Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Beans
    9,213
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    from http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sou...ry/003630.html

    I don't like to discourage people from pursuing their ideas just because
    I don't "get" them. I've been wrong often enough. So in the early days
    of the DCC I preferred to let the proponents do their thing and then see
    how it all worked out in the end. Now we are pretty close to the end

    So I'll answer this in more detail now. I do hope this doesn't turn into
    a flamefest. This is simply my view on what will work, and what won't.

    1. The Name. From the very outset I thought the "Debian Common Core
    Alliance" name was going to be a problem, and it has been. The DCC folks
    don't have the right to use the Debian name, and have been told that
    very publicly. Their was an attempt to pretend that "DCC stands for DCC
    Common Core" but that's pretty much nonsense, even DCC members continue
    to refer to it as "Debian Common Core", a name that it cannot legally use.

    2. The Commonness. The DCC distro doesn't use the Debian kernel, and it
    modifies key pieces of the infrastructure like the linking system and
    core system libraries. So it's not really Debian at heart. There is now
    discussion of modifying many, many more packages, for example to use the
    Ubuntu X.org packages rather than the Sarge XFree86 packages.

    3. The Style. The DCC distro is really aimed at shoehorning an
    LSB-compatible environment on top of Sarge. I think if LSB was a goal
    for Sarge then that could have been achieved directly in Sarge, not in
    this hybrid fashion. If we were to do LSB for Ubuntu, it would be done
    directly rather than as a compatibility layer.

    4. The Premise. The vision behind DCC, which is indeed compelling, is
    that it would provide a common platform for certification, and that the
    distros that make up the DCC would all ship exactly that same core. But
    it strikes me that this approach has never worked in the past. In fact,
    every distro ALWAYS modifies elements of the core, and with good reason.
    And while we would love that not to be the case, the truth is that the
    reasons to specialise outweigh the benefits of homogeneity. Much as it
    may be compelling, the common core idea is ultimately flawed, because
    it's not just the bits at the core that matter. An ISV that certifies an
    OS is not just certifying the pieces on which it's app depends. It's
    also certifying the *environment* which it will support, which includes
    installer, documentation, even packaging. Screenshots, for example,
    won't be useful unless they reflect all of the certified OS's, and
    that's not possible in the DCC model. There have been several examples
    of places where this idea has failed. United Linux is one.

    Now, that said, it's great that Debian-derived commercial distros have a
    forum and a mailing list on which to discuss problems they run into, and
    I think the DCC project has served as a good touch point for bringing
    some of these hidden issues to the fore. So I'm in no way opposed to the
    DCC or its members, and in fact there are some neat places where we are
    collaborating with the DCC on source code, which is where I think the
    collaboration works best. The DCC kernel and Ubuntu kernel will be very
    similar if not identical in future DCC releases, and I expect that
    collaboration will spread to other parts of the system such as X, ACPI etc.

    The essential driver of free software is collaboration to achieve common
    goals. And that works best at the source code level. Inasmuch as the DCC
    has promoted better collaboration between its members, it's a success.

    Mark
    what's a troll? | my blog | my writing | Ubuntu Unleashed

    Don't ask support questions in PMs--post a thread so everyone can benefit!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Beans
    439
    Distro
    Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    I agree with that in that bundling the same core with multiple distributions is a virtual impossibility. I mean, in a distribution as young as Ubuntu, what gets changed more? Already, radical changes are taking place in the Breezy -> Dapper evolution. If Breezy were built on a universal Debian core, then most of its congruency with it would already be gone in Dapper. And this is just one distribution! Imagine how development would cease to develop if Debian, Ubuntu, Mepis, etc., etc. were all crippled by such a ball-and-chain whenever they wanted to move on to a new, innovative strategy for their respective audiences.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Beans
    6,040

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    I'm 100% behind Ubuntu's attitude to disregard binary compatibility and participation in the DCCA and focus on collaboration on a source level instead. I feel a need to stress the "source" in "open source" when people whine about binary incompatibility.
    Previously known as 23meg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Beans
    439
    Distro
    Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    I compile everything that doesn't come in Ubuntu repos and I wouldn't want it any other way.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Beans
    2,434

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    Its kinda funny- Mark didn't want to comment on the DCCA until it was seen as less relevent but by not commenting ( or more so not commiting) he was partially responsible for its marginalization.

    Not that I blame him- the guy behind it is VERY anti-Ubuntu and compliance would have cost Mark a lot of money.
    Those folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
    - Mark Shuttleworth

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Trento,Italy
    Beans
    73

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    Quote Originally Posted by poofyhairguy
    Not that I blame him- the guy behind it is VERY anti-Ubuntu and compliance would have cost Mark a lot of money.
    Are you talking about Murdock, the founder of Debian?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Beans
    276

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Beans
    6,040

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    He also talks about DCCA and Debian binary compatibility (lack thereof) on his wikipage, in case anyone missed that:

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth
    Previously known as 23meg

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Beans
    2,434

    Re: Shuttlesworth on DCCA - a detailed statement

    Quote Originally Posted by gasparov
    Are you talking about Murdock, the founder of Debian?


    Yeah...search for his name on the forum to discover our previous problems with his attitude (he likes to spread FUD about Ubuntu).
    Those folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave.
    - Mark Shuttleworth

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •