[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
nate at natetech.com
Fri Sep 26 15:14:11 MDT 2003
Michael J. Hammel wrote:
> Lots of comments, but I'm afraid I agreed with almost none of them.
> Since this is mostly a topic based on opinion I'll let it go.... <snip>
Agreed to disagree. Although I don't think we're that far off from each
other. I'm only pointing out that things are on a particular strategic
vector at RedHat and it's not a better one for the Community at large at
first glance. The direction is away from Community and more toward
Corporate. Isn't it?
One interesting thought came to mind during this though...
Just how *much* do developers from each of the distros contribute to the
raw packages of software that make up Linux as we know it today. And
how would one figure that out...? Hmmm....
Then of course, is the "how do you quantify it?" question... lines of
Obviously with Debian you could compare names and e-mail addresses from
the GNUPG keyfile to changelogs of various distros or something with a
Is there a RedHat developer list that's "official" somewhere? We all of
course, know Alan Cox's name at RedHat -- even if we've never met him.
That's an obvious one.
I have not a clue at all about how you'd get data on the other distros.
I think Gentoo has a published developer list... hmm.
It would be interesting to try to quantify where the "real work" in Free
Software comes from. Might lead to some interesting discoveries...
I'd make a large bet that there's specializations popping up due to
where Linux is on the evolutionary timeline. There are probably a lower
percentage of "distro maker" type developers who are regularly
contributing upstream to the root packages these days -- as they spend
their time working on the distribution of choice. They work hard on
packaging and distribution. ??
(This is just a guess: The root packages of things I've looked at these
days are all either large teams with their own developer crew, or small
two and three person projects. And few of those developers are
"packaging" people that work on distributions.)
Obviously the work done by "both" types ("both" in quotes because
there's no good way to label individual people) is important. But it
would be interesting to find out how a generic percentage of developers
who work for any particular distribution relate back to the main
packages that actually make up what we might call a "modern Linux distro".
Unfortunately it sounds hideously time-consuming and maybe kinda boring
too. :-) Until the data was done. Then it'd be neat.
Government grant to study open source development history, anyone? :-)
Making up a brief list of stuff that'd need to be known ...
- Lists of developers from the distributions being studied. (Hard for
some, easy for others.)
- A "standard" package list of packages that all distros generically
- Lists of developers of those packages.
- Some way to know which developer changed what in the source and in
which source. (ouch... this would be hard without the help of a LOT of
CVS admins... although if the project's at SourceForge that would help!)
- Some way to quantify when there's a distro-only change vs. a change
that eventually went upstream to make the packages better overall.
There's probably a whole documentation project hiding here just on the
ASSUMPTIONS that would have to be made to even attempt this... but it
intriques me a little bit to see if it's possible.....
Has something like this ever been attempted?
Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com
More information about the LUG