I’d like to propose a new meme for the Planets, something a little more interesting than the third paragraph in your nearest bowl of Alphabet Soup. Something, in fact, a little creative.
I wonder if you’ve heard of a Drabble?
A drabble, simply put, is a story, normally science fiction or fantasy that is exactly one hundred (100) words in length. No more, no less.
Such things were often written in a contest, and so I’d like to propose such a contest.
To participate, all you have to do is write a story in 100 words and post it on your blog.
Here’s my attempt, entitled The Siege.
‘The city, sir! It’s under siege!’
The king put down his goblet and stared at the sergeant.
‘Who is it this time?
‘It can’t be the dwarfs, they can’t reach the ramparts.
‘The trolls just don’t have the stamina.
‘The elves get drunk and wander off singing.
‘The ents are easily dispatched with fire.
‘And as for the orcs, wait long enough and they kill each other.’
‘So who is it? Hmm?’
The sergeant looked sheepish, as the king awaited his answer.
‘It’s our own people, Sir!’
Ah, this was going to be a problem.
Jason Clinton replied to my virtiolic rant about GIT with a well researched and thought out reply. Sorry, that’s not what I mean. He replied to my rant against a piece of technology with a personal attack.
I feel that there’s a few points that I need to reply to.
Romeo Tango Foxtrot Mike
I did, in fact, the vast majority of my post was excerpts from the Foxtrot Mike. It was the Foxtrot Mike that was half of the problem.
and because the company you work for has a horse in this race and they can do no wrong
What does this having anything to do with anything? The company I work for develops many pieces of software, and a quick bit of searching will find people who work for the same company (including myself) complaining just as loudly about them.
Sometimes, sadly, it seems that people in the open source world are unable to separate other people from the companies that they work for. Ironic, given the high turnover, and frequent moves between the different companies that most people seem to go through.
I am not Canonical. I am not on the Bazaar team. I have been involved in open source since long before I joined Canonical, and I will almost certainly be involved long after I leave Canonical.
Most importantly, I am able to hold my own opinions, and I am able to form those opinions without influence from my employers.
If you don’t believe me, just go back a couple of years and look at some of my rants about Arch, and the first Bazaar. Ask for a copy of my book, “Arch is easy, and other lies the developers may have told you.” It has a cool cover.
GIT reminds me a lot of Arch.
My personal opinion about this is that Arch (and now GIT) is the first distributed revision control system that people try, and then they get it. They understand why distributed revision control is so awesome, and they attribute this awesomeness to Arch (and now GIT) rather than realising that it’s an inherent property of any such system. The learning curve is pretty damned steep, so there’s a lot of investment to learn Arch (and now GIT) and once people have made an investment in something, and received an epiphany as an award, they become very attached to it and very aggressive about attacks on it.
and because you can’t be bothered to look up what you want to do first
Again, it should be clear from the post that I had spent a very long time trying to look up what I needed to do and found no help.
From the very same Git Tutorial that you were about to link to in a giant section titled
Using git for collaborationyou could, you know, look at the command you think you might want:
Have you actually read that? I have, yesterday as it happens. All of the examples are with bob and alice working on the same machine, it makes a brief reference to the two being on different machines but then assumes that bob can access alice’s workstation.
Utterly useless.
And since you’re a very smart person with a history of working with VCS’s and a resume a mile long in the FOSS community, you know that that’s a giant red flag that you’re about to force the tool you’re using in a mode that is not distributed.
And as you can clearly see, I was trying not to do so. I was simply trying to push changes from my workstation to a server from which alice, err sorry, lamont could pull them. If I am picking the wrong commands because of familiarity with other systems, then frankly GIT is being perverse in deliberately using commands in a different way. Even BitKeeper used push for “make your changes public”.
You say that I’m using the wrong command? Well, let’s try and figure out from first principles what command I actually want. git help should tell us:
The most commonly used git commands are: add Add file contents to the index bisect Find the change that introduced a bug by binary search branch List, create, or delete branches checkout Checkout a branch or paths to the working tree clone Clone a repository into a new directory commit Record changes to the repository diff Show changes between commits, commit and working tree, etc fetch Download objects and refs from another repository grep Print lines matching a pattern init Create an empty git repository or reinitialize an existing one log Show commit logs merge Join two or more development histories together mv Move or rename a file, a directory, or a symlink pull Fetch from and merge with another repository or a local branch push Update remote refs along with associated objects rebase Forward-port local commits to the updated upstream head reset Reset current HEAD to the specified state rm Remove files from the working tree and from the index show Show various types of objects status Show the working tree status tag Create, list, delete or verify a tag object signed with GPG
Any of those strike you as doing what I want? I imagine that getting changes from your workstation to a web or git server is a sufficiently commonly used command, after all, even the kernel developers all publish their branches on master.kernel.org.
Well, it’s clearly not add, or fetch. merge? pull? no. reset? status? no.
You know, reading that, I really might think that the right command is push.
The git(1) manual page gives even more commands, one of them looks really appropriate:
git-send-pack(1)
Push objects over git protocol to another repository.
The manual page on this instantly refers us back to push.
DESCRIPTION
Usually you would want to use git-push, which is a higher-level wrapper
of this command, instead. See git-push(1).
If push really isn’t the right command, perhaps the Foxtrot Mike could stop referring to it everywhere?
Now, it happens that I received some helpful replies as well. You clearly know the right command, and even manage to mention it, but not in any kind of helpful way. Another kinder soul was much more helpful.
clone is the right command, it can take two arguments and the first argument can be “.” while the second can be a remote URL:
quest util-linux% git clone --bare . ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git
was what I actually wanted. Curiously nobody in the #git channel seemed to know about this when I was asking for help.
Users coming from other revision control systems will probably equate clone to branch, or checkout or some other similar operation. It probably won’t occur to them that they can reverse the arguments. This should definitely be prominently documented.
And no, the GIT tutorial never gives this example. It’s always clone remote to local.
Random aside, I discovered that bzr supports bzr branch local remote as well; neat.
Someone else tried to be helpful, but ended up simply being amusing. They suggested that I use git format-patch to extract my patches and then send them by e-mail.
Can I just say that if your revision control system is so bad for collaboration that patches must still be sent by e-mail, then something is deeply, deeply wrong.
To finish up, in a comment on your own blog post you say:
All the documentation in the world won’t help if even smart people like Scott decide not to read it and demand that git work exactly like bzr does. Which is exactly what happened here. Again.
A quick bit of checking would show that the example I gave wouldn’t work with bzr either. Bzr needs a silly “bzr+” on the front of the URL, there’s a lot of fail there too.
My recent series of posts in which I had some difficulty with GIT (1, 2, 3) have garnered a lot of interest, and generated some discussion. Many of the replies saw the funny side, which is nice as I was hoping to be at least amusing (rants are, after all, a form of entertainment) and more than I expected sympathised. Many tried to help by giving me a sequence of commands that might work, ironically often the exact same commands I used in my original post.
And many told me I was an idiot, and that they had no problem; and that I should learn how to use GIT instead of just stabbing at guesses.
Those made me realise what the fundamental difference between myself and them are.
I don’t want to use a revision control system.
It follows that if I don’t want to use one, I certainly don’t want to waste time learning one! I don’t want to use a text editor either, again it’s just something that gets in the way of what I really want to do.
I want to write code, and I want to fix bugs and test the fixes.
Actually, I don’t really want to fix bugs; but it’s one of those things you have to do as a responsible software author and maintainer. Now, I sadly can’t just write code by thinking about it. Even though I use zsh, holding down the TAB key just doesn’t write my code for me, so I have to use a text editor.
And I hate them, especially emacs, which is the text editor I use. I keep hoping that one day Anjuta or something like MonoDevelop will be usable for writing and debugging C – but alas, that day has not yet come. (Incidentally, if a developer would like some constructive criticism from my side, I would be perfectly happy to do give it – just grab me on IRC).
Now I don’t have to use a Revision Control System, unlike a text editor which is somewhat essential, but there are a lot of advantages to using one. In particular, I think I have two primary use cases:
Since I don’t want to use a Revision Control System, it should be as simple and painless to use as possible. I have probably a dozen common actions that I do; so each of these actions should be just one command, with no options or flags to make them do the right thing. For bonus points, these commands should be obvious and ideally have aliases for the similar commands in other systems for easier learning.
Here’s the first set:
We could probably call these get, commit, push and pull. Note that I’m not allowing for any kind of add, move or remove command. Such things are a pain in the neck; my most common preference is just for any changes I’ve made to be committed. This is probably one big reason why GIT and I don’t get on so well; it’s written for somebody else’s use case where the most common use case is committing nothing.
Since I pretend to like other people working on my software, I’ll need a couple of commands for doing that:
I’ve yet to see a revision control syste m that makes the first one easy, which is sad, because it’s just about the most common operation I do on other people’s branches/repositories/clones; I’d call that review, and then we can call the second one merge.
And then for the last set:
We can call these log, diff and show (though ideally diff and show would be just the same command with a revision range or single revision).
I’ve probably forgotten something important, but in general, those are the operations I try and do with a revision control system. Thus I can create a Revision Control System Hate Index. The more commands, options or flags it takes to do any of these operations, the higher the Hate Index and the more I’ll loathe it.
GIT scores badly, very few of these operations are a simple command. Many require pre-configuration, many require options and flags to do the right thing. And a couple of them are actually multiple commands.
In fact, GIT’s hate index gets increased further, because after a while you realise that most of the top-level commands very rarely do the right thing. Instead, you start to break down the commands to their fundamentals. If you’ve ever found yourself using git fetch you know what I mean.
This means that I have to stop thinking about writing code, and start thinking about using the revision control system and what the best way to accomplish the operation that I want is. This is a fail that only results in hate.
And just for the peanut gallery, I’d like to point out that Bzr has a non-zero Hate Index as well. In fact, there are misfeatures and bugs in Bzr that make my blood boil just as much as GIT, sometimes even more since Bzr actually claims to always try to do what I mean.
You know what would make me happiest? If I had a text editor that took care of revision control for me. Sometimes I wish there was a Linux version of the good old Borland IDE or at least VisualStudio.
I do not like git.
Let’s take the most mind-numbingly trivial of operations, I want to put a branch I have somewhere so somebody else can get it. That’s the whole point of distributed revision-control, collaboration.
That’s too fundamental to be covered in the git tutorial, after all, it wouldn’t be fun if it were that easy.
Happily, git has built in manual pages. And knowing a few other revision control systems, we can guess that the command might be push. And indeed, there’s a push command:
push Update remote refs along with associated objects
Maybe this isn’t going to be so hard after all, a quick git push –help and we’ll be laughing.
DESCRIPTION
Updates remote refs using local refs, while sending objects necessary
to complete the given refs.
Ok, err, not quite sure what that means; but it sounds like it’s doing something over there with what I have here. Probably the tool I want.
You can make interesting things happen to a repository every time you
push into it, by setting up hooks there. See documentation for git-
receive-pack(1).
I’m not sure I want to know about making interesting things happen right now, I’ll just settle for some boring making-things-public.
OPTIONS
<repository>
The “remote” repository that is destination of a push operation.
See the section GIT URLS below.
Aha! Now we’re getting somewhere. I give it an argument saying where I want to push to, that all makes perfect sense. A quick skip down to the URLs bit tells me I can use ssh, which is what I want.
There’s one other mandatory argument though.
<refspec>…
The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is +?<src>:<dst>;
that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref, followed
by a colon :, followed by the destination ref.
Err?
*blink*
Whuuuuh?
My brain seems to have fallen out of my head, let me pop it back in and read that paragraph again.
<refspec>…
The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is +?<src>:<dst>;
that is, an optional plus +, followed by the source ref, followed
by a colon :, followed by the destination ref.
It didn’t get any better the second time.
Some faffing around, guess-work and cargo culting what other people do seems to suggest it wants the branch name there. Well, why didn’t it say so?
Ok, that should be easy then.
quest util-linux% git push ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git ubuntu fatal: '/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git': unable to chdir or not a git archive fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
I’ve had a few ex-boyfriends hang up on me before, and they were gits too.
There’s nothing in the manual page about this.
There’s nothing in the tutorial.
What the holy crap is going on?
Turns out, you need to create the other side first. Why the buggering bollocks can it not to that for you?
So, let’s try that. There’s some clues about this in the git init manual page, but I have to be honest and I begged for help (and mercy) at this point:
quest util-linux% ssh zinc
zinc scott% cd /srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott
zinc scott% GIT_DIR=util-linux.git git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git/
zinc scott% exit
quest util-linux%
Z w G yrG@
s
>
C
n
g
@
4
k 2 'yrDA LE}V5(# wHAaZ.' stringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 content typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 author typeScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 authorstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 id_hash type114101306745ef969a5261abda791a36http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 id_hashstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 comments typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-3/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 title typeGIT sucks (3)http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 titlestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 id typehttp://www.nethttp://www.netsplit.com/blog/index.rssconfigured_urlnullfilter typestringlanguage typestringsy_updatefrequency typeScott James Remnanttitlestringnext_order typenullexclude type1f6f03e48c5ec59f79dfd0091bab81bahttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 id_hashhttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/18/concept-distro/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 summary typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 wfw_commentrss typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 date typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 link10http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 order64http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 slash_commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 id_hash typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 comments typeWhatever you do, don’t fix the kernel!http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 titleA complete surprise to me, from slides of today’s OSiM Maemo Developer Session it appears that Maemo (the Nokia open source Internet Tablet platform) has adopted Upstart. Does anyone know whether they are using native jobs or still using SysV compatibility?
http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 contentstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 author type114101306745ef969a5261abda791a36http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 id_hashhttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-3/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 id type2008 8 28 13 55 32 3 241 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 updated'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 contentstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 id_hash typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 comments typeRevision Control Systems suckhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 titleslash_comments hidden title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187Jason Clinton replied to my virtiolic rant about GIT with a well researched and thought out reply. Sorry, that’s not what I mean. He replied to my rant against a piece of technology with a personal attack.
I feel that there’s a few points that I need to reply to.
Romeo Tango Foxtrot Mike
I did, in fact, [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 summaryhttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-2/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 wfw_commentrss2009 2 17 12 33 23 1 48 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 datestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 link typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 hidden typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 slash_comments typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 summary typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 wfw_commentrss typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 date typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/26/drabble-contest-the-siege/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 link9http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 order8http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 slash_comments 8 `Y-&g
b
[
4
j xV7
zf?%qRD=0 V O |]esQ2jc92 http://www.netsplit.com/2008/09/23/upstart-adoption-continues/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 linkstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 comments typeUpstart adoption continueshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 titleyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 hidden18http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 slash_commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 idUnfortunately I have to make a correction to my previous post.
In that post, I suggested that the following git command would work:
quest util-linux% git clone --bare . ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git
I wholeheartedly apologise. It turns out that what this command does is make the following local directory: $(pwd)/ssh:/kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git.
Unfortunately this means that normal service of hating git, while still being uhttp://www.netsplit.com/feed/url2009 3 26 16 37 43 3 85 0url_modifiedstringurl_etag typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 id'o P http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 id type2009 3 26 16 31 50 3 85 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 updatedScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 authorstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 comments typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 id
Unfortunately I have to make a correction to my previous post.
In that post, I suggested that the following git command would work:
quest util-linux% git clone --bare . ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git
I wholeheartedly apologise. It turns out that what this command does is make the following local directory: $(pwd)/ssh:/kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git.
Unfortunately this means that normal service of hating git, while still being utterly unable to find any reasonable command to do what I want, will have to resume.
All I want to do is run a command to take the branch I have in my local working tree, and put that on a remote server so that other people can get at it.
Failing that, I want sharks with frikkin’ laser beams on their foreheads!
Is either so much to ask?
http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 updated typeIn response to my blog post “Whatever you do, don’t fix the kernel!“, David Zeuthen (prominent plumber, the maintainer of HAL and author of DeviceKit) wrote:
Scott, here’s why you’re wrong. It’s very simple and comes down to two points
- you obviously agree we can’t break huge amounts of userspace by changing DEVPATH
- having two names [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 summarystringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 wfw_commentrss typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 date typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 link type3http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 orderhttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/28/calling-things-by-the-same-name/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 comments typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 content typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 id type2009 2 26 3 3 46 3 57 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 updatedScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 author 3 git remote add zinc ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott
quest util-linux% git push zinc ubuntu
Counting objects: 10652, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (2545/2545), done.
Writing objects: 100% (10652/10652), 19.10 MiB | 12192 KiB/s, done.
Total 10652 (delta 8075), reused 10534 (delta 8013)
To ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git
* [new branch] ubuntu -> ubuntu
Hurrah! At last!
No.
Not at all.
Firstly, pushing to a remote branch doesn’t make it visible in anything like gitweb. You have to do enable that.
quest util-linux% ssh zinc zinc scott% cd /srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git zinc util-linux.git% chmod +x hooks/post-update zinc util-linux.git% git update-server-info zinc util-linux.git% exit
Ok, now does it work?
No.
Looks all ok, but if somebody tries and checks that out:
wing-commander scott% git clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git Initialized empty Git repository in /home/scott/util-linux/.git/ warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.
What the hell?
How can a push command succeed while leaving an utterly useless branch?
Don’t bother trying to find this one in the manuals:
quest util-linux% ssh zinc zinc scott% cd /srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git zinc util-linux.git% rm HEAD zinc util-linux.git% ln -s refs/heads/ubuntu HEAD zinc util-linux.git% exit
Now it works.
In all that is holy, what, the, fuck.
Seriously?
My quote of the day:
“Git is hard to use if you are not used to its workflow.”
No.
Git is hard to use.
Here’s what I wanted to do:
quest util-linux% revision-control-system push ssh://host/path/somewhere
If it takes anything more than that, it’s fucked.
In response to my blog post “Whatever you do, don’t fix the kernel!“, David Zeuthen (prominent plumber, the maintainer of HAL and author of DeviceKit) wrote:
Scott, here’s why you’re wrong. It’s very simple and comes down to two points
- you obviously agree we can’t break huge amounts of userspace by changing DEVPATH
- having two names emitted from the kernel (_just_ because lots of user space is
broken) is just wrong and confusing
=> much better to fix up things in user spaceBesides, what’s in a freaking name _anyway_? Apps should be using stable symlinks or, gosh, a device enumeration framework like HAL or the upcoming DeviceKit.
He makes, I think, an interesting point.
Why do we have two names for devices?
The kernel maintains its own namespace for devices which is based on its tree of internal objects and exported via the sysfs virtual filesystem. My mouse’s object path is /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/usb2/2-4/2-4:1.0/input/input2/mouse1 (convention is to omit the /sys prefix), and a class device link also exists as /class/input/mouse1 for easy access.
Properties of the device object are exported into user space via the sysfs filesystem, at that path under its mount point, and announcements of new objects, and significant changes to or removal of existing objects are made through the uevent system. One of those properties is details about the device node that needs to be created; the dev file contains the major and minor number, and these are also present in the MAJOR and MINOR keys of the uevent.
The udev daemon listens out for these uevents and creates device nodes under the /dev path for userspace to use. These device nodes have a naming scheme that is mostly flat, with some sub-directories used for grouping. It records both the kernel object name and device path in its database so that lookups can be performed on device removal, and queries by applications using DeviceKit.
It also passes on the uevent to HAL, which stores the mapping in its own database and performs its own actions.
Applications can then use DeviceKit or HAL to enumerate devices by type, or walk the tree of devices, and lookup the actual device node path from that. They may also use them to lookup the object information for a given device node path.
That’s quite a lot of work going on behind the scenes already to map between two different names for a single device, all my proposal tried to do was reduce a little bit of the user-space side of that work by harmonising the names.
But maybe David has a point, the real problem is that we have two names in the first place!
Obviously the /dev paths are necessary for the vast number of userspace applications that still require them. But why do applications that use DeviceKit or HAL need them?
If the kernel placed a device node inside the sysfs filesystem, we wouldn’t need to do any path lookup, we’d just append the fixed name of the node to the object name.
udev would only need to make symlinks to those devices in /dev for legacy applications.
As you may have read in LWN (subscription required, and strongly recommended anyway), there’s been some argument on the linux-hotplug mailing list, the historically named home of udev development, about device naming.
The key threads are “default udev rules” and “Patches for device names“.
It all started when Kay reminded everybody that distributions should attempt to drop their own udev rules in favour of those supplied by upstream. For those not familar with udev, the rules are a language that creates device nodes and performs other actions based the information about that device from the kernel. A typical rule to put all devices from the “sound” subsystem into the “audio” group looks like:
SUBSYSTEM=="sound", GROUP="audio"
Sometimes these rules also change the names of the devices. For example rules such as the following are automatically generated to keep the name of your ethernet devices the same between reboots:
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ATTRS{address}=="00:11:22:33:44:55", ATTR{type}=="1", NAME="eth0"
Ironically, perhaps, none of the argument is about the names of the devices, the permissions assigned or the groups they’re placed in. We’re all pretty much in agreement about that.
Every major distribution pretty much follows the plan laid out in the devices.txt file found in the kernel’s Documentation sub-directory. This is maintained by the Linux Assigned Names and Numbers Authority, and up until 2.2, was included by reference in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). Nobody really knows why the reference was removed, I guess the LSB didn’t like having standards everybody agreed on
So what is the argument about? Marco d’Itri, the Debian udev maintainer, is arguing because he’s spent a lot of time and effort making their rules readable and elegant in their operation. The upstream rules are, in his opinion, somewhat scraggy. I don’t really see this as a problem, we can fix the upstream rules to be more elegant easily enough.
My argument is different, and is a little more fundamental.
While most of the rules do udev-specific things like permissions, groups, run callouts to gather more information and perhaps run programs after device creation, we have many rules such as this:
KERNEL=="hw_random", NAME="hwrng"
What that says is:
Rename the kernel device “hw_random” to “hwrng”.
This makes the device name correct according to devices.txt. What irritates me about this is that this rule should be entirely unnecessary! It would be a one line patch to the kernel to cause it to name the device properly in the first place. Then we wouldn’t need to spend the resource and CPU time changing the name every single time every Linux machine around the world boots.
There’s another set of rules that annoys me:
KERNEL=="device-mapper", NAME="mapper/control"
The kernel object for the device mapper control node is /sys/class/misc/device-mapper, but the device name according to devices.txt should be /dev/mapper/control – in a sub-directory. The kernel and udev have a mechanism to deal with this, the kernel objec h `R(!^[(!
^
Y
+
j > 9 y r N
y wX1*kd@%|IBvoKFxXE>54& stringurl_status type301url_statusstringsubtitle typesubtitlestringlastbuilddate typeThu, 26 Mar 2009 16:37:43 +0000lastbuilddateslash_comments hidden title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174stringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 summary typeThe automotive industry, with its particular emphasis on efficient workflow and practices, has had a lot to teach the software world over the years. From the process of requirements, specification and design through to LEAN development practices, it is difficult to argue that we haven’t learned anything from them.
I think that there’s another practice from [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 summarystringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 link typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/18/concept-distro/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 linkstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 order type2http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 orderstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 id_hash type859e7934df256a40d215df14b226b5c7http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 id_hashstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 wfw_commentrss typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/14/whatever-you-do-dont-fix-the-kernel/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 wfw_commentrssdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 date type2008 8 14 12 45 49 3 227 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 datestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 hidden typeyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 hiddenstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 slash_comments type9http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 slash_commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 id typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 iddatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 updated type2008 9 23 18 36 7 1 267 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 updatedslash_comments hidden title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189stringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 summary typeUnfortunately I have to make a correction to my previous post.
In that post, I suggested that the following git command would work:
quest util-linux% git clone --bare . ssh://kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git
I wholeheartedly apologise. It turns out that what this command does is make the following local directory: $(pwd)/ssh:/kernel.ubuntu.com/srv/kernel.ubuntu.com/git/scott/util-linux.git.
Unfortunately this means that normal service of hating git, while still [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 summarystringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 link typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-3/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 linkstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 order type7http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 orderstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 id typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 iddatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 updated type2009 2 17 0 51 57 1 48 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 updatedstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 wfw_commentrss typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/23/revision-control-systems-suck/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 wfw_commentrssdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 date type2009 2 23 14 35 37 0 54 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 datestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 hidden typeyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 hiddenstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 slash_comments type37http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 slash_commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 comments typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-2/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 title typeGIT sucks (2)http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 titlestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 id_hash typed75d689ff8cd5190535cd83c1bc1fee9http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 id_hash J P ojH)TM"
`
Y
&
Z X 2 .
{
g
4
-
q l @ 9 `Y2+xqiP 2009 8 13 16 5 9 3 225 0updatedstringsy_updateperiod typestringgenerator_name typestringgenerator typeScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 author'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 contentstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 id typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 content type2008 8 14 12 45 49 3 227 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 updatedA complete surprise to me, from slides of today’s OSiM Maemo Developer Session it appears that Maemo (the Nokia open source Internet Tablet platform) has adopted Upstart. Does anyone know whether they are using native jobs or still using SysV compatibility?http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 summarystringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 wfw_commentrss typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 id_hash typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 date typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 link typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 hidden typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 slash_comments typeScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 author6c4efb9b62708b7d048c7e96fd9f0857http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 id_hashCalling things by the same namehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 titleyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 hidden8http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 slash_commentsI do not like git.
Let’s take the most mind-numbingly trivial of operations, I want to put a branch I have somewhere so somebody else can get it. That’s the whole point of distributed revision-control, collaboration.
That’s too fundamental to be covered in the git tutorial, after all, it wouldn’t be fun if it were that easy.
Happily, [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 summarystringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 wfw_commentrss typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 id_hash typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 date typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 link typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 hidden typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 slash_comments typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 id typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 content type2009 2 23 14 35 37 0 54 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 updatedhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 iddatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 author type'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 content \ leA)8
[ W 2 0 { t H A
v
U
/
v Q C voE>}JCv)xwli^WDB96/. stringconfigured_url typefilterenlanguage1sy_updatefrequencystringtitle type10next_orderexcludestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 id_hash typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 comments typeConcept Distrohttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 titleslash_comments title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200There’s been a meme going around the open source community for a while now. That programming in C is somehow dirty, distasteful and worst-of-all inefficient compared to programming in a high-level language such as C# or Python.
Its detractors will tell you how it takes much longer it takes to program anything in C. They’ll point [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 summaryhttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/03/26/the-fallacy-of-high-level-languages/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 wfw_commentrss2009 3 26 16 31 50 3 85 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 datestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 link typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 slash_comments type5e5421b219ca2c8916f274b8dd15e74ehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 id_hashhttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/14/whatever-you-do-dont-fix-the-kernel/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 content typeScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 authorstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 id_hash typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 comments typeGIT sucks (3)http://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 titlehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177http://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 iddatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 content typeScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 authord8189a15226fa83e11421755313d9bafhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 id_hashhttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/23/revision-control-systems-suck/#commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 summary typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 wfw_commentrss typedatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 date typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks-2/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 link6http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 orderyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 hidden16http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 slash_commentsslash_comments title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194I’d like to propose a new meme for the Planets, something a little more interesting than the third paragraph in your nearest bowl of Alphabet Soup. Something, in fact, a little creative.
I wonder if you’ve heard of a Drabble?
A drabble, simply put, is a story, normally science fiction or fantasy that is exactly one hundred [...]http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 summaryhttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/26/drabble-contest-the-siege/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 wfw_commentrss2009 2 26 3 3 46 3 57 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 datestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 link typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 order typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 slash_comments type L N lR+$QN($
f
?
W P % -
{
`
<
w I znL-wg`SN dateupdated typehourlysy_updateperiodhttp://wordpress.org/?v=2.8generator_namehttp://wordpress.org/?v=2.8generatorstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 content typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 id'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 summary typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/09/23/upstart-adoption-continues/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 wfw_commentrsse0171f08825fba785ef901ab9914f877http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 id_hash2008 9 23 18 36 7 1 267 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 datehttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/09/23/upstart-adoption-continues/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 linkUpstart adoption continueshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 titleyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 hidden18http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 slash_commentsstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=189 author typeslash_comments hidden title author updated comments order content link date id_hash wfw_commentrss summary idhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177stringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 id_hash typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 title typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 hidden typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=177 slash_comments typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 summary typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 wfw_commentrssfdaa05c17e918e20f2d6989d3521703dhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 id_hash2009 2 17 0 51 57 1 48 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 datehttp://www.netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 linkGIT suckshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 titleyeshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 hidden36http://www.netsplit.com/?p=184 slash_commentshttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 id'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=192 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 id type2009 2 17 12 33 23 1 48 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 updatedScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=187 authorstringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=194 content type zLwrK?
W
P
)
"
j K = 6 , s http://www.netsplit.com/feed/urldateupdated typehourlysy_updateperiod2009 3 26 16 37 43 3 85 0url_modifiedhttp://wordpress.org/?v=2.8generator_namehttp://wordpress.org/?v=2.8generatorstringurl_etag typehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 id'o P http://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=174 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 id typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 content type2009 3 26 16 31 50 3 85 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 updatedScott James Remnanthttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=200 authorhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 id'o http://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 contentdatehttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 updated typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=170 author typestringhttp://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 summary typehttp://www.netsplit.com/2008/09/23/upstart-adoption-continues/feed/http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 wfw_commentrsse0171f08825fba785ef901ab9914f877http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 id_hash2008 9 23 18 36 7 1 267 0http://www.netsplit.com/?p=179 date t could be named /sys/class/misc/mapper!control and the right thing will happen.
Another similar class of devices needs udev to rename them:
KERNEL=="mice", NAME="input/mice" KERNEL=="mouse[0-9]*", NAME="input/mouse%n"
The first one seems straight forward, but the kernel object is named /sys/class/input/mice so if we used the ! trick, it would become /sys/class/input/input!mice. I can appreciate that it’s ugly. Similarly for the mouse case.
I’ve suggested a fix for this though, and this fix also alleviates any concerns about backwards compatibility with sysfs names. The uevent from the kernel for the “mice” device looks like this:
ACTION=add DEVPATH=/devices/virtual/input/mice SUBSYSTEM=input MAJOR=13 MINOR=63
I’ve suggested where the device ends up in a sub-directory, adding an extra field to this:
DEVNAME=input/mice
When present, udev would use this instead of the last part of the sysfs path as the kernel name. The extra cost to the kernel is a single %s in an existing sprintf() call, the result, a vast saving in userspace time.
This fix would also let us deal with the raw USB devices, and other things like the DVB devices, where we have to construct the device names. For example, the following rule is used to name DVB devices:
SUBSYSTEM=="dvb", PROGRAM="/bin/sh -c 'K=%k; K=$${K#dvb}; printf dvb/adapter%%i/%%s $${K%%%%.*} %%{K#*.}" NAME="%c"
That means that for every DVB device, on every computer, every time Linux boots, we have to fork and exec a shell, do some string pattern matching, fork and exec printf and apply more string pattern matching to the format string to name the device.
This could be avoided by doing that printf in the kernel, and setting DEVNAME for that device.
Device names are set down in a standard. That standard is shipped inside the kernel’s own source tree. Most distributions are already following that standard. The udev default rules follow that standard. Most distributions are likely to adopt the default udev rules. This is, for all intents and purposes, as official naming policy as you can get.
For those devices where the name is static, or constructed entirely from information from the kernel (ie. not persistent storage, input, network, etc.); why do we waste resource and CPU time every single boot changing the name that the kernel exports to match the standard?
To me this is obvious, fix the kernel to export the right name in the first place.
To kernel developers, such as Greg K-H, this is not so obvious:
“Wait, why do this at all?”
and
“Can’t you live with input devices having a few rules in udev? Is it really that hard to maintain?
”
While patches were apparently welcome in the first thread, by the second thread when it was clear that patches were going to be done, they didn’t seem quite so welcome after all.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve seen kernel developers claim that it’s better to work around the kernel in userspace than it is to fix it. I could understand this if we didn’t have the source code to our own kernel, but we do.
The kernel isn’t sacred and it isn’t a separate part of the system. It needs to be seen as just one component of a fully integrated system, especially by its developers.
That 12ft-high wall between “kernel space” and “user space” needs to come down.
As LWN notes, we have a lot to talk about at the LPC in September.
There’s been a meme going around the open source community for a while now. That programming in C is somehow dirty, distasteful and worst-of-all inefficient compared to programming in a high-level language such as C# or Python.
Its detractors will tell you how it takes much longer it takes to program anything in C. They’ll point at how much C code it takes to do something as simple as create a GObject sub-class compared to the equivalent in Python or C#. They’ll also probably complain that everything in C has to be compiled first, which takes even more time up.
No argument would be complete without them pointing out that C has no standard types for strings, let alone linked lists, binary trees, associative arrays, etc. and that you have to spend all that time implementing your own. They’ll probably make a point about how C’s static type system means that even if you have a array type, you need to know in advance what types you’re going to put into it and can’t just mix and match.
Don’t feel tempted at this point to counter with a discussion about how great and flexible pointers are. You’ll receive a lashing about how they’re even more evil than people who talk in the theatre. The rant about the C problems of uninitialised memory, out of bounds pointer errors and segmentation faults is a timeless classic. Especially when they get to the bit about how much time was lost debugging them.
And do you know what?
I simply do not agree with them.
I cannot think of a single project where the majority of time was wasted writing GObject header files compared to the single line of Python I needed. I can think of lots where I’ve sat for hours trying to figure out which class I needed to derive from, or reworking the code after I realised I derived from the wrong class to begin with. The high-level language doesn’t make this any easier.
As to the number of projects where I’ve needed to write a linked list or hash table implementation because C lacked a convenient dynamic array or associative array type like Python? If it takes you any time to write that kind of code, you’re doing it wrong. I’ve spent far more time realising that the structure is a performance bottleneck, and planning on the whiteboard a faster alternative. Neither language helps with this whiteboard time.
And all those pointer issues? This comes down to the tools that you’re using. If you’re writing in a language and not using its development environment properly, then it’s little surprise that you’re not being as efficient in it. gdb, valgrind, gprof and gcov are your friends. Use them well. I’ve spent just as much time dealing with other language-specific issues to make me believe that pointers aren’t any more evil as (for example) monkey patching.
The vast majority of my time on any new project is first of all spent thinking, and on a more mature project its figuring out what I did wrong and how I need to rework it.
Yes, the next biggest use of my time is working out what the best way is to express that. If I’m writing in C, that means I’m deciding whether it needs a linked list, or a hash table, or some other fancy structure. But if I’m writing in Python, believe me I spend just as much time normalising my class structure and coming up with all sorts of insane Pythonic ways of doing things.
If you’ve ever written in Perl and not lost a day or two to optimising your regular expressions, or eliminating code to arrive at the shortest possible expression, you’ve never written in Perl.
Refactoring takes you just as long in Python as it does in C. Just because when you do it to C code you end up setting segfaults doesn’t mean that when you do it to Python code, suddenly your class structures don’t match anymore.
Proponents of test- driven-development, AGILE, LEAN and ANEMIC programming methodologies will probably argue that it’s easier to practice their religion with a high-level language. I’m not buying that either, I’ve managed to write several large software projects in C that have a comprehensive test suite – including testing for allocation failures.
Ah, Rapid Application Development I hear you say? Well, the only people I’ve ever heard say how great RAD is are people who’ve never had to support the software that was written rapidly, or debug issues with it years later. RAD is great when v2 is going to be a complete rewrite, and v3 a complete rewrite again. Very few websites have upgrades without announcing a completely new codebase.
It’s certainly true that it’s faster to mash up some code in a high-level language. I use shell scripts and bits of Perl for this kind of thing all the time, and I frequently even do basic mock-ups or essays in Python. But ultimately it all tends to be throw-away code, that I don’t really ever intend to take seriously or attempt to support later on.
For larger projects, I just don’t see any difference in the time it takes to write.
I’d like to cite an example. The GIT and Bzr revision control systems are about the same age, one of them is written in C and one of them is written in Python. It hasn’t taken them any less time to write the one in Python than it’s taken the others to write the other in C. The one in Python doesn’t have extraordinary features that the one in C lacks.
C# fans would point out how much faster it is to UI code. Really? Then why isn’t Banshee that much dazzingly better than Rhythmbox? Sure they’re different, but there’s nothing there that suggests one language is better than the other.
And do you know what? I trust code written in C far more than I do any higher level language. No, that’s probably not fair. I trust C programmers far more than I do programmers of other languages. If you tell me I have the option of choosing a program or library written in C over one written in Python or C#, I’ll take the C one every time.
The automotive industry, with its particular emphasis on efficient workflow and practices, has had a lot to teach the software world over the years. From the process of requirements, specification and design through to LEAN development practices, it is difficult to argue that we haven’t learned anything from them.
I think that there’s another practice from that industry it might be fun to adopt: the Concept Car (sometimes known as a Show or Halo Car).
These are cars where the designers and engineers have been allowed to let their imaginations run wild, and build something that shows off the limits of what’s possible. Often they’re also used to explore new technologies or ideas without having to commit to standards of production that would be required for a marketable road car.
And that’s pretty much the key point about these cars, they normally build just one or two and take them around the car and motoring shows for everybody to look at and talk about.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that we build strange and outlandish cars, and drape them in fancy lights and scantily clad people on a slowly rotating podium; but I think the idea can translate to our world.
Thus I’d like to humbly introduce my idea of the Concept Distro.
The Concept Distro would be an engineering project to allow developers and maintainers to let their imaginations run wild. It’d be released, probably to demonstrate at a major event, and would explicitly not be supported. Not even basic security support, or a bug tracker, or even answering questions about why things don’t work.
On a Concept Car, it’s entirely normal that half of the doors don’t even open; likewise in the Concept Distro, it would be entirely expected that half of the icons were just placeholders and didn’t do anything if you clicked on them.
After release, engineering effort could be focussed either on integrating the successful technologies into Linux distributions proper, or on working on the next Concept Distro for the next big event a year or two down the line.
In the early days of Ubuntu, when we had two different CDs, we had a plan to do this kind of thing with the Live CD. Since that didn’t have an installer, it could be a little more experimental and a little more risqué. It was a good place to try out Network Manager before we integrated it with the distribution proper, and the intent was that the naked people would have had even less clothing (I didn’t mind the loss of this, the male model they picked was not the prettiest of the options).
Assuming we don’t resurrect the naked people, what kinds of things would we do with the Concept Distro?
It’s a chance to make some fundamental changes without having to worry about the support or upgrade implications of them. I’d like to see what we could do by assuming that the filesystem is a single mount of ext4 on LVM on RAID, which we grow onto additional disks as they are made available.
And since we wouldn’t have to worry about partitioning, it might be interesting to look into rearranging the hierarchy. Maybe having /System, /Software and /Users really is better than /bin, /usr and /home.
If we went down that route, we could throw out the traditional package manager and experiment with some new approaches. What better way to upgrade the operating system than:
cd /System bzr update
or switch to a new version with bzr switch? It works well enough to upgrade my WordPress installation, after all.
From a technology fetishist point of view, there’s plenty to play with and try out. Would we use ALSA and dmix instead of PulseAudio? Assuming we didn’t use the Concept Distro to try out going fully volume control per application, of course. It’d be a great place to see what we can do with Upstart, udev j , D-Bus, DeviceKit (replacing HAL) and other plumbing-layer components.
In the desktop library layer, the bling guys could play with Multi-Pointer X with kernel-mode setting support and a resolution independent GTK+. Rendering could be fully indirect or entirely direct GL based, depending on preference.
And for the desktop itself, the user experience and interface designers have a completely blank canvas to play with. Since it’s just a Concept Distro, one needn’t worry about the ability of users to transition to new ways of working. Instead you can see how they react to seeing new ways of working in a demonstration or talk, perform usability testing in the lab and even see how they get on in the field.
It would be a very fun and exciting project.
Unfortunately, unlike the car world, there’s not necessarily the funding for such a thing. Who would want to finance an ongoing software development project that was explicitly intended to have no users?
In the automotive world, the Concept Car from a development point of view is important since companies cannot, for example, experiment with new engine technologies and expect their customers to be able to drive them on the road. In the software world, such “lab” projects are much easier to develop in isolation and tend to remain on our own workstations.
The Concept Car can also serve as a marketing tool, it draws potential customers to your show stand and while looking at the sexy car on the stand they’re ripe for being sold a somewhat more pedestrian road car. It also aids towards customer loyalty, since you’re more likely to buy another car from a manufacturer who is showing off the most advanced concepts.
In the Linux world, while we appear to have direct competitions between the distributions, the reality is that we co-operate far more than you might expect unless you’re involved with development. A Concept Distro would need upstream work from just about everybody.
And would such a thing help convert people from Windows or Mac OS? If it would, maybe it’s a good idea after all.
0 0 url_etag last_updated lastbuilddate exclude subtitle next_order generator title generator_name url_status url_modified sy_updateperiod sy_updatefrequency updated link language url filter configured_url keys