tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o) writes:
quoted text
>There has been an awful lot of discussions about ways to "Stablize
>Linux" --- whether this is good or bad --- the need for an "Official
>Release", and talk about a "Linux Committee".  I've seen some stuff I
>agree with, and some stuff that I disagree with.  

I have not proposed a committee, only an "official release".  I was
trying to convey an opinion, or perhaps a dream, of how Linux could
(perhaps should) be from a user's point of view.  From a user's point of
view, especially from a confused newbie's point of view, it is better to
have one "official release" than several different releases.  IMHO, of
course.

I doubt that a committee is the way to go, the current method of
discussing things more or less openly and then seeing what the various
volunteers do seems to work fairly well.  Which is what at least I was
trying to do (albeit in too much of an authoritative tone, I'm afraid). 

quoted text
>You should all keep in mind that the people who have been putting in
>their time to make Linux better do so out of a labor of love; Linux is
>freeware, and it is relatively rare for freeware to be of the quality
>that Linux already is.  I hear a lot of calls about ways people think
>Linux should be made better; but what I don't hear is anyone
>volunteering to actually do the work.  

A direct hit: I haven't done vary much, but that will hopefully change
in a month or so.  I need to get some for-money work out of the way
first.

(Not that I see anything wrong in suggesting ways to improve Linux, even
if you can't afford to do it yourself.  This is different from requiring
that others do the work for you.)

quoted text
>This is why a Linux committee would not terribly productive; if it's
>composed of people who do nothing more than demand that volunteers spend
>even more of their time working on it, so that it becomes "acceptable"
>--- it won't work, and it will only breed resentment on both sides.  

I agree that there is no justification on requiring any volunteer to do
anything, and I hope what I have said didn't sound like that.  I wanted
to express a hope what somebody (possibly even myself) would do, if and
when they find the time and resources, and also express an opinion on
how the future of Linux should look like. 

quoted text
>What we're seeing is the results of Linux's success.  It has proven to
>be so successful that people are forgetting that it is freeware, and
>STILL IN BETA TEST; that it is rare for you to even get what you pay
>for, let alone exceed what you paid for it (which is what Linux has
>clearly done).  Instead, people are assuming that it should be a
>turn-key system; and Someone should put together better system
>administration tools than what currently exists on the market.

While it's still in beta, I was thinking about what it should look like
when it no more is.  A turn-key system is more or less exactly what I
think it should be, from an ordinary user's (non-Linux hacker's) point
of view.

quoted text
>Guys (and Gals) ---- release engineeering is hard work, and in general
>no fun.  

I know, and I said as much.

quoted text
>You should be thanking those people who have been putting
>together the MCC release, the TAMU release, or the MJ release, not
>complaining about how the maintainers should be putting even more of
>their free time into it.  If you're not satisifed with the quality of
>those releases, put one together yourself!  If it's better than all the
>others, everyone will start using it.

I wasn't saying they should put more time into it, and I wasn't
complaining about their work either, at least not directly.  It is just
that my personal impression of the current state of Linux (and the
probable state for 1.0) is (or was) that things were not as well as they
could be, and was trying to raise a bit of discussion of this.  I may
have been mistaken of the qualities of the various releases, I need to
examine them as soon as possible.

quoted text
>As for system administration tools --- that is still an unsolved
>problem; I have yet to see a general purpose system administrator's tool
>that works in all environments; handles everything that a potential
>sysadmin might want to do; and doesn't get in the way of an experienced
>administrator.  Why are people demanding that Linux provide a solution
>to an unsolved research problem?

Because it is needed for J. Random Luser to be able to run Linux on his
home computer.

However, I do not think a complete automatization of administration is
needed, nine tenths of the job should be doable by writing programs that
walk the user through basic tasks such as adding new users, setting up
cron jobs, making backups, etc.  Having a program to do these things is
much more easier for an ordinary user than having to edit various text
files with an editor.  I am sure there are programs for this already
floating around.

quoted text
>In summary, if you're not satisfied with how Linux is progressing, put
>in the time and effort to improve the areas you are complaining about.

I'll do exactly that as soon as I get the time.

quoted text
>If you can't do that, rest assured that many of us are aware of the
>shortcomings of Linux, and some of us are wondering how to find the time
>to address the deficiency.  Flaming about it, however, isn't going to
>help.  Talk is cheap; actually doing something about it is harder.

I sincerely assure that I did not intend to flame.  I fear that it is
perceived as such, and that this thread is going in that direction, so I
will try to be more careful in expressing myself.

--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi