survival,  
even.

The bell curve would indicate that only a very small percentage of  
open-source projects of any substance should EVER be in a distro... if  
the distro is shooting for having a quality product.

You champion Sidux because it works for you.  I'm COMPLETELY cool with  
that, but I reserve the right to comment on why I think it still isn't  
the open-source panacea the "marketing" material says it is, or will  
be.  It's slowly doing what all distros have done over time,  
differentiating itself by creating new/different things -- things that  
may or may not really add any value.

Why pick on me for saying the whole concept of Sidux doesn't work for  
me?  Sidux is in my view, doing what a good friend of mine called,  
"Polishing the turd."  Sid is meant to be a turd, though -- so it's  
definitely an interesting concept.  Ask any Debian dev if anyone but a  
dev should be running Sid, and they'll all answer in the negative.   
Their goal was to create a way for devs to work on the broken stuff.   
Not a launching point for a distro.

So ... you're allowed to be a cheerleader, I'm allowed to be a  
curmudgeon.  It's okay.  I'm not harming you in any way by saying the  
Sidux model sucks... to me.  It's good to have diversity in a culture  
(or so I hear) and Linux doesn't have enough skeptics INSIDE the  
ranks, really.

I'm a Linux fan, I'm just not going to apologize for its goofiness in  
forking and releasing new and different "stuff" all the time that  
doesn't add any value.  Somebody's gotta do it!  (GRIN)  No need to be  
angry at me about it.

Just like we might not both vote for the same people in elections, we  
also have to vote whether or not we like the insanity of constantly  
replacing stuff that works.  You like Sidux, thus you vote "yes,  
change it all!"... I like the older RedHat model, the LTS distros, and  
Debian Stable, so I vote "no".

A balance of both is what's probably best long-term for the Linux  
community.  But I'm not hurting you, and personal attacks are kinda  
uncalled for.  Lately I mock and ridicule the overall "Let's make a  
new pony!" crowd in Linux, but I'm doing it to the crowd... don't take  
it too personally.

I mock people that think Obama's not going to be another Jimmah Cahtah  
too.  Doesn't mean I hate them or anything.  ("Now entering the Tax  
and Spend, No Capital Creation Zone, with Barrack O'Biden, brought to  
you by CNN News.  With special guest war correspondent, Jane Fonda!"   
-- See? It's just mockery of a group of "true believers".  It isn't  
personal.)

Torturing users with constant code/toolchain/application/desktop/ 
startup/configuration changes is far more harmful than anything I've  
ever said negatively about Linux distros!

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com