David Seigel on Improving Launchpad Bug Workflow, or "Developer, Developers, Developers"

Image via Wikipedia

David Seigel has a great post, called Improving Launchpad Bug Workflow for Opportunistic Programmers < The Plenitude of Arboreal Beauty. It's not great in that I like the exact solution proposed, but it highlights some important points about Free software development, and the comments are equally interesting.

First, a summary for those not wanting to read the post. David proposes adding a simple link to Launchpad which will help opportunistic programmers fix simple bugs like the ones in 100 Papercuts without having to worry about setting up the proper build environment. Clicking "Quickly fix this bug" installs the proper dependencies and source, opens the preferred editor, and creates a patch when finished.

In effect, David is proposing that Ubuntu prescribe a specific method for bug fixes, including the IDE used. (He proposes using Eclipse.) While this type of policy is likely to rankle many programmers, I believe that having a preferred IDE, language, and toolkit for Ubuntu would be a big step forward. In fact, when Ubuntu started in 2004, I remember Shuttleworth stating that all new work should be done in Python, and that Canonical would be hiring based on this principle. SchoolTool was developed from Zope (IIRC) for this exact reason.

While there certainly have been many new additions to the Ubuntu project which rely on Python since then, we also have GTK-sharp, C, and ECMAScript or JavaScript (e.g. Seed or Gjs). Ubuntu has failed to have a single, defining vision for its product (which Shuttleworth claims he wants) with a preferred development method. I'm not suggesting that there be only one method for development, but both Microsoft and Apple have shown that providing standard tools and languages (VS/.NET and XCode/ObjectiveC, respectively) can create a great developer base. The easier to get involved, the better.

Ubuntu could have a special developers' release which includes all the standard tools necessary to set up and connect to a Launchpad account (for bug fixing and publishing via PPA), an IDE with Ubuntu- and Launchpad-specific plugins, and complete developer documentation. Of course, programmers can continue to use Vim or Emacs or whatever, then use Bazaar from the command line, but new developers would likely just accept the default method Ubuntu provided, and puting "Ubuntu" into the "integrated" part of an integrated development environment would lure many developers. (I had in my notes but forgot to mention that Ubuntu currently is developing Quickly, which appears to be going in the direction I'm proposing. Or it could die like so many other other projects. Wait and see.)

More interesting stuff comes up in the comments section: what is the responsibility for upstreaming? Should bugs be fixed upstream first? Should patches be preferred for upstream? I think these kinds of arguments overlook the strength of FOSS. Ubuntu should fix bugs as it sees fit locally first, and submit those patches or make them easily available (something Launchpad is working hard on). Ultimately, though, many proposed patches will not be accepted by upstream, or they might be delayed by years waiting for a release. If Ubuntu wants to progress, it needs to take responsibility for its own problems and not state that it is waiting on upstream to integrate or fix a patch.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Ubuntu Too Big for Its Own Good? (ibeentoubuntu.com)
• Canonical releases source code for Launchpad (slumpedoverkeyboarddead.com)
• What Tools Do FLOSS Developers Need? (ask.slashdot.org)
• €35 ($50) if you package Yo Frnakie! (thesilentnumber.me)

Adding PPAs Easily

Image via Wikipedia

If you are testing Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala, you will have noticed that it is now dead simple to add Launchpad PPAs to your list of repositories. How simple?

1. Open System > Administration > Software Sources.
2. Go to the "Third Party Software" tab and press "Add...."
3. Type ppa: and press "Add Source."
4. There is no "4."

The PPA will be added, along with its GPG key, meaning that you no longer have to go through that mess.


Cool beans, eh?

About UbuntuOne -- The Post That is Sure to Piss Someone Off

I've been waffling for a couple of days over whether to write this post or not. I finally decided to just speak my mind.

UbuntuOne is a new service from Canonical that's currently in Beta testing. It doesn't differ in any important way from similar services like DropBox or Box.net, except that it's integrated and designed specifically for Ubuntu (9.04 Jaunty is required). The client is still immature, but it will probably eventually include useful services like integration into Conduit Sync and desktop settings. Once that kind of integrated functionality appears, people will probably line up to pay the USD10 for 10GB of storage.

Unfortunately, Canonical is playing this on-line service the same way they play their others -- closed source. Just like Launchpad, the server software isn't open (though the client is). Why does it choose to do that?

It's not necessary to keep either closed, you know. Launchpad offers a great way for teams to work together, but its value isn't in the code as much as it's in the community behind it. Facebook could open its code, too without any worry of someone building a copy. Launchpad links teams and code. Nobody is going to replace it.


UbuntuOne will eventually be integrated into Ubuntu. Users will be able to share files with others on the service. It will be half backup and half social. No matter whether there's an open version of the server or not, the vast majority of users will be on UbuntuOne instead of WannabeOne because that's where everyone else is and getting set up is much more convenient to use the included client than downloading a different client setting it up with the other service.

In both cases, Canonical gains little by playing both sides of the fence, offering closed-source solutions as an open-source business, but it loses a lot of community support. Red Hat, on the other hand, is a pure open-source company, and has no problem:

1. Offering amazing platforms like the Fedora Directory Server completely openly, and
2. Making money off of the software service.

Very few FOSS advocates have a problem with dual-licensing projects like MySQL or QT (before the acquisition) selling licenses to closed-source projects, but that's not what we're talking about here. This is more like SUSE's old model of keeping YaST closed (it was GPLed in 2004). That, too, kept a lot of people off balance with regard to SUSE. The open source business isn't one that you can stick one foot into -- you have to jump in all the way.

Most Ubuntu users aren't aware of the FOSS philosophical arguments, but that doesn't change the business arguments. You can't promote open source while holding some of your cards close to your chest. How can I trust you when you say one thing and do another?

Ulitimately, it's Canonical's call and it's their code. They get to license it any way they want to. I still think they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Canonical beta tests UbuntuOne, but I'll stick with DropBox (downloadsquad.com)
• Red Hat's state of the union (news.cnet.com)
• Hands on: Canonical aims for the cloud with new Ubuntu One (arstechnica.com)