Study Reports On Debian Governance, Social Organization 65
andremachado writes "Two academic management researchers, Siobhán O'Mahony and Fabrizion Ferraro, performed a detailed scientific study about Debian Project governance and social organization from the management perspective. How did a big non-commercial non-paying community evolve to produce some of the most respectable Operating Systems and applications packages available? Organizations without a consensual basis of authority lack an important condition necessary for their survival. Those with directly democratic forms of participation do not tend to scale well and are noted for their difficulty managing complexity and decision-making — all of which can hasten their demise. The Debian Project community designed and evolved a solid governance system since 1993 able to establish shared conceptions of formal authority, leadership, and meritocracy, limited by defined democratic adaptive mechanisms."
I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Was this sponsored by the federal government? (Score:2)
Re:Was this sponsored by the federal government? (Score:5, Funny)
Except for the meritocracy part, that implies the people in charge have some sort of qualification for being in charge.
I call shenannigans!!! (Score:1, Troll)
Look, I'm not saying that debian isn't awesome, but who payed them to say that?
Re: (Score:2)
How did a big non-commercial, non-paying community [evolved and actually] evolve into one that produces some of the most respectable Operating Systems and applications packages available?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just an observation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But yeah, essentially, one desktop linux is usually much the same as another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu is build on Debian (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From their own description [ubuntu.com] of the OS...Ubuntu and Debian are closely related. Ubuntu builds on the foundations of Debian architecture and infrastructure, with a different community and release process. ... Debian is "the rock upon which Ubuntu is built".
Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian. A very good one.
InnerWeb
Re:Just an observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu IS Debian, for all intents and purposes. They take the excellent work that Debian publishes, do some additional (and IMO also excellent) work to refine it, and republish that as Ubuntu.
I'm completely outside of the Debian and Ubuntu communities, but I suspect strongly that Debian re-imports some of the Ubuntu refinements into their own project, as well.
Ain't FOSS grand?
Some, but not all. (Score:5, Interesting)
But a simple example: Debian, for the longest time, had
And since then, certainly, fixes to various packages' scripts which claim #!/bin/sh, but really want bash, have been sent back to Debian. (Either POSIX-ify them, or make them explicitly ask for bash.) But as far as I know, no major distributions outside Ubuntu actually have
Re:Some, but not all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But a simple example: Debian, for the longest time, had /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash, although they did have a rule that any script requiring /bin/sh should only use POSIX syntax, and not bash-isms. Sometime in 2006, I think, Ubuntu switched /bin/sh to /bin/dash. Dash is much faster than Bash -- so much so that this switch is the main reason that version of Ubuntu booted so much faster than previous versions (it was also when Upstart was first integrated, though Upstart is barely used)...
And since then, certainly, fixes to various packages' scripts which claim #!/bin/sh, but really want bash, have been sent back to Debian. (Either POSIX-ify them, or make them explicitly ask for bash.)
If your shell script is not POSIX /bin/sh, don't mark it as a POSIX /bin/sh script. Is that difficult?
FWIW The trick to use dash as /bin/sh was well known by loads of Debian users back in the day when it was still called "ash". It did wonders to the boot time of my old ole PentiumII.
FWIW 2 The first people to actually make the choice of setting dash as /bin/sh, were the Nokia folks that released the N770 internet tablet that runs a Debian based system.
The use of it in N770 lead to loads of scripts b
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not a shell script, and not mine, then yes. I have to crawl through and find every "system" call that looks suspiciously bash-like... Or I have to temporarily relink /bin/sh, or run it in a chroot.
Just pointing out that Ubuntu forcing this on users pretty much ended the ran
Re: (Score:2)
The question really isn't about POSIX compliance: many (e.g. me) users expect that /bin/sh is actually /bin/bash and nothing would change that.
From my understanding, the only significant use for ash and dash is bootstrap which is performance critical. They are not going to replace /bin/bash any time soon.
P.S. dash [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Debian supports 11 hardware architectures. Ubuntu supports only 3, and as a result can provide much more polished results.
Likewise, Debian maintains 18,000+ packages. Ubuntu maintains significantly fewer packages, but provides much more polished packages for the ones they do maintain.
Debian has militant standards for stability, often leading the software in their stable release to be a couple years behind the cu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just an observation (Score:5, Funny)
So that explains the polka startup sounds....
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOL. Whole point of Ubuntu that users (the "crowd") do not have to care about - least understand - what they are running.
Ubuntu is made for end-users as an OS which just runs and doesn't require any understanding of what and how it does.
That's pretty much why Ubuntu != Debian.
Debian is technology - for engineers and advanced users who want total control over their system.
Ubuntu
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for ease of installation, Ubuntu dumbs things down (on the desktop edition) for the 'I'm afraid to touch this' crowd, and Debian has the 'Good
Debian governance (Score:4, Funny)
PostgreSQL (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me the PostgreSQL project's org chart. Show me the evidence that the project is not kicking ass.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, Ohloh suggests two people perform the bulk of the commits. I don't know much about postgres development, but it appears that there isn't much democratization in development. Which is fine. You want gate keepers to be able to ward off performance harming patches, and to guide those who are only peripherally interested in the project.
Stop the Bus! (Score:2)
It's also funny to see how short most enthusiasts memories are. Pre-Sarge, Debian was being criticized for everything under the sun.
As an off-topic FYI, Debian Testing is in fine shape for a KDE desktop. I'm running two simple servers on testing and there are no show-stopper bugs. Get your Beta installation disk toda
Re: (Score:2)
Then they fixed it. Now it's great. Can't see the problem really. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And following install apt-bugs, so your system also won't have show-stoper bugs tomorrow.
Link to Article (Score:3, Informative)
[quote]
The following is the quote from google's cached version:
Scientific study about Debian Project governance and social organization
André Felipe Machado
TerÃa-Feira, 27 de Novembro de 2007
Two academic management researchers performed a detailed scientific study about Debian Project governance and social organization from the management perspective.
The study analyzed 13 years of Debian Project history, interviewed some Project participants and previous Leaders, and carefully observed patterns.
The open nature of history, registered at discussion lists archives and irc logs, meetings reports, helped a lot during the data collection phase.
The study is VERY interesting as scientific analyzed HOW an open source project survived, evolved and flourished during 13 years, overcoming many troubles only challenged by long term BIG communities, reaching a solid institutional foundations to resolve disputes.
The previously releasead version of the text can be found here.
The latest revised version, published at the Academy of Management Journal, Oct 2007, Vol. 50 Issue 5, p1079-1106, 28p; (AN 27169153), is copyrighted and can not be published here.
The authors are SiobhÃn O'Mahony , Assistant Professor at the University of California's Graduate School of Management, and Fabrizio Ferraro , General Management Professor at IESE
Versão para impressão
Baixar PDF Baixar a versão PDF desta pÃgina
[/quote]
Re: (Score:1)
Mirror and Copy & Paste (Score:1, Redundant)
"Scientific study about Debian Project governance and social organization
André Felipe Machado
Terça-Feira, 27 de Novembro de 2007
Two academic management researchers performed a
Re: (Score:1)
Debian Rules! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, since you know what's aptitude is, Ubuntu isn't for you.
As much as I hate Ubuntu, you point is silly. Ubuntu is made so that even idiot can use it. If you are not idiot - then move on. But some people - especially some ex-Windows pro-users - are very happy to have stable OS and 6 month upgrade cycle which really improves OS.
Re:Debian Rules! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong; Debian testing is probably great for lots of people. If Ubuntu's trajectory continues as it is, I may one day return to Debian; as a result of Ubuntu's successes, they've adopted a number of Ubuntu's practices and policies. For example, they've adopted a wiki for community development, and a new proposal system for evaluating large scale decisions. And meanwhile, Canonical's success with Ubuntu has it focusing on strange contracts that draw resources from fixing bugs related to my personal uses.
As for your comparison essay, the "ubuntu-desktop" meta package now suggests / recommends most things, and apt is set to bring them in on updates but not remove the meta package if they're removed. That way, they can bring in new features, and you can opt out of some of them, and it'll remember that. The bloat charge is a bit unfair. The default install is something usable out of the box. You're free to do the minimal install the same way you did with Debian, but disk space is cheap these days, and people only have so many hours in a day. Hating release schedules is a bit silly. One way you update everything at once, and the other the updates trickle down to you. The everything at once has the advantage that you can deploy new compilers / libc during the early fork without worrying that someone will accidentally screw themselves. Of course the downside is that pidgin may be outdated quickly, but I think it's been fairly lucky at not breaking network compatibility recently.
Governance :-) (Score:1)
What gives? Getting the serfs used to it are we?