|
Description
Occasionally you see comments on brainstorm that thus-and-so is an upstream issue, in a way to discount the importance of the idea here. I think this is irrelevant and a cop-out.
Users see Ubuntu as an integrated product, not a platform. That actually works in our favor: Windows is "just a platform." Ubuntu can be much more and thus provide a richer experience.
At the very least, for a set of applications considered "core", the distribution should take full responsibility for feature requests. A major value-add of Ubuntu is that it is not just a repository of well-made packages plus a release schedule. It endeavors to be a cohesive, usable whole.
So if a suggestion comes up for a feature in OpenOffice.org, I certainly think it is fair game.
So the idea is to push this as a cultural norm on Brainstorm: upstream issues for core applications are our issues, and that includes feature requests.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
mp3phish wrote on the 6 Apr 08 at 20:46
|
100% agree. I might add that I have seen similar comments and tried to defend them in the remarks. But there are just a lot of people on brainstorm with the "old" mentality that the distribution is just a set of packages. Well, guess what, the distribution is also a product. And if the product has a missing feature that people want, its not just "oh well, that isn't an existing feature" that should be done. Instead, we should work towards those goals.
I think that was the entire point of brainstorm in the first place. If brainstorm was for the "old" way then it would exist as a wiki or mailing list. It isn't and it doesn't therefore all feature requests are fair game.
|
|
glibik wrote on the 6 Apr 08 at 22:15
|
I strongly disagree with the idea that "the distribution should take full responsibility for feature requests".
Take responsibility for contributing ideas, code, etc. to upstream projects ... yes.
If Canonical (Ubuntu), Redhat, Novell (SuSE), Debian, etc. were to "take full responsibility for feature requests" as suggested, we would end up with an Ubuntu version of Openoffice.org, a Redhat version of Openoffice.org, a Novell version of Openoffice.org, a Debian version of Openoffice.org, etc., none of which being compatible with any other, not even with the original. That would be a sad state of affairs, in my view.
|
|
bryhoyt wrote on the 6 Apr 08 at 23:46
|
This is a good idea.
Sure, no distro can or should take *full* responsibility -- features & bugs should be handled upstream if at all possible.
But the idea here, I think, is that these feature requests shouldn't be ignored at the distro level. The Ubuntu people should still consider such feature requests, and either actively implement them, or actively make sure that they're implemented upstream, or else find a good reason why they shouldn't be implemented, other than "it's upstream's problem".
|
|
glibik wrote on the 7 Apr 08 at 03:41
|
bryhoyt: As I understand it Ubuntu, and some others, do in fact actively contribute to upstream projects ... regularly.
|
|
andruk wrote on the 7 Apr 08 at 03:47
|
Having been told to take my OpenOffice.org ideas to, well, openoffice.org, I think this is a great idea. OpenOffice.org will get changed much quicker if Canonical requests a feature than if I suggest a feature (regardless of how apparent the benefit of said feature is).
That, and I would have to subscribe to the mailing list to suggest something, as far as I can tell. And I don't want to wade through a bunch of emails from that mailing list.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 7 Apr 08 at 06:50
|
In many cases I agree.. Especially since Canonical is profiting in many cases from other peoples projects (where they make no money)
HOWEVER, many people are doing stupid stuff like posting bug reports here, even though, there is not enough info to help developers, and theres no feedback loop
So you have my +1 for everything, but bug reports in brainstorm, although, Ubuntu should really post those upstream too
|
|
jhoger wrote on the 15 Apr 08 at 01:36
|
glibik - I disagree that "taking full responsibility" for requests necessarily implies Ubuntu wholesale forks of the upstream project. This may in some cases be possible, but for something like OpenOffice.org, clearly not. Too big a job, in that case.
However, there is plenty of grey area between "fork" and just tossing our ideas onto the upstream mailing list. Donating a Canonical developer to do an implement a feature is one possibility.
Now if upstream doesn't take the feature (which could happen for various reasons) I think it is still reasonable to maintain patches against upstream source in cases where it really adds user value.
Another way to look at it is: what is "Ubuntu?" If you take away everything that is not created by the Canonical developers, there isn't anything there. So I think it is the "core" applications and interface that we expect a good percentage of users to interact with.
|
|
bochecha wrote on the 25 May 08 at 20:06
|
I totally agree with you (even if that may seem controversial to what we were discussing in the other idea ;)
However, while I do think Ubuntu (and Linux distributions in general) should take more responsibility for making development in those products, I think they must always give those developments back upstream.
If you think about it, what is a Linux distribution? Only a set of programs working together. The kernel is an upstream project. Xorg is an upstream project. Gnome is an upstream project. Each and every bit of code included in Ubuntu (and other distributions) are upstream projects !
Does that mean a Linux distribution must only take the releases of those project, build them, and copy them on a disc image they will sell ?
No ! A Linux distribution is responsible for not only including softwares but also *integrating* them, i.e. making them work well together, with configurations and choices that will make the whole seem consistent, as if only one product.
And we all know that to *integrate* lots of upstream project in a way you want, you have to work on developping those projects, so that they fit your needs.
That's why Linux distributions *have to* take responsibility and work on upstream programs, and why they always have to give it back upstream.
|
|
Lightbreeze wrote on the 19 Jun 08 at 11:49
|
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/10004/
Hopefully soon brainstorm will expand to be a place for users to come up with ideas around certain apps and for their developers to find the popular ideas, provide feedback, and implement them.
Hopefully that will meet what your looking for here?
|
|
jhoger wrote on the 20 Jun 08 at 07:35
|
Lightbreeze: my concern in this idea is mostly with dismissive comments and attitudes about Ideas that can only be implemented by Upstream as not being relevant on Brainstorm.
So, if there are Brainstorm sub-sites for important applications then I think that would put the question to rest. So yeah, I guess that would address it.
But, so would a clear statement in the Guidelines that "upstream ideas" are completely relevant on Brainstorm. All that would take is a documentation change, and word would start to spread.
|
Post your comment
|
