Not a very good start
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Nov 19, 2007 12:52 PM EDT |
I'd be the last person to criticize someone for starting a new distro, but I would criticize the way they did it. First of all this whole controversy with the PCLinuxOS community just gives it a rather bad stigma. Second, the boot screen[1] and the web site[2] aren't exactly marketable. If you're looking to please everyone, which seems to be the aim of this distro and therefore are looking for a general market, the way it is right now is just not a good start in terms of marketing. Now I know it's just a 0.0.0.1 release (and so many zeros do indicate earlier than early) so there's quite a bit of chance to turn things around. If not.. I don't think this'll go anywhere. I think the FOSS community should realize by now, especially those looking for big markets and high adoption that marketing is an absolutely essential part. I'm not talking about spending high bucks to it. I'm talking about things as simple as having pleasing visual identity, a good beautiful site that keeps people coming back, a pleasant community, heck even a great default wallpaper and a name that can be easily remembered. And mentioning the name, just as I think gNewSense is a terrible name in terms of marketing I think the same about Ultumix. I've already seen it misspelled and it barely even started! Just some well minded criticism! Cheers [1] http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=2009... [2] http://www.mindblowingidea.com/Ultumix |
| azerthoth Nov 19, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
Well, it's not like the PCLinuxOS folks havent previously established a history of slapping forum members and IRC users around for disagreeing or saying something the wrong way. Happened to me, and all I was trying to do was find a little documentation so I could compile something that just wasn't working right. The tension that PCLOS experiances is nearly 100% self inflicted IMHO. Good Distro, bad cops. |
| usacomputertec Nov 19, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
Well Libervis I have to agree it has some bugs. The biggest problems are that I can't get the boot splash to work as it does on my PC after making the .iso. You have to select it from the Administration Center. Also when you create a new user it defaults to the PCLinuxOS theme. These are not huge problems but they are problems. I also noticed that there were 409 broken packages after I removed Cedega and the non-free codecs. This is why I'm replacing 0.0.0.1b with 0.0.0.4 today. The torrent will be replaced on my site by tomorrow and so will the Md5 checksum and release notes. The reason the sourceforge.net site is spelled different is because I was still deciding how to spell it at the time I created it. azerthoth a lot of people seem to agree with you. I have had a lot of people warn me about using the PClinuxOS forums and IRC chat but I blew them off. mypclinuxos seems to be a nice community so far and they have given me a second chance to prove myself. They ask that I bow out for now and stop announcing my new releases for a couple months. I think that by Christmas I should have something I can stand behind 100%. As far as I know v0.0.0.4 could be that something because I haven't had any issues with it yet. Why don't you give it a try? Thanks for the input. |
| Libervis Nov 20, 2007 6:08 AM EDT |
Sounds interesting usacomputertec. I might even try it at some point. :) Good luck! |
| usacomputertec Nov 20, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
0.0.0.4 Is uploaded and seeding. |
| devnet Nov 24, 2007 4:02 PM EDT |
Let me tell you about why he was slapped: He has remastered PCLOS and is charging people money to support it. He has not made source files available. His remaster includes Codecs that shouldn't be on the iso. When we brought up the codec thing, he posted "updates" with identical checksums and filesizes. For these reasons, he was 'slapped around' and he would be slapped around in any community for these things. Fixing these things would be a good start for good faith. BTW, usacomputertec...mypclinuxos.com is MY website so you haven't been ostracized by all the community and the second chance given was by my co-admin kdulcimer. I have a unique perspective in that I'm an administrator at pclinuxos.com and at mypclinuxos.com as well as being a member of both user and developer mailing lists. I'm kinda like the all seeing eye for pclinuxos. Given this unique perspective, I fully support the decision made at pclinuxos.com and I'm fully supporting the decision at mypclinuxos.com as well. |
| azerthoth Nov 24, 2007 5:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:He has remastered PCLOS and is charging people money to support it.Whats your point, not a thing wrong in the world with that. Either Legally or Morally. Quoting:He has not made source files available.Bad tech, rule number one. IMHO your source files should be up BEFORE you make things available. Quoting:His remaster includes Codecs that shouldn't be on the isoYour opinion, so whats your point? Quoting:When we brought up the codec thing, he posted "updates" with identical checksums and filesizes.See above. Here is a note for you, once you have kicked it out the door you loose all control or rights to control what is done with it. Unless of course PCLOS is not being released under the GPL. He does not need your "blessing" to remaster and release. Heck, he doesnt even need your permission to link the repositories. |
| newmikey Nov 28, 2007 3:27 AM EDT |
This guy doesn't even know how to remaster properly, his skill level is below noob. That is what is damaging about it. Somebody boots up his rip-off attempt at a remaster and will get totally stuck. Users will not see any change from the standard PCLOS desktop as this idiot has not changed the skeleton files. His "distro" exists only for root and the standard "user" login. Thus, any problems will reflect badly on PCLOS as these users will be stuck without any meaningful support. That's right, his claim to fame is some apps downloaded from the standard PCLOS repos, a bunch of icons on the "root" and "user" desktops and a crummy theme, again, only installed for root. I don't even think it deserves the term "remaster". The point is, he is ripping off (badly, but still a ripoff) somebody else's hard work and sending his "customers" for free support to PCLOS forums. Look at the guy's history on the net, he hasn't provided one straight answer to anything in years, it's all a load of babble about how JC helps him. Reli-crazed and oblivious to the real world. He's even selling hats with his "distro" name on it while nobody seems to touch it with a ten foot pole!(and with good reason) Hey, Justin, don't even think of tempting me with PM's or emails: I am definitely not buying! Mike |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2007 4:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:The point is, he is ripping off (badly, but still a ripoff) somebody else's hard work and sending his "customers" for free support to PCLOS forums. Actually, there's a big note on his website that Ultumix users should *not* go to PCLinuxOS for support. For the rest: He isn't violating the licenses of the software involved so he can do what he does. You may not like it, but you can't do anything about it. Welcome to the wonderful world of Free Software and copyleft licensing. |
| newmikey Nov 28, 2007 5:10 AM EDT |
Sander: have you had a look in his forums? Do you see any support options there? Do you see any posts at all, except for his own? I do not object to his using copyleft, I think that is the engine of FOSS. Not the way he does it. Mike |
| Abe Nov 28, 2007 5:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:The point is, he is ripping off (badly, but still a ripoff) somebody else's hard work and sending his "customers" for free support to PCLOS forums. If that is what he is doing, and his customers are still going to PCLOS for support even though he asks them not to go to PCLOS, I think they are doing so because he can't or not able to furnish them with good enough or satisfactory support. This is not acceptable to PCLOS and it shouldn't be acceptable by anyone. What PCLOS should do now is to adopt the Red Hat model and furnish a paid for support only. Red Hat's model seems to be the best business model for FOSS that cuts down on leaching and freeloading. Mandriva does the same. It is still touch for them at this time, but when there are more adoption of FOSS by corporations, organizations, and individuals , a good part of the revenues being made by MS of licensing will be directed towards support programs offered by the various distros. It is a matter of timing. |
| jdixon Nov 28, 2007 6:47 AM EDT |
> The point is, he is ripping off (badly, but still a ripoff) somebody else's hard work... If you don't want some else reusing your work, you shouldn't release it under the GPL. As long as he's not calling it PCLinuxOS, he's not even harming the PCLinuxOS brand name. > ...and sending his "customers" for free support to PCLOS forums. Sander already noted that he's doing nothing of the kind. And if users of his distro show up on the PCLinuxOS fora, what of it? Just don't answer their questions and delete their posts/suspend accounts as appropriate. From things I've heard in the past, it's not like the PCLinuxOS fora folks don't have plenty of practice at doing that. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 28, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
If it's obvious that UltumixLite comes from PCLinuxOS, it'll probably just lead frustrated users to the parent distro if they want a better experience and support. |
| Abe Nov 28, 2007 12:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you don't want some else reusing your work, you shouldn't release it under the GPLThey can do that only if the original work is not under the GPL or they are not going to distributed. In this case, I believe PCLOS work is all GPLed. Quoting:If it's obvious that UltumixLite comes from PCLinuxOS, it'll probably just lead frustrated users to the parent distro if they want a better experience and support.That is certainly true, on the other hand, one doesn't know why the customer didn't go with PCLOS in the first place. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:They can do that only if the original work is not under the GPL If they're not willing to put it under GPL, they shouldn't base it off GPL software to begin with. But it's a moot point really. PCLinuxOS is released under GPL and I reckon that the authors are happy with it. IMHO PCLinuxOS should simply not support Ultumix users and point them to PCLinuxOS instead. Perhaps make a sticky somewhere explaining the situation in less inflammatory language as used in this thread. Something that newbies won't perceive as an attack. Remember, you're dealing with Linux newbies that probably don't grasp the GPL. Perhaps even try to convert them to PCLinuxOS users. |
| newmikey Nov 28, 2007 2:14 PM EDT |
>IMHO PCLinuxOS should simply not support Ultumix users and point them to PCLinuxOS instead. Perhaps make >a sticky somewhere explaining the situation in less inflammatory language as used in this thread. Something that >newbies won't perceive as an attack. Remember, you're dealing with Linux newbies that probably don't grasp >the GPL. Perhaps even try to convert them to PCLinuxOS users. Sander, that is just plain good advice and I'll try to live by it. Thanks! |
| usacomputertec Nov 30, 2007 9:38 PM EDT |
Hey guys. Let me set things straight here. I just got done with v0.0.1.0 and have been very hard at work to get all the bugs out and get the PCLinuxOS logos out of it. The only place you will see them is in the install wizard, the GRUB, and in the start menu. I still don't know how to remove them from those places. I do have my own start button, boot screen (v2) and other new things. Why did I create this distro when PCLinuxOS existed already? I was installing PCLinuxOS 2007 on my customer's computers and it was a hit compared to Ubuntu's more non-windows like interface. But only 75% of my customers would switch to PCLinuxOS because they didn't care to learn how to use the new Kmenu or it was not all spelled out for them or they just didn't like the idea of learning something. I know sounds pretty pathetic doesn't it. The other reason I created it was because updating PCLinuxOS 2007 that's been out for almost a year now takes between 1 hour and 3 hours on high speed. Linux is only suppose to take 10 minutes to install. Thats what PCLinuxOS was like when it first came out. Thats one of the two major reasons I switched to it. The other was ist's stability. It seems I'm getting a higher ratio of converts with Ultumix by giving in to what the customers want. I was warned by several people not to use PCLinuxOS or have other people use it because I would get banned from the forum eventually as several other people have been. I figured that would never happen. Now anyone in my area who has a quest account can't go to the PCLinuxOS forums or IRC even if they are using PCLinuxOS because when you see my IP you don't see a regular looking 192.168.0.1 (for example) but you see 192-168-0-1.something.quest.net and so your baning tools don't understand the first part with the dashes and simply put *** in place of it and ban anything that has something.quest.net at the end. This is stupid. There must be some way to differentiate. Yes I've checked recently on other computers again. This is why I'm switching my customers to Ultumix one by one that had PCLinuxOS. And for some reason it's easy to upgrade. You just stick the Ultumix disk in and install it and your previous user profiles still work. You might have to install a few programs but not many. As far as the codecs thing I got rid of all the non-free ones and am in no violation to my knowledge. I can't believe it but even the libdvd2 is free. I checked the description and it said it is under the GPL. Thats cool. I did respond in the forums but you guys locked me out before I could finish. You complain that I don't answer or ramble but you lock me out before I get to answer. That is very convenient for you. Everyone is telling me that the same thing happened to Granular Linux. They tell me PCLinuxOS does not approve of Granular. Now I don't mean to flame here but just to be honest the PCLinuxOS community remind me of those kids in school that looked down on everyone and believed that they were better than everyone else. And in my case even believed they had the right to recommend suicide. Thats exactly what kind of impression I get from the administrative community. The regular members that need and share support seem kind enough but I think that PCLinuxOS has become so popular on sourceforge.net that maybe they think too much of themselves. You think that me charging for my DVDs and Computers is bad and will hurt the Open Source community, what will the effect of treating people as you have in an exclusive fashion have? Your not the only ones. Certainly the Ubuntu community thinks Ubuntu should be the only advertised distro. Several admins have told me that and I documented it. But PCLinuxOS as the most popular distro on Sourceforge.net should humble themselves and be more accepting instead of exclusive. I never meant to make anyone upset. All I wanted to do was make something that was more useful from my point of view. If you have a problem with that then I don't know what you should do. I don't believe I am qualified in the area of understanding the mind and psychology. For that you will need to consult someone who is. |
| azerthoth Nov 30, 2007 10:37 PM EDT |
usacomputertec, you have done nothing wrong, and maybe a bit of good beyond trying your hand at a distro. I have said it before about PCLOS, Good Distro, bad cops. Then again Ubuntu recieves the same kind of welcome from the Debianati for the most part as well. Dont take that the wrong way, I was a professed Debian supporter until I ran across Sabayon. So with that, I say keep up your work and your distro. If nothing else it may help air out the smell of totalitarianism from PCLOS. |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
>IMHO PCLinuxOS should simply not support Ultumix users and point them to PCLinuxOS instead. When you're right, you're right. It is a self-correcting kind of thing. If PCLOS points out that Ultumix is very nearly the same thing, and promise support for those who switch over, Ultumix will die unless its users can get their support handled elsewhere. Users tend not to want a ton of hassle. If, on the other hand, Ultumix support smooths out, and PCLOS users discover there is a "better" version of their distro with a bit less, ummm, control-freak attitude at the top, the move could go the other way. It's the way things are supposed to work in GPL land. |
| devnet Dec 13, 2007 9:00 PM EDT |
Here's the deal. I'm officially retired from pclinuxos and mypclinuxos now. But here's my opinion on the matter. Being a third party observer though, I can tell you what you did wrong: 1. You didn't request permission or notify any developer/moderator/administrator on anything...and you don't have to with the GPL and OSS...but it would be advisable before springing it out of nowhere. At least then the devs/mods/admins would have known your motivation and methods as well as the details so you had them on your side BEFORE anyone questioned things. 2. You posted in the official forums with a link with a place to collect money (GPL only allows money to be made for support...which means having an official support agreement... and bandwidth download charges). Regardless if this was a 'donation' the fact that money was shown at the beginning made people jump to conclusions without knowing anything. If you had followed #1, you'd have anticipated this because Tex and the gang would have known about it and told the moderators about you and your posting. 3. You forgot that on the internet it is shoot first and ask questions later. Anticipation with a FAQ page on your website would have went many miles for this whole situation. That's the first thing I noticed when I visited. Had you done those things above...especially #1...you'd have never been banned. BTW, I was the only developer that stuck up for you...but due to the fact that you got on the wrong side of the moderators right away, I lost out. Why? Because of the checksum problem pointed out and also because there wasn't a FAQ page and there was a big "give me money" sign staring you in the face at the beginning. You stacked the deck against yourself right away. Sorry it went that way...wish I could help. Like I said, you'll have a place on mypclinuxos.com because I'll see to it. I can't do anything on pclinuxos.com since I'm retired. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 13, 2007 10:08 PM EDT |
Quoting: GPL only allows money to be made for support. Where do you get that? I could charge a billion dollars for the binaries if I wanted, but the source just has to be available for free (or a nominal charge to cover costs of distrubution). I am not relegated by the GPL from making money from a particular program, I am only limited by the realities of Free Software, which have hitherto dictated that companies have only been able to make money via support contracts...which may have been your point, I apologize if I misunderstood. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone... |
| devnet Dec 14, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
exactly my point...and even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't change much for how he set himself up to fail in this instance. Anticipating problems such as the ones he faced are quite easy...you talk to developers like yourself and find out what they think...you poll a small group of users to find out what they think. I did this before I launched mypclinuxos.com so that I wouldn't tread on top of anyone's ideas or have redundancy within the main site pclinuxos.com. I did this FOR MONTHS before I launched it. These are the things that should have been done....maybe not for months...but he should have checked out what he could and couldn't do...notified devs/mods/admins, etc. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!