ltsp local apps + nat + ....

[Scott Balneaves]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 03:29:30PM -1000, R. Scott Belford wrote:
> I appreciate your response, Jordan, and your tireless, thankless, and
> unpaid efforts, Scott.
> 
> I have long since grown weary of the tit for tat and one-upsmanship,
> Scott.

If you've interpreted it that way, I'm sorry.  It's not meant that way.  But
there seems to be an ongoing vein of "The Users" vs. "The Developers".  All I'm
trying to point out is, there is no "you" vs "us", it's just a big "we" here.

> I still cannot put a DOE teacher on this list and
> expect anything good to come of it.

Why not?  Is it bad to have these kind of discussions?  Personally, I'm glad
we're having them.  You have your frustrations, and I have mine.  Discussing
them solves them, doesn't it?

> What does this arbitrary listing of people have to do with who is
> involved with Edubuntu?
> 
> https://edge.launchpad.net/~edubuntu-members/+members#active

It shows who are the *actively contributing* people.  Obviously, more people
are using it than are contributing it.  I'm simply sounding the siren that we
need *more*.

>  Why on earth is the Edubuntu project not building upon and
> improving the good work of Skolelinux/Debian-Edu?

That's what we *are* doing.  We're just not doing it *fast* enough for
everyone's liking.  I'm just trying to passionately argue that to pick up the
pace, we need more hands.  Am I wrong in arguing that?

> If there is not the community to do it for you, and the experience has
> jaded the few remaining developers this much, is it possible that you
> just made a mistake trying to go it alone as evidenced by your
> results?

Our results, I think, are fantastic.  LTSP5, with all it's great new features
was *developed* under Edubuntu.  LDM, the integration of Pulse audio to fix
most sound issues, a (finally) complete solution for localapps, all this was
either fully, or initial development sponsored by, Ubuntu and Canonical, and
worked on by passionate people like Jim, Ollie, Stephane, and even Vagrant.
More on that below.

> I would advise the Edubuntu Community to do a re-mix of, or
> just a pure collaboration with, Debian-Edu.

And that's essentially what we do.  We're using Debian-Edu's stuff.

Edubuntu is, in my view:

Ubuntu +
Debian-Edu/KDEedu +
LTSP5

Hopefully, all in one easy to use package.  It's not there yet, for quite a
variety of reasons.

One of the *big* problems we had early on, and this could be said to be a
tactical error on Edubuntu's part, was using early implementations of LTSP5.
Lots of K12LTSP people were interested in using Edubuntu, but because, for the
first year, at least, LTSP5 wasn't "feature complete" with LTSP 4.2, many
people looked at Edubuntu and said, "Why would I want to use this instead of
using K12LTSP?", and didn't stick with us, but rather, went back to K12.  The
irony was, we kept plugging away at LTSP5, and got it to better than 4.2, and
now, K12Linux, wich is the successor to K12LTSP, now uses LTSP5, developed
originally under Edubuntu.

Should we have not gone with LTSP5 in early versions of Edubuntu? Maybe not,
but then, LTSP5 wouldn't be where it is today.

> I have found the LTSP
> maintainer with Debian to be very kind, gracious, and interested in
> user feedback and bug reports on the mailing list itself.

Vagrant's a great guy, and I love him to death.

Funny story, if you can bear one:

Gadi was at one of our LTSP conferences.  He's Orthodox Jewish, and so, wasn't
going to be able to get to the conference Saturday morning, since he couldn't
drive.  It was about 5 miles from his hotel to where we were meeting. I asked
Gadi "Well, if I *walked* with you, and carried map, cellphone, etc., would you
come then?" Gadi said "Sure".

Vagrant, who had *just met Gadi*, without even missing a beat, said "I'll come
too."  It was a long walk, but we all strolled in together.

If the implication is that I'm more "passionate and outspoken" than he is, then
guilty as charged :D

> I am not trying to be negative.  I am trying to be honest.  Perhaps
> Edubuntu just needed to be a Desktop distro.  It was not the users who
> claimed that it was more secure than LTSP 4.2, and that it was ready
> to roll as a thin client server.  If it has taken two years' of
> squabbles for a thin client server to provide NAT services *without*
> requiring the tweaking of config files, and it still doesn't, the
> discussion of how to organize the Wiki so users can find how to do
> themselves is a completely pointless and unproductive discussion.

The nat services are only required when running LTSP as a localapp, which is
pretty much a new feature for Jaunty.

Besides, go take a look at the old LTSP 4.2 wiki.  At least you don't have to
re-compile kernels anymore :D

> Please consider changing the description of this project on the Users
> mailing list until it becomes what it claims.  Until then, you are
> damaging the good work that is already there and to which many are
> pleasantly contributing.

Not quite sure how to take this.  If the implication is that you perceive I'm
damaging the project, then my apologies.  I'm simply passionate about this
project, LTSP, and Linux in general, and calling the shots as I see them.

All I'm saying is we need more help to accomplish the goals we'd like meet.  If
you, or anyone else can point to anything I've posted on this thread, or
indeed, any thread dating back to the beginning of edubuntu-devel,
edubuntu-users, ltsp-discuss, or any of the other lists I'm involved with that
I've actively been involved with that's been derogatory, or mean spirited, then
I'll apologise for it.  And if you've mis-interpreted my passion for this as
hectoring, I apologise for that too.

But I beleive in this project.  It's accomplished some pretty cool things, and
I want it to accomplish so much more.

Cheers,
Scott


-- 
Scott L. Balneaves | The closest you will ever come in this life to an
Systems Department | orderly universe is a good library.
Legal Aid Manitoba |     -- Ashleigh Brilliant