Archive for the ‘Ubuntu’ Category

File Organization & Gnome 3.0

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

Thank-you to Felix Kaser for pointing out Mark Shuttleworth’s interview with derStandard.at. It was an incredibly interesting read. While at the GCDS this year I made many guesses about the Ubuntu opinion on Gnome Shell and the plans for 3.0. They, as the largest distributor of a consumer linux desktop, have the most to lose or gain from the awesome 3.0 plans.

The part of the interview that struck me directly was Mark’s opinion on what is missing from our proposals:

Well initially there was a lot of discussions about something that was much less visual which is how files are organized and I even blogged about it. I think actually that could be a bigger  improvement in the every-day user experience of the GNOME desktop”

I don’t know about Mark, but I was surrounded by people who are desperate to solve this type of problem at GCDS. Rob Taylor & Philip Van Hoof were both present and really pushing tracker as a a usable, fast data-store for desktop metadata. I attended Thursdays ontology BoF with the two of them. Mark is right, this is generally an unsexy problem. People who missed the ‘Nature of e-mail containers’ conversation on Thursday afternoon avoided the GCDS nadir of boredom.

The real problems of how we present this to our users is still to come, and its much more difficult than providing a fast data-store or getting consensus on what the meta-data should look like. Still, its the sexy, exciting part where we should be able to get everyone involved. Mark may be surprised by how many at Codethink and elsewhere in the community are working on replacing the awful file-system metaphor for data organization. Obviously we haven’t done enough to get his attention yet, but that could change soon. (Small secret) Codethink should be putting resources into a demo app over the coming months for the purpose of showing off some cool new technologies, including the new Tracker. Wait for a blog post from Rob Taylor for the full details.

Who does what about the Debian Debacle?

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

Hopefully everyone already knows that Debian & Ubuntu have let us all down over the past two years by shipping a woefully insecure OpenSSL package. Personally its destroyed a-lot of faith that I had in the Ubuntu operating system.

Most of us, who arn’t deeply involved in our OS, have to simply trust in the processes and people putting it together. I’m no exception. Before this happened I had no real understanding of the packaging / development process for Ubuntu, and no great interest in it either. More fool me. This one security breach has left me scrambling to find out what went wrong.

 Fixing the cause

This one isn’t going to go away because the fix has been shipped. There is still a serious flaw in the Ubuntu and Debian development process that I’m hopeful the developers are working this out on the mailing lists / irc right now.

Erich Schubert had to say about the maintainer who made the mistake ” But you bet he’s going to be a lot more careful with any change in the future: he has learned his lesson”. I’m sure he has, but as Erich mentioned shortly after , lots of other maintainers won’t. Nor is there going to be a massive increase in the code quality of upstream software, even for security-sensitive things like OpenSSL. Badly commented software and miscommunications are facts of life, what Ubuntu needs is processes that catch these mistakes in a little less time than 2 years.

 Regaining my trust (and perhaps others too)

I’m fairly sure that things are taking place to make sure this doesn’t happen again. But, like so many institutions, Ubuntu can’t just do right on this one. It has to be seen to do right. The solutions that they come up with must be timely, and extremely public. There are a huge amount of people and companies that use Debian & Ubuntu. Not all of them have time to trawl mailing lists and blogs. Its a biggie, If Canonical don’t start talking loudly about this its a real incentive to move to a different distribution.