Ubuntu needs a new development model

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 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss

Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

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 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com M

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

been authenticated, peer-reviewed, and tested. I would be more than happy to bring such functionality upstream to Ubuntu. I want my ideas to be used by as many people as possible. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Hollocher wrote: > I'm pretty sure that getdeb.net and

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

Bluetooth headsets and to mute browsers will know how to configure Linux to do so anyways. Thanks, Ryan Oram On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> A great overview of the problems with PulseAudio: >> http://www.

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

y 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> End users don't want to have to add PPAs or download .deb files off of >> websites. >> >> With infinityOS, users never have to leave their package management >> system (or Software Center really) to get programs or update th

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not > know how to edit *plain* text files. In order to get most emulators (which at this point sadly are what people are going to be using to play games) and native games to

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

All the packages I have pulled from dev PPAs have been of high quality. In fact, most of them fix problems present in the Ubuntu packages. Really only a minimal amount of review and testing should be needed. Ubuntu would just need to require that developers build their packages on Launchpad before

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 6 May 2010 02:31, Ryan Oram wrote: >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs >> wrote: >>> Generalisation. I know plenty of people who play games and do not >>> know how to edit *plain* text files. >> >> In ord

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

I apologize for the top posting. Gmail is not the best client for this. :P The devs on Launchpad often don't have the most recent versions as the fact that users have to go through hoops to add PPA (I do not expect my dad to be able to add a PPA) limits their userbase. Increase the number of peopl

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 01:34 +0100, > ubuntu-devel-discuss-request at lists.ubuntu.com wrote: > Pulseaudio has become considerably better since Ubuntu 8.04. Most > people's first exposure to Pulseaudio was in 8.04 and it was not a > pleasant experience. My experiences are from Karmic not Hardy. I

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

, Martin Owens wrote: > You mean "Publishing Model" not "Development Model" > > There are people thinking about development models, economics, > community, tools etc and this thread is not about any of it. > > Martin, > > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 18:44 -0400,

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

of the box for games. Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:52:25 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: >> Emulators are a subset of games. They use the same libraries and >> frameworks. If they do not work, games will not likely not work. >>

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

keep in contact with upstream. There is no hard feelings. ;P Ryan On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonathan Blackhall wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> I am seriously considering implementing OSS4 as an alternative to >> PulseAudio/ALSA in the n

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: >> 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 i

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Daniel Chen wrote: > Such is the pain of new code. We face this continually in ALSA and > PulseAudio alike, and I don't see how any new framework can be devoid > of such pain. Until the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested, infinityOS will continue to use pur

Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu

>On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 05:54 +, Mario Vukelic wrote: >Many companies are switching their internal phone systems to VoIP. The >company I work for (15,000 seats, half of the users mobile with laptops) >just finished this transition, and the next step will be a migration to >PC-based phones for th

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

On Thu May 6 05:37:30 +, wrote: >Thinking you need to say "no offense" is generally a good sign to avoid saying >what you are considering saying if you ?>actually care to avoid offense. > >My experience is rather the opposite. Most upstreams care about developing >their computer programs (a

The Excalibur System

ailable to every student regardless of wealth or background is frankly the dream of every teacher. Please let me know what you guys think of all of this. Thanks, Ryan Oram -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubu

Re: The Excalibur System

On 10 May 2010 19:41, Jonathon Fernyhough   wrote: >I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the one hand you're >promoting Linux. On the other you're promoting it in order to get free >board and food at the Uni, promoting yourself and a friend as >preferred candidates for jobs you're pushing th

Re: The Excalibur System

2010/5/10 Isamar Maia : > Hi Ryan, > > We did a similar job very recently downhere in Brazil, in a Federal > University, > and since you're also doing that for an University overthere, possibly > we can join efforts > and exchange experiences and knowledge about this matter. > > The approach for t

Re: The Excalibur System

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Goog luck with your project. > > https://www.ltsp-cluster.org/ > > http://www.stgraber.org/2010/02/21/ltsp-52-out > > Hope this helps ;-) > How does LTSP fair over remote connections? One of the parts of my system is that students and f

SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php This should become a full open source project with a community behind it. With Mozilla disregarding H.264, the community needs a full browser capable of H.264 video playback without the privacy issues of Chrome. We need to "Icewease

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

"Chrome Incognito Tracks Visited Sites" http://www.lewiz.org/2010/05/chrome-incognito-tracks-visited-sites.html This seems to be becoming a theme. As Chromium has much of the same privacy issues as Chrome (SRWare Iron is made from Chromium and the code is striped from Chromium), this "feature" is

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: > "Chrome Incognito Tracks Visited Sites" > http://www.lewiz.org/2010/05/chrome-incognito-tracks-visited-sites.html > > This seems to be becoming a theme. As Chromium has much of the same > privacy issues as Chrome

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Moser wrote: > Shut up.  You're whining like a raving politicized lune and nobody is > listening to your monologue. > > Apply some critical thinking skills.  It's a bug in a special mode of a > browser, a mode that doesn't store history/cookies.  It's not (kno

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote: > Unless things have changed, Chromium does not include the tracking > features of the branded Chrome. Hence, Chromium is fine. Plus it has > the benefit of already being a full open source project. It doesn't include everything, but it

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: >> I've posted this on the debian-devel mailing list as well. This was >> posted out of a concern that Canoncial is thinking about switching >> over to Chromium in later releases as Lubuntu has done already. I have >> seen articles of this possi

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > The chromium daily builds ppa is more accuratly should be described as > a mini-fork it has spliced chromium tree almost in half and throughout > out loads of junk (embedded copies of libraries being the most > significant part). > > My pe

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Just do it !!! Ubuntu has chromium maintainers already. Start your own > SRWare ppa. > > And please stop spamming ubuntu & debian mailing list. You were > already asked once to stop this non-sence. > > When you have constructive packaging

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Dane Mutters wrote: > I think some of you would be interested in reading this page that > (allegedly) documents some of the (allegedly) somewhat shady > beginnings of Iron: > > http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html > > If this information i

Re: SRWare Iron: Chromium without the data-mining

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Joao Pinto wrote: > >> I can't start a SRWare PPA immediately as they haven't released >> updated source code in some time (probably due to neglience if >> anything). >> >> Thanks, >> Ryan > > If you believe there are serious concerns with the current chromium pack

Re: Rethinking Ubuntu's Repositories

On Mon May 24 at 10:08:49 BST 2010, Conrad Knauer wrote: >I like the repository system that Ubuntu uses, but I feel that there >is a problem with it and I have a suggestion as to how to fix it. >Splitting out the desktop apps would mean that old LTS releases (like >Dapper, which is expired for th

Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model

On Mon Jun 14 11:23:03 BST 2010, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: >We're making a small step towards this in Maverick, with the ability for >application developers to submit packages for an Ubuntu version after >that version has been released. >

Ubuntu AppUpdate

I'm looking at setting up a update service for Ubuntu Lucid called "Ubuntu AppUpdate". Developers would notify the team of their app updates and we would push them to our repo. It will be similar to GetDeb, but it will be based around Launchpad and PPAs and would have more extensive testing. I rea

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 17:45 -0400 BST, Joao Pinto wrote: > Why set up another project instead of participating in GetDeb ? > What do you expect to achieve with "Ubuntu AppUpdate" that you can't with > GetDeb ? I believe I sent you an e-mail asking if your team wanted to collaborate. (I sent one

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Joao Pinto wrote: > Did you read http://wiki.getdeb.net/AutomatedBuildSystem ? > We have experienced some hosting problems on the last couple of months which > had a major impact on our availability, we expect to recover full > operationally soon. > > Our packages u

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Joao Pinto wrote: > The last time I have checked pbuilder used chroots just as sbuild does, > where can I read about the VM technology used for the PPAs ? > How does it improve package quality compared to a regular chroot based build > ? > The dependency and scripts

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: > Ryan, > while your first answer demonstrated you are not properly informed on the > technical aspects of either the proper Ubuntu archives or PPAs, this second > one show you don't have any clue about how GetDeb works. When I was writing that re

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Fri Jul 9 23:08:14 BST 2010, Joshua Timberman wrote: > Actually, the difference is that sbuild uses schroot with LVM snapshots for > the chroot environments. It's quite a nice, elegant system and I prefer it to > pbuilder for developing packages. Ya, I can definitely see why sbuild would be u

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Sat Jul 10 00:34:53 BST 2010, Joao Pinto wrote: > I am sorry but you are not correct, GetDeb only does packaging when such is > required, we try to avoid redundant work and package forking. Re-using > Ubuntu, Debian and PPAs building rules is a requirement if you intend to > minimize dependency

Integrate "Apt-linker" into all Ubuntu Browsers

Greasemonkey script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/47591 Firefox extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11731/ Chromium extension: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/oljmaangfgmmokjpnojhfblppgeijikp I was just wondering if it would be possible to integrate the fun

Re: Integrate "Apt-linker" into all Ubuntu Browsers

On Mon Jul 12 18:23:57 BST 2010, Joao Pinto : > The greasemonkey script does not really help in any of those problems, > apturl is a nice solution, it needs better integration and other > improvements. I believe it is the proper tool to invest at. > > -- > João Luís Marques Pinto > GetDeb Team Lead

Re: Integrate "Apt-linker" into all Ubuntu Browsers

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:59:28 +0100: > A Greasemonkey script would work only for people already using Ubuntu > (and using a browser that allows Greasemonkey scripts). It wouldn't do > anything to make an apt: URL understandable for people who aren't using > Ubuntu. Nor woul

Re: Integrate "Apt-linker" into all Ubuntu Browsers

Micah Gersten wrote on Fri Jul 16 01:41:52 BST 2010: > I don't think we should install something like this by default. If the > license is open source, why not package it? If people want it, they can > install it. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be made default and integrated into existi

Re: Integrate "Apt-linker" into all Ubuntu Browsers

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:23:40 +0100: > The solution I described already solves that problem. It doesn't apply to the many existing tutorials and guides though. I agree that the Ubuntu community needs to be educated on AptURL and a service like you're proposing would be a g

Re: Ubuntu AppUpdate

On Fri Jul 9 23:08:14 BST 2010, Joshua Timberman wrote: > Actually, the difference is that sbuild uses schroot with LVM snapshots for > the chroot environments. It's quite a nice, elegant system and I prefer it to > pbuilder for developing packages. Ya, I can definitely see why sbuild would be u