Unity Linux

Maki · 2009-04-04 22:00:59

After issues with the main developer of PCLinuxOS http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090330Link the Core devs have decided to make a spinoff of PCLinuxOS, a metadistro that is clearly designed to be easy and to serve as foundation for other projects.
Web Site. IMHO i think that it would be far better than PCLinuxOS, because being a metadistro it has an flexible & modular development structure, something that arch had from day one.

Dieter@be · 2009-04-05 10:19:52

Our methodology is to keep it simple, keep it open, keep it free, and keep it updated!

heh.. sounds familiar

molom · 2009-04-05 10:27:15

Sounds familiar? How does it sound familiar? Oh, you mean it sounds like Windows right? Windows is simple, keep it closed, keep it not free and very updated...

Alxe · 2009-04-05 11:36:31

Good luck!

spiralofhope · 2009-04-06 17:18:45

Maki wrote:

After issues with the main developer of PCLinuxOS Link the Core devs have decided to make a spinoff of PCLinuxOS, a metadistro that is clearly designed to be easy and to serve as foundation for other projects.

To clarify these points..

- The Unity Linux team just happens to have some former PCLinuxOS devs. Not all of the team are from PCLinuxOS. Heck, not all of them are strictly "devs". =)

- This odd connection being drawn between some former PCLinuxOS developers and the main developer of PCLinuxOS isn't exactly correct. More on that below.

- Unity Linux isn't a spinoff of PCLinuxOS. I'm sure good ideas and code will be used from wherever, and this often comes in the form of "do and use what you're good at", so some PCLinuxOS ideas and code will be used, but there is also an eye on several other distributions and technologies. Stuff is a bit vague right now, but I'll blog anything interesting when I hear it, and the wiki (this page) and various news outlets will get updated too.

- A lot of the ideas in Unity Linux have been brewing within various people for a significant time. The whole project hasn't popped up out of nowhere. Well, the name and main website certainly did, but the ideas didn't.

To clarify some of the drama..

The statement "After issues with the main developer of PCLinuxOS" isn't exactly right. From what I've seen from the former PCLinuxOS guys, there have been no "Texstar is a dick, I'm out of here" type comments from any of them.

I've heard issues with processes and communication. Some people have stated some specific grievances and their blogs and such, but in general most people seem to say that they left because of the old cat-herding issue of "it's no fun anymore". Then when one person goes, the others re-examine themselves and some of them go too.

Texstar has made this a non-issue. Devs have left in the past without impact, and there are still people remaining in PCLinuxOS so things are in good shape.

It's not exactly a "shake hands and part company" thing for some, it's more that everyone benefits from going their own way.

spiralofhope · 2009-04-06 17:24:55

Dieter@be wrote:

Our methodology is to keep it simple, keep it open, keep it free, and keep it updated!
heh.. sounds familiar

molom wrote:

Sounds familiar? How does it sound familiar? Oh, you mean it sounds like Windows right? Windows is simple, keep it closed, keep it not free and very updated...

I think Dieter@be meant that it sounds a lot like Arch. =)

Arch has become quite a success, I hope Unity can do the same. There's too much clumsy bloated stuff out there, and a lot of people are demanding something lean.

While not exactly Tiny Core Linux (holy crap, it's cool), since most people end up cutting down their distro when they want something custom, Unity will try to put out that base to save the "cutting down" time.

Since a number of PCLinuxOS remaster project teams are on the Unity Linux team, building something that's easy to remaster became an immediate goal.

Last edited by spiralofhope (2009-04-06 17:25:12)

MindTooth · 2009-04-08 07:53:07

Never liked the poor website of PCLinuxOS. I hope that Unity can bring something positive to the community.

Birger

archlinuxsagi · 2009-04-08 08:59:21

Maki wrote:

Web Site. IMHO i think that it would be far better than PCLinuxOS, because being a metadistro it has an flexible & modular development structure, something that arch had from day one.

As an ex-PCLinuxOS, one thing for sure that both PCLinuxOS and Unity will never achieve the same rolling distro concept as Arch as it is using APT. There are issues about circular dependencies during the last update. Also there are no way to revert an update except to reinstall.

spiralofhope wrote:

Arch has become quite a success, I hope Unity can do the same. There's too much clumsy bloated stuff out there, and a lot of people are demanding something lean.

I believe Unity will be GUI based since synaptic will be used and they will retain the core of PCLinuxOS but update it to the latest eg.
gcc, kernel.

For more info, please refer to below link.
http://forums.raiden.net/viewtopic.php? … sc&start=0

So Unity goal should be similar to PCLinuxOS, a desktop distro and easier for windows convert to install.

Also one thing I don't link about both of the distro is communication among devs are kept close unlike Archlinux. So I am glad that I jump ship to Arch much earlier and will remain here.

I just wish some distro rebased from Arch .. Yes I have heard about shiftlinux and chakra.

spiralofhope · 2009-04-08 16:12:48

Clarification: My use of "remaster" isn't strictly correct. The term everyone's agreeing to is "branch". See JMiahMan's recent post. It sounds like Unity Linux will be referred to as a/the "core".

archlinuxsagi wrote:

As an ex-PCLinuxOS, one thing for sure that both PCLinuxOS and Unity...

archlinuxsagi wrote:

I believe Unity will be GUI based since synaptic will be used and they will retain the core of PCLinuxOS but update it to the latest eg.
gcc, kernel.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

So Unity goal should be similar to PCLinuxOS, a desktop distro and easier for windows convert to install.

So as to make myself clear, I'm on the Unity Linux team.

Also, a lot of the info that's been out there, including info from members our team, is no longer correct. We are discussing all aspects of the project every day..

There is no relation to PCLinuxOS. There is no comparison to it. They are probably going to be architecturally two different things. Unity Linux won't even strictly be considered a distribution. It will be a core designed for branch distributions to be based on it.

Regarding it's status as a "distribution", it won't be created for end-users, but for developers looking to either build their own personal custom installation or developers looking to found a distribution. So there won't be an end-user community. Support for a branch will be provided by that branch (Granular, TinyME, etc etc).

No decision has been made on synaptic, and so far the discussion leans towards not using it (lots of people hate it). Unity Linux will absolutely certainly NOT be "a desktop distro and easier for windows convert to install". I can't stress that enough. Maybe one of the branches (Granular?) could have that as a goal. Unity Linux is not focused on anything but servicing the creation and maintenance of branches.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

As an ex-PCLinuxOS, one thing for sure that both PCLinuxOS and Unity will never achieve the same rolling distro concept as Arch as it is using APT. There are issues about circular dependencies during the last update. Also there are no way to revert an update except to reinstall.

I'm not familiar with the rolling distro concept, so i can't comment on that. Since we have seven branch distributions who will re-base themselves off of the core Unity Linux, and each will have some of their own custom packages, I'm sure that dependencies will be very carefully delt with.

Package management isn't something that's been officially decided yet.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

Also one thing I don't link about both of the distro is communication among devs are kept close unlike Archlinux. So I am glad that I jump ship to Arch much earlier and will remain here.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

I just wish some distro rebased from Arch big_smile .. Yes I have heard about shiftlinux and chakra.

It'll happen, it'll happen. Or maybe you're so good that people don't want (or need) to do that! A project with no forks is a very good project.

Dieter@be · 2009-04-08 17:08:22

spiralofhope wrote:

Or maybe you're so good that people don't want (or need) to do that! A project with no forks is a very good project.

And similarly, a project that is used by other projects (not as in fork, but as in "based on") is also a very good project

rson451 · 2009-04-08 17:22:23

archlinuxsagi wrote:

Yes I have heard about shiftlinux and chakra.

Just an FYI, shift is dead.

archlinuxsagi · 2009-04-09 02:35:19

spiralofhope wrote:

Clarification: My use of "remaster" isn't strictly correct. The term everyone's agreeing to is "branch". See JMiahMan's recent post.

mmm. I didn't know that jmiahman joined unity linux. So who is the project leader now?
BTW, what's your nick in PCLinuxOS?

spiralofhope · 2009-04-10 09:14:10

Sorry for the delay. For some reason I only got one email notification for one response.. but I was expecting one email for each response even if I am responded to multiple times in a day.

--+

Dieter@be wrote:

spiralofhope wrote:
Or maybe you're so good that people don't want (or need) to do that! A project with no forks is a very good project.
And similarly, a project that is used by other projects (not as in fork, but as in "based on") is also a very good project

Yeah, I guess that's true. Like a team who takes a KDE distro and reworks it into a Gnome distro because they have that preference.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

mmm. I didn't know that jmiahman joined unity linux.

Jmiahman and many more are with Unity Linux. I signed up based on a few names, and I was shocked to learn I knew many more.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

So who is the project leader now?

There's no team leader as such. The political structure was decided to be:

(thread)

The final results seemed to be a consensus that the optimum model would be a president to control
the executive with a board of directors to control the resources.
One final point that I think is important. Each distro remains independent and their authority within
their own realm is undisputed

I'm not entirely sure how this system is to work, because this discussion was long over before I knew about Unity Linux. But I've started asking questions about it just recently (today!). I won't be political in the least though, so I'll probably remain pretty clueless about that stuff. I just intend to run around helping communication, docs, PR and such.

devnet is a strong voice, and so are several other people. It's not surprising, because so many PCLinuxOS remaster project leaders joined. They are all VERY adamant about there not being a single leader, and about building redundancy for each role/responsibility.

Actual positions are being voted on this Sunday. Results should come soon after.

archlinuxsagi wrote:

BTW, what's your nick in PCLinuxOS?

That I can't share, because I used my real name with PCLinuxOS and many other activities and I have IRL privacy concerns now.

--+

Psst. quiet little rumour, it's still being voted on.. We like RPM5.

--+

edit: figured out a bunch more I could say..

Last edited by spiralofhope (2009-04-10 09:21:13)

archlinuxsagi · 2009-04-10 10:11:30

http://development.smfforfree.com/index … sg1295#new

- RPM version. The current rpm version is 4.4.6. Mandriva/RH is moving to rpm4.6 which is not backward compatible, other rpm distros like Archlinux and such are moving to rpm5 (which isn't backward compatible either).

I was laughing when I read this.. since when Archlinux using rpm?

I believe the others still want to use rpm since the core of the devs are from PCLinuxOS and they still wish to retain the hard work they have done on the spec files.

Anyway I wish Unity all the best on their future development.

I still wish Unity rebase from Arch though(wishful thinking)..

Nezmer · 2009-04-10 10:47:20

archlinuxsagi wrote:

I was laughing when I read this.. since when Archlinux using rpm?

Hahaha
Let's bet they mean Ark Linux

test1000 · 2009-04-10 11:19:19

"Unity" ?? sounds like the next orwellian nightmare to me

Maledictvm · 2009-04-10 12:46:10

Great, yet another distribution...

Arch Linux

#1 2009-04-04 22:00:59

Unity Linux

#2 2009-04-05 10:19:52

Re: Unity Linux

#3 2009-04-05 10:27:15

Re: Unity Linux

#4 2009-04-05 11:36:31

Re: Unity Linux

#5 2009-04-06 17:18:45

Re: Unity Linux

#6 2009-04-06 17:24:55

Re: Unity Linux

#7 2009-04-08 07:53:07

Re: Unity Linux

#8 2009-04-08 08:59:21

Re: Unity Linux

#9 2009-04-08 16:12:48

Re: Unity Linux

#10 2009-04-08 17:08:22

Re: Unity Linux

#11 2009-04-08 17:22:23

Re: Unity Linux

#12 2009-04-09 02:35:19

Re: Unity Linux

#13 2009-04-10 09:14:10

Re: Unity Linux

#14 2009-04-10 10:11:30

Re: Unity Linux

#15 2009-04-10 10:47:20

Re: Unity Linux

#16 2009-04-10 11:19:19

Re: Unity Linux

#17 2009-04-10 12:46:10

Re: Unity Linux

Board footer