Ubuntu needs a new development model

[darkphoenix22]

Ubuntu is very controversial among Linux devs as Canonical backports new code and features into old versions of applications. This causes a shitload of bugs that can be solved by just upgrading the software to the latest versions.

Furthermore, Canonical actually expects developers to portion out the new code and bugfixes for them and expects the original developers to support their buggy-ass half-assed backported software for them. This is exasperated by the fact that Ubuntu contributes very little back to the original code, mostly because they are spending so much time backporting code. A lot of Linux developers are rightly pissed about this.

Backporting code is great for security fixes, but it isn't a solution for every problem under the sun. In Ubuntu's case, it definitely creates more problems than it fixes.

Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a development model where only the core operating system, userland, core libraries, and desktop environment is frozen every 6 months. The applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at all time. Package maintenance and support for the end-user applications would be provided by the developers themselves.

This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling release system I implemented in infinityOS.

[darkphoenix22]

It's time that Linux grew up. Linux is now a production operating system. We want to play games and for Linux to have a proper audio framework that allows for game development. We also want desktop effects without our videos tearing. It's time we abandon X11 and PulseAudio and write frameworks for Linux that meet the needs of users.

I have serious concerns about the release system employed by Ubuntu and feel that the sound system it uses is inadequate for the needs of the average user (it can stream music to your kitchen but can't play games...).

Here are the proposals that I posted on the Ubuntu developer mailing lists. They were rejected so I will be taking infinityOS in a different direction then Ubuntu while remaining 100% binary compatible. My goal is for infinityOS to become the Firefox to Ubuntu's Mozilla.

The subjects of my proposals are "Ubuntu needs a new development model" and "Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu". The full discussions can be found at:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2010-May/thread.html

Thanks,
Ryan

-----------

Ubuntu needs a change in direction. I propose that Ubuntu adopt a development model where only the core operating system, userland, core
libraries, and desktop environment are frozen every 6 months. The applications would then be freely updated to the newest versions at all times. Package maintenance and support for the end-user applications would be provided by the developers themselves.

This new release system would be very similar to the semi-rolling release system I implemented (and tested) in infinityOS.

Thanks,
Ryan Oram

A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio:

http://www.webcitation.org/5kcZfOb4l

It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned.

Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up.

I am greatly concerned that the non-functionality of PulseAudio is hampering the beginning of a commercial game industry on Linux. Developers need working APIs to make applications. They will not tolerate game development using a half-working API. I feel that there never be a wide spread game industry on Linux as long as PulseAudio is
in widespread use.

I have nothing against the ideals and theories behind PulseAudio. It is just their implementation does not work and it seems it will never actually work as intended. Libsydney has never come to be. It is time we look at alternatives.

A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task.

I have already removed PulseAudio completely from my distribution because I have found it greatly interferes with multimedia playback and gaming. I have received no complaints from my users, in fact, many of them have switched over to infinityOS specifically because I do not include PulseAudio.

Let's not waste any more effort on a failure.

Thanks,
Ryan Oram

[darkphoenix22]

https://launchpad.net/~infinityos-core

I now have a core dev team of 3 people. The other two have quite a bit of experience with Linux as well, probably more than I do. Only the core dev team will be able to push updates. Interestingly, they are both 10 years older than me. I wanted people who I could trust but could also call me out on my screwups.

However, only I will be pushing packages to "stable". The other members of the core team will just be testing them and pushing them to "testing" or "unstable".

[darkphoenix22]

Ubuntu has decided to implement my ideas.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2010-June/011671.html

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-maverick-opportunistic-apps-stable-release

[d2kx]

This only includes new applications and not updating current ones though.

[darkphoenix22]

One step at a time.

The infrastructure and process they are creating for this can be easily extended to be used for application updates.

-----

In the long term, I think leaving maintenance of the end-user applications to the developers will free up a ton of resources so the Ubuntu developers can focus on making the core OS stable.

In addition, it also removes the major reason for having a new version of Ubuntu every 6 months. This will give the developers of Ubuntu more time to test the OS.

Basically, I feel that having the applications updated and distributed separately from the core OS releases will result in a more stable distribution.

[darkphoenix22]

More info: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/l...o-be-made.html

It seems a bit process and red-tape heavy ATM, but that stuff can be moderated later on. It's a step forward to say the least.

[darkphoenix22]

More info on the testing and approval for the new application approval system:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/Process

I'm disappointed that it doesn't apply to application updates, only *new* applications, but as I've said before it could be potentially be extended to cover application updates.

[Blue Beard]

Snow White & the 7 Dewarfs

I think your energy is misdirected.
I do not wish to protect Ubuntu in particular but Linux against the Giant.

Look for a positive result for you concerns. Many alternative Linux distros may be the place to look.

M$ CONTROLS 85%+ of the users.

If we fight amongst ourselves M$ has WON!!!

[Kano]

@darkphoenix22

Didn't you want to provide an Ubuntu based distribution with backports (via your beloved ppas)? What's the status of it? Did YOU receive the goals that you want that U does for you? Best for more than 1 user