I’ve said this previously, and I’ll say it again: we’re severely under-resourced. Not just XFS, the whole fsdevel community. As a developer and later a maintainer, I’ve learnt the hard way that there is a very large amount of non-coding work is necessary to build a good filesystem. There’s enough not-really-coding work for several people. Instead, we lean hard on maintainers to do all that work. That might’ve worked acceptably for the first 20 years, but it doesn’t now.
[…]
Dave and I are both burned out. I’m not sure Dave ever got past the 2017 burnout that lead to his resignation. Remarkably, he’s still around. Is this (extended burnout) where I want to be in 2024? 2030? Hell no.
Reminds me of this xkcd post:
This problem is pretty common across most parts of the Linux space. Everyone wants to volunteer coding work, which is great, but not what’s desperately needed right now.
The Linux community needs more than programmers, or else it will consist only of programmers. We need UI/UX experts, or we’ll never have the simplicity and ease of use of iOS. We need accessibility designers or we’ll never match up to the accessibility of MacOS. We need graphic designers and artists or we’ll never look as good as Windows 11. We need PR professionals and marketing experts or we’ll never be as notable as the Windows XP startup sound.
We don’t have enough volunteers that fit into these categories. The next best thing you can do is contribute your money so that your favourite project can hire the people they need.
That’s more the desktop environment than the Linux kernel though. Gnome, for example, is a simple, good looking, accessible desktop environment.
I love and use GNOME daily, but I think it’s still the case that the interface “needs some getting used to” for a Windows/MacOS user. The design paradigm is just not familiar or self-explanatory to anyone who has regularly used desktop computers in the past decade.
What are the main issues in getting used to it do you think?
The first thing I always hear from people trying out gnome for the first time is along the lines of “Where is the minimize and maximum buttons?” and depending on what programs they use “where is the icon tray” (app indicators, or the “system tray” on Windows).
Whenever I try to explain the devs’ philosophies regarding those, they quickly have lost excitement so generally these days I just start people on KDE.
but I think it’s still the case that the interface “needs some getting used to” for a Windows/MacOS user.
why do you think thats unreasonable? its a different system
I think it is unreasonable because a Windows user (i.e. myself) can quickly get up to speed with MacOS within five minutes without the need for external instruction. I can manage a MacOS system perfectly fine even without any prior knowledge of how it works. I can figure out how to configure the settings to do what I need it to do without needing to search for how to do it online.
GNOME took almost a week to get used to and remember where things are located, such as what is located in Settings, how the task flow works, and so forth. I never got used to the “disappearing dock”. I had to use an extension for that. GNOME is just way more different than the others. Meanwhile, my grandpa picked up Cinnamon as a lifelong Windows user within five minutes.
IDK, choosing between ctrl or the cmd key on macos always felt like a flip coin, I hated it
Why are you talking like gnome is the default Linux DE? Its not. As you said yourself cinnamon is better for some folks.
It’s not, but what distros frequently top the list of “user-friendly” distros?
Ubuntu, PopOS, Fedora, and friends.
Maybe it’s not how it should be, but that’s currently how it is.
I never heard of PopOS, and fedora is definitely not meant to be user friendly. I’d have mentioned first Mint (which ships with cinnamon I believe) actually
This plea for help is specifically for non-coding, but still deeply technical work.
How does someone like me, a PhD candidate who has a background in Human-Computer Interaction, contribute? Or the accessibility researchers I collaborate with who sit one office down and use and love Linux and make their own hacks for Linux to improve its accessibility?
I think part of the problem is a matchmaking (as as you said a PR) problem. I’m sure a lot of the experts you describe would love to contribute some cycles (including myself) but your post is the first time I’m hearing that people like me are needed in my HCI capacity. Otherwise I would have assumed there are plenty of programmers better than me available so why bother?
I don’t know a single ui person or artist that gives a single f about open source.
I think as a dev you naturally grow to respect the open source space because of how much you take from it.
I would love to be proven wrong though
I mean, Microsoft and Apple have career pages stating exactly what is needed. Does Linux have something like this for volunteers? I think it’s just very inaccessible to someone from the outside. Maybe start there, improve the recruitment of volunteers
It’s extremely inaccessible from the outside. Non-devs don’t know what to do with it.
We brought Linux laptops into our company (1500+ laptops during the pandemic) and after a year, half the devs and design team switched to Macs. The Linux users who stayed are pretty much using the laptop as a glorified netbook where they just use Google doc suites. And whenever they encounter a problem… Searching leads to nerds arguing about what version of Linux they should be using instead. Or the answer requires them to go into terminal to fix a problem.
I have a bunch of users asking about Elementary OS, for the sole reason in that it “looks” good.
I have a bunch of users asking about Elementary OS, for the sole reason in that it “looks” good.
Honestly I would use it for that reason too, you can install the Pantheon desktop on NixOS, but the gnome ecosystem is just too good
This so so much. I want to contribute. The only time I ever have are when the barrier to getting setup and finding things I can do are low.
I understand what you say, and I partly agree, but neither do I want the forced simplicity of iOS on Linux, nor graphic design like windows 11. And I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. Please don’t uphold these as some holy grails, they are not.
Boy do I find mailinglists impossible to read.
Ontopic: I appreciate what these people are doing, but were I them, a lousy community would have me quit very quickly or never join the project to begin with. Maybe the should just quit and when shit hits the commercial fan, they’ll either pay to get it fixed, get somebody on it to get it fixed, or move on.
Probably fixing whatever non-dev problems they have to make it a nice community to join wouldn’t hurt either. For me, it’s the lack of time and C code. C is a language I absolutely will not touch. There’s not much worse than it IMO and it’s refreshing to see rust slowly entering the kernel with all its tooling.
The linux kernel is very old school in how it is run and originally a big part of the DevSecOps movement was removing a lot of manual overhead.
Moving on to something like Gitea (codeberg) would give you a better diff view and is quicker/easier than posting a patch to a mailing list.
The branching model of the kernel is something people write up on paper that looks great (much like Gitflow) but is really time consuming to manage. Moving to feature branch workflow and creating a release branches as part of the release process allows a ton of things to be automated and simplified.
Similarly file systems aren’t really device specific, so you could build system tests for them for benchmarking and standard use cases.
Setting up a CI to perform smoke testing and linting, is fairly standard.
Its really easy to setup a CI to trigger when a new branch/pr is created/updated, this means review becomes reduced to checking business logic which makes reviews really quick and easy.
Similarly moving on to a decent issue tracker, Jira’s support for Epic’s/stories/tasks/capabilities and its linking ability is a huge simplifier for long term planning.
You can do things like define OKR’s and then attach Epics to them and Stories/tasks to epics which lets you track progress to goals.
You can use issues the way the linux community currently uses mailing lists.
Combined with a Kanban board for tracking, progress of tickets. You remove a ton of pain.
Although open source issue trackers are missing the key productivity enablers of Jira, which makes these improvements hard to realise.
The issue is people, the linux kernel maintainers have been working one way for decades. Getting them to adopt new tools will be heavily resisted, same with changing how they work.
Its like everyone outside, knows a breaking the ABI definition from the sub system implementation would create a far more stable ABI which would solve a bunch of issues and allow change when needed, except no one in the kernel will entertain the idea.
Similarly moving on to a decent issue tracker, Jira’s support for Epic’s/stories/tasks/capabilities and its linking ability is a huge simplifier for long term planning.
Modern ticket system or issue tracker? Yes, absolutely. But Jira? Certainly not, considering Atlassian’s business practices. A project like Linux deserves a system where they can maintain some control and it probably should be open source.
Yeah email is ancient and certainly terrible from a usability perspective if you’re an outsider to the workflows, but at least it can’t be shut off or taken away on a whim. Also it’s universal and therefore accessible.
Yeah. If core Linux teams publicly adopt an open source KanBan board, issue tracker, and code review tool, I am a lot more likely to adopt and help maintain those products.
I have no interest in navigating the politics and history to join any core Linux teams, but I contribute in other parts of open source.
I guess I’m saying the only place I’m really interested in working with the core teams is on whatever DevOps tools they adopt.
and its linking ability is a huge simplifier for long term planning.
What long term planning? Who is going to come up with that plan? Will everyone agree to that plan? Who will be paying for the resources to work on that plan?
Combined with a Kanban board for tracking, progress of tickets. You remove a ton of pain.
I am not seeing how that would help. What are you going to do if there is no progress on something? Fire volunteer X because he didn’t make progress on ticket Y (as he has no interest in ticket Y)?
Its like everyone outside, knows a breaking the ABI definition from the sub system implementation would create a far more stable ABI which would solve a bunch of issues and allow change when needed, except no one in the kernel will entertain the idea.
We also can’t go back to fix SMTP either. Simply saying “we need to break ABI” is not a solution for the same reason, the fear Darrick mentions in the email is justified, it’s the fear of e-mails when you change something that breaks everyone’s widget in a way they don’t expect or care to learn about and demand you fix it for them. It’s all well and good to say that they should simply wash their hands of it, but that’s not an option when your inbox is flooded with automated bug reports that don’t explain the problem
I am actually arguing for a stable ABI.
The few times I have had to compile out of tree drivers for the linux kernel its usually failed because the ABI has changed.
Each time I have looked into it, I found code churn, e.g. changing an enum to a char (or the other way) or messing with the parameter order.
If I was empire of the world, the linux kernel would be built using conan.io, with device trees pulling down drivers as dependencies.
The Linux ABI Headers would move out into their own seperately managed project. Which is released and managed at its own rate. Subsystem maintainers would have to raise pull requests to change the ABI and changing a parameter from enum to char because you prefer chars wouldn’t be good enough.
Each subsystem would be its own “project” and with a logical repository structure (e.g. intel and amd gpu drivers don’t share code so why would they be in the same repo?) And built against the appropriate ABI version with each repository released at its own rate.
Unsupported drivers would then be forked into their own repositories. This simplifies depreciation since its external to the supported drivers and doesn’t need to be refactored or maintained. If distributions can build them and want to include the driver they can.
Linus job would be to maintain the core kernel, device trees and ABI projects and provide a bill of materials for a selection of linux kernel/abi/drivers version which are supported.
Lastly since every driver is a descrete buildable component, it would make it far easier for distributions to check if the driver is compatible (e.g. change a dependency version and build) with the kernel ABI they are using and provide new drivers with the build.
None of this will ever happen. C/C++ developers loath dependency management and people can ve stringly attached to mono repos for some reason.
Step 1: Don’t murder your wife
This must be a reference to someone, right? Casual femicide sounds a bit off.
Oof. The filesystem was great though.
I think I’m missing something?
Hans Reiser developed ReiserFS, which was a good fs for it’s time, and was then convicted of murdering his wife.
Oh 😲
There are so many filesystems. So. Many.
Have any of them considered actually dropping some and pooling efforts into the more promising ones?
