<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 19.05.2009 22:51, Scott Balneaves wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:20090519205129.GE31151@legalaid.mb.ca" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 09:54:28PM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I suggest we either have a live meeting on IRC at some point in the near future or just keep discussing in this thread what is going to happen to Edubuntu. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I've been busy as heck for the last 6 months, and haven't had a lot of time to devote to Edubuntu. However, if a meeting is planned, I'll show up. <snip> </pre> </blockquote> In #edubuntu we decided not to act to drastically until UDS is over. We hope that Canonical are going to give us an official statement to Edubuntu's future. <blockquote cite="mid:20090519205129.GE31151@legalaid.mb.ca" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">1) Direction. I think Edubuntu has been without actual vision for some time now. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Well, IMHO, this is incorrect. The problem we've got is that there's a HUGE AMOUNT of vision. There's diddly-squat all people actually turning vision into code/bugfixes/docs. etc. </pre> </blockquote> I think this is part of the problem. I think Edubuntu should try to tackle one problem at a time, starting at the lowest problem difficulty: A workstation desktop with education applications which is pretty much what Edubuntu is right now and should be an easy first focus. Tackle harder stuff a little later on once one part has been polished. <blockquote cite="mid:20090519205129.GE31151@legalaid.mb.ca" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> As well, producing a bootable CD or DVD's a HUGE undertaking (just ask ogra). Someone's got to step forward and be willing to DO this. It means code. It means hours and hours of work. </pre> </blockquote> I've been building another distribution over the last couple of weeks and it's actually quite easy once you grasp the underlying concept. The tools are there already, so it's really not that much in need of coding, just a bit of scripting. Building the images themselves doesn't take too long either. So yeah, I'm stepping up and am willing to do this :). <blockquote cite="mid:20090519205129.GE31151@legalaid.mb.ca" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I suggest </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Here is the core problem. And I'm not meaning to take this out on you: there's been many, MANY people who've *suggested* things about edubuntu/ltsp/ubuntu/linux/Open Source in general. What people never seem to get is the following: Edubuntu doesn't need more suggestions. Edubuntu needs more people sitting at more keyboards looking at more bug reports coding more patches that fix more problems. That's the bit we're lacking. </pre> </blockquote> Well, would you have preferred me saying that I *decided*? That would mean starting up something on my own with no coordination or team which was not in my intention. I'm NOT the one who just talks and doesn't do but I understand that a project this size isn't something I'm going to do on an afternoon all by myself. I am happily the person to get his hands dirty first, though. <blockquote cite="mid:20090519205129.GE31151@legalaid.mb.ca" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">completely revising Edubuntu and maybe even consider changing the name. I thought about forking Ubuntu to Schoolbuntu but I'd rather continue working under 'Edubuntu'. In case Canonical has other plans with that name, though, I see nothing wrong with starting a separate project forked from Ubuntu itself. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Don't change the name Don't fork the project Don't revise edubuntu DO fix bugs DO write documentation DO write new pieces of software to fill in gaps </pre> </blockquote> This wouldn't seem too drastic. It would mean going the same direction, still, and that didn't work out too well in my opinion. Why not revise Edubuntu (or rather, revive)? Also, forking would allow me to *do* just as I see fit and Edubuntu could profit from it. Currently in Edubuntu, my hands are more or less bound to my back. I'm uncertain about the Canonical situation, I don't have any permissions for the website, I can't just throw out all the old documentation or people would get angry, I can't deviate from its current course. I'm not saying a fork is necessary, but it would allow me to gather some much needed technical experience about building and integrating a live distro on Ubuntu with LTSP. If, however, you say I should go ahead and just work on Edubuntu where ever I see fit and make it what I want it to be, I will happily do that. But I want to be sure that the work I'm going to invest is not going to be discarded because what I did wasn't in the project's intentions. Please do not take any offense in any of the stuff I say or said. I can see that you've been very involved with Edubuntu and that you've invested a great deal of time into it. But I can also see that you are not too happy about the way things are currently (declining/dead community, few people helping, lots of hot air, lack of Canonical support). So even then, why do you want to keep steering the current course? In the past, it might have worked due to Canonicals support, now I'm pretty sure that won't do any more. Let's concentrate on a few things. Get diagrams up. Get a wiki up. And I don't mean Edubuntu's wiki, I mean a new wiki just for refurbishing Edubuntu so it can get back up to speed. Since you don't like talkers, I'll try to get to know the casper system a bit in the coming days and release a DVD containing a built LTSP image and a full Edubuntu environment and see how it turns out. </body> </html>