This is my (in)activity log. You might like to visit my employer
Novell which is an amazing company, and also
Dell who in days of yore provided me with a
free laptop for Gnome development / conferences.
Also if you have the time to read this sort of stuff you could enlighten
yourself by going to Unraveling Wittgenstein's net or if
you are feeling objectionable perhaps here.
Stuff Michael Meeks is doing
Still feeling dead, heavy breathing, lem-sipped; checked mail,
fixed an OpenSUSE / OO.o crash-on-start related to some GIO / GVFS
confusion. Irritated by under-performing calc save I did some
callgrinding, and found what looks like ~10% of the time taken up
in chasing (non-existent) symlinks in the 'store' code - what a
crock, usually back-to-back in batches of 4 duplicates, and of
course in the huge
IMPLEMENTATIONS/ directory with the
hundreds of components this is not good. Knocked up a patch.
Call with Greg, lunch, still feeling awful. Poked at Jon's
gdm mail - wow, he wrote the patch for me - nice, tested it -
saves me ~10seconds on autologin, great work. Discovered that the
nice interaction diagrams I needed to understand gdm are in fact
already drawn and in the wiki. Chat
with Jono. Cold moving to the chest at speed.
Charl came over to go out to the pub, but so wet, and ill
that we just slugged by the fire instead; really good to talk
To work; mildly amused by the Ubuntu hype-machine's success;
I read somewhere (with no hint of irony)
[Mark's] ... goal
is to push the Ubuntu GUI up to the level of Apple's ... It's possible that
sentiment has never been voiced in the history of GNU.
Strange, I thought I heard this aspiration regularly, throughout GNOME
development, and even by RMS
back in the day and wow, reading that controversy - I yearn for the
old days: "In short, I'm a huge believer in an open meritocracy that
encourages bottom-up development instead of forcing top-down "standards."
Like CDE." - there's still perhaps a lesson for OO.o there somewhere.
Claire came to visit from Coventry with baby Jared. Dead pleased
to hear her ask So what's a PC ? in relation to the recent Microsoft
advertising campaign - seems like they have a cliff-face of work ahead
there; perhaps a bring-back-Jerry campaign is in order. Lunch, discovered
not having rsync installed stopped me up-loading my blog for a while, doh.
Call with JP, poked at odd shell-scriptage around login, ugh.
Rather woozy with flu, some amusing fading in and out. Prodded MA about
our tennant. Read analyst reports.
Dinner with Sharon, Luke & Cassy, Claire & Jadon, and
our lot - fun. Put most of them to bed. Stayed up chatting happily to
Sharon by the fire.
It seems that MS are entering the hosted Office space with
Office Live, Q&A
over the downloads link)
. Here are some of my initial thoughts, at least
crystallising my dislike of some of the 'cloud' computing hype.
This appears to involve putting a full-blown instance of MS Office on the
server, per user - this is (presumably) one of the reasons they are on a
server farm building spree: and who can blame them - running at
least one full copy of office on the server per user is going
to be incredibly
This at least lets them expose the full feature set of MS Office,
and makes it something I'd want to use - the down side being things
like those Excel no
features mean a casual user can swallow gigabytes
of server RAM fairly trivially:
Total amount of PC memory that Excel can use
Old Limit: 1GB
New Limit: Maximum allowed by Windows
I hope that works out well for whomever happened to get dropped into
sharing the same server as the heavy spreadsheet user.
What about the web technologies
? - apparently this is not Silverlight
only, though there seems to be an acknowledgement that if you want a version that
performs well, you will need that, otherwise (reading between the lines) I suspect
it's a lot of bitmaps, lag and server side rendering.
The exact technology mix doesn't seem to be public yet, but the MS Office
code-base is mythically large and twisty. Having said that they seem to have
a Model/View separation clean-up underway, unless the live collaboration is
some grisly hack. I strongly suspect, where claims of
perfect visual fidelity (6:05 into the video) are made, that this is a
model, or perhaps even more basic - with EMF+ or even an RDP-like protocol
being used with a -very- thin client, ie. a model akin to Ulteo's
embedded-Java/VNC style setup.
Of course, this type of architecture is really great for getting apps onto
the web fast, and sharing that code-base with the fat client, but
ultimately can never allow dis-connected operation. Then again, for large
complex applications I've never believed the "re-write everything in
mantra (after all, we've not yet finished the
re-write of everything into Java yet), and it seems (to me) an expensively
lame solution to the simpler deployment problems the web is supposed to
Normal Web problems
This of course ties into the problem of payment - sure, in this world
people can save money by buying some trivial piece of hardware, and
running just Firefox on it; but sadly - unless money can be made simply
by competing to give things away faster than Google, or by advertisements:
someone has to pay for 10k new machines per month, and worse the electricity
to run them. Is there some corresponding, functioning micro-payment /
metering scheme to make a business model fly here ? and how does the
transition to that work ?
Then of course, service level agreements tend to be an issue - particularly
in the presence of the known pathological resource sharing problems. Of course,
service wise - there needs to be some really good sand-boxing to isolate
everyone from the next MS Office binary filter vulnerability, and no doubt
there remain many of them to be discovered.
To overcome some of these problems, and the potential confidentiality /
compliance issues people can run this on their own Sharepoint server(s)
then, if you're not careful this begins to look like some of the lamer desktop
'virtualisation' solutions that essentially are just an exercise in PC
movement: all the PCs move into the data-centre: but you have just as
many of them, perhaps at greater expense, but at least they sit somewhere
else. Still - that should make hardware manufacturers salivate I guess.
Of course, in the browser world, as I understand it, there are a host of
evil problems with missing open standards and ergonomics around interacting
with local devices, and exposing those back to the server: USB keys,
printers, printer-quirks-and-settings, 3D acceleration etc. Perhaps many of
these can be overcome with Silverlight, but no doubt eventually deploying
and updating increasingly complex fat-client technologies starts to eat
into the 'reduced deployment' rational for all this work in the first
place. It reminds me of our old XMS system (written in Java), that only
worked (or was certified / supported) with Java 22.214.171.124-5.6, and only on
Windows, and only in IE, such that everyone had to use Citix to access it
on a Windows cluster in Provo.
Win32 for the Web ?
If my guess is correct: that this is some very thin RDP-like layer
to a fat client on a server - and indeed for eg. VBA macros, Excel analytics
plugins etc. to work well this is basically necessary (since they can use any
part of the Win32 API) then life is interesting. It would suggest a possibility
to extend the life of the Win32 APIs to become a 'web' application framework:
if so, surely ~all windows desktop apps can be "Webbed" in a similar
way. If my guess is not correct, then at least some degree of embarrassing
retraction wrt. the functionality available in the web version will be due
soon, and/or some wholesale feature axing for Office 14.
Does this mean Microsoft is finally shipping Office for GNU/Linux ? lets see
how it performs there, I guess this is at least better than nothing for the last
few percent scared of the GNU/Linux desktop and OpenOffice, and it'll be interesting
to see if MS bothers sustaining their increasingly creaky Mac version: apparently
the Web version on Mac will be more feature complete, albeit less 'beautiful'.
This is a smartish move by Microsoft. It will make, thanks to Miguel's prescience
MS Office available on the GNU/Linux desktop. However it will cost Microsoft a fortune
in server hardware and electricity, and there are formidable problems around
metering and managing the live service, particularly against a leaner, simpler
free (beer) rival in Google. Of course, as soon as the half of computer users with
laptops go dis-connected, or catch a flight (when can we expect high-bandwidth,
low latency transatlantic internet services ? or even ubiquitous in-seat power ?)
- they will have to use OpenOffice anyway, oh, and their portable hardware will
need to be beefy enough to be capable of running that, so - why not author
it there in the first place ?
This is a problem for Free software - traditionally it has been hard to fund
even simple and lightweight shared services (eg. freenode) - never mind server
computing on this scale. This is an architecture only giants can play with, as
such there is much hope that it will come horribly and expensively un-stuck. It
is yet more of a problem as RMS has pointed
because people have no control over their software - they surrender all
their freedoms (if it is even implemented with Free software) to some all-knowing
A great Free-software response in my view is to work on adding collaboration
features using existing protocols, I'm a fan of bootstrapping from existing IM
services with Telepathy
and sticking with the fat clients. That keeps your data local, and shares it
only transiently with people you trust, and it also requires little-to-no server
load, just bandwidth. We should also keep adding features that (so far) are
not going to work well in the 2D fat-web space: eg. get some more sexy 3D
transitions going, and better native Mac integration.
Finally - poor ideas don't die, they come back to haunt us; the idea that
there would be a few large powerful computers with lots of terminals is a
perennial, and goes in cycles. In the past it has foundered on the rocks of
Moore's law - it turned out to be cheaper
, easier and more reliable
to put almost all the software, data, and processing on the local device.
Enabling dis-connected operation will still mandate beefy thick clients.
I'm optimistic that the trend will continue - eventually even for Mobile
devices, last time I looked Google develops and deploys some fat
I look forward to trying the tech. preview at the beginning of next year
to corroborate my suspicions, or the final product in Office 14 in
Up early; prodded mail, architects call. Submitted Ricardo's
latest set of yast2-gtk fixes after persuading osc to submit to me.
Fun packed morning of expense filing. Beta customer call, helped
isolate the Intel / 3D problem based on Stefan's inspiration.
Charl and San Marie around for dinner.
To work, poked at mail, quick but interesting call with Pavel M.
Dug at the go-oo website a bit, call with Jeff, Clarity. Poked at some
split build issues, clobbered a daft OO.o warning. Interrupted by the
'Peatle' (M.) curious as to whether I was talking on the 'Hello-phone' -
Committed an apply tweak to accelerate split build patching
Up in the night with exhasperating lack of sleeping
daughters. Day off - breakfast, out swimming in the local pool,
while E. slept. Lunch. Out to Aldeburgh's playround in the
afternoon - lots of swinging & sliding fun.
Up early, J. lie-in, packed everything into the car -
remembered the hour change; off to NCC, DT spoke on Judges:
Deborah / Barak. Caught up with Jon, Troy & Leeann.
Drove to Bruce & Anne's in the rain, appreciating the
faster / upgraded A14. Played with babes indoors much of the
Up late, lunch, baby-sat while J. took H. to a party, then
took N. to her first one on her own (great excitement in advance,
and apprehension while there). Picked up by J. - N. managed to
wedge herself in the boot in the seconds she was away from the
Home, frantic cleaning, the massed Webbs & Bancrofts
arrived - really great to see them, broke out the apricot wine,
and stayed up talking to Hannah & Nick.
Took H. to school, back to mail. Bashed out a LXF column,
filed bugs variously. Please by the BBC's Michael Sparks's
Kamaelia project for
making good use of threads in Python - seems like a good approach.
Up-loaded my slides
from Linux Expo Live. Lunch. Back for more mail catchup, bug bits,
and boot profiling. Tried to get my needinfo problem under control,
generated lots of info.
Out for a Sad Dads drinking evening in town, good fun, but we're all lightweights
it seems; back rather too late.
Up all to early & off to Linux Expo Live - remarkably
fewer exhibitors and attendees than expected. Caught up with Roger
& Malcolm. Had an interesting panel discussion, and gave a
quick Linux Desktop update.
Annoyingly compiz and metacity seem to rather like trying
to run at the same time - which gives a somewhat surreal double
window decoration experience; must get bug filing.
Enjoyed part of Ulrich's paper
(pdf) What every programmer should know about memory -
whatever his attitude to glibc contributions, the man is a masterly
writer of papers.
Brief mail touch, on to conference prep; frantic slide
drawing much of the morning and afternoon; interspersed with OO.o
team and customer conf-calls. Dinner, worked late on slides.
Apparently it's a surprise to some people that employees
file patents; I happen think that's a wise precaution, particularly
since Novell uses them only defensively - prefering to compete on
technical merit. Of course, ultimately software patents are bad news,
my short lobbying
experience against them (in Europe) was highly interesting - particularly
inasmuch that some of the UK Patent Office appear to be Linux users.
Dug out the USB ID for my ultra-cheap Alba mp3 player, fiddled
with a .fdi file and lo - it works with Banshee just as nicely as the
IPod, filed patch; apparently lsusb sees it as a SigmaTel device.
Up early, shunted mail; prodded my OO.o build, it seems the gcj
build option (I was using by accident) has bit-rotted in some unfortunate
way (to do with imports and ridljar); switched to openjdk for some more
joy. Poked at a Beta3 pre-build live-CD, filed a few bugs.
Apparently some people mis-understood the nn vs. kohei graph
perhaps due to the small scale, the time period (as labeled) is since 1st
Jan 2006 - ie. 30+ months. Some others moan about the focus on code
which of course excludes translation; clearly if you include those changes we
might see lots of people from all over the world contributing l10n, (which of
course is great in itself). Why exclude l10n ? Primarily because, though
it is immensely valuable work, without improved software to translate, the task
eventually runs into a wall of 100% completion (which must be nice). L10n
is a derivative task of developing the underlying software: if the l10n change
rate is dropping, is that because we are nearing complete translation ? or
is it that there are fewer people contributing ? hard to say & potentially
misleading. Secondly - the necessity
of a fair comparison, in this case with Linux: which has little-to-no
l10n component. Finally, as I understand the mechanics: l10n is often proxied
via release engineering into the source tree, meaning the data as to whose
hard work each string was is lost. Clearly the process of getting a reasonable
view of the data includes winnowing out various classes of things: eg.
auto-generated source files, or HTML web-pages (which tend to get checked
into CVS), and so on - clearly that is no surprise.
Played with multi-head some more; discovered
~/.config/monitors.xml is worth backing up after
getting it right (with xorg.conf).
To work, still pretty groggy. Sexy new SanDisk SSD
arrived to play with, nice ! Re-read SUSE bug
definitions - perhaps my bugs are not all so critical.
Chewed mail over.
More work prepping for Linux Expo Live later
this week. There is -so- much work going into the Linux desktop,
it's really relatively hard to summarise. Lunch, clarity. Chat
Up early, dealt with babes. Off to NCC, manned the creche with
Ruth. Back for lunch with Martin; felt terrible most of the afternoon,
nasty cold, tried to sleep on the sofa. Bed early.
Up late, held the fort with the babes, while J. went to shop,
delayed by racing traffic and the ongoing clock-tower traffic
stupidity. The new dig up the roads scheme for reducing
Lunch, children played in the garden. Watched Rattatoille
on the wall with them; Tea, and packed them off to bed. Out to DT
& Zoe's for a birthday party - lots of fun.
Really pleased to see Peter's blog about AEGIS, and
good to see Cambridge involved too; good to see some more millions poured
into making our a11y even more effective - clearly some great people
Prodded mail; spoke to 'Fan' at the Hotel in Beijing to get a
reservation, and confirmation number; finally got and printed that.
Churned through older E-mail, cycled off to post my passport to CIBT.
Interesting to see Thorsten's patch
statistics for up-stream OO.o. These were not included in my
contribution numbers, and are interesting enough. I'm not convinced
the apparent recent decrease in submitted patches is statistically
significant either, indeed the metric itself is pretty weak. Having
said that, it's great to see Caolan (RedHat)'s heroic effort across
the board (and in particular removing unused code) recognised with
1st place by miles; if there were ~550 patches filed so far in 2008;
Caolan carried nearly 30% of the work by himself, with another 10%
from the Novell guys in the top 10 [ pmladek, kohei, thb, kendy ] -
and a great showing from Pavel (l10n++) & Tono (on the mingw
port I guess). It's a shame not to post the raw data / spreadsheet
for further mining though. Having said that - while 550 patches
sounds a lot, is it really ? hard to say without a comparison to
another live project.
Discovered my calc is using a layout'ed "find" dialog;
spent some time tweaking the XML for that to make it prettier and
knocking up an E-mail for Janneke. Chased, reproduced & filed
fontconfig related crasher.
Lunch; Phoned Morris Armitage - apparently their new terms
of business they sent are not those that they'll be using for us;
funny people. Phoned Furniture Village's Cyrill - replacement for
beetle infested sofa, removed ~10 weeks ago still pending.
Dug at on-screen display bug, apparently down to some odd
defaults. More gdm poking, gave up - dug at OpenJDK briefly instead,
pinged Andrew. Dinner with babes, J. out to a girls night.
Poked at UML - no matter how many hackers there are on Linux,
it seems UML can't keep up, which is a shame - it should be dead
useful. Chat with Miguel.
Wow, another day of mail; how dull. Flora finally got my VISA
approval thing from China, nice work! Now to persuade the printer to
print it. Call with JP. Kelli's staff.
Tried to get evince to render my Chinese VISA PDF no chinese
fonts - filed a bug, tried Windows XP instead - wow, amazingly more
broken (no doubt a version issue), but nice. It looks like evince
might be a great target for some PackageKit hooks via a. "you are
missing all the interesting fonts, click here ..." type feature,
assuming of course that it's not there already - interestingly the
latest Acrobat has this on Win32.
To work, pondered mail much of the day, chat with Caolan &
Thorsten. Listened to half the ops conf-call, customer conf call, chat
For some odd reason my Dell / (mostly) intel machine is wedging
itself quite frequently with Beta2, seems X related - annoying to chase.
Up late, call with Guy - plugged away at Empathy.
Bad, bad cutlery !
Apparently people are trying to stick 'forks' into each other (and
in particular me) these days cf. Simon & Roy's noted enthusiasm for this.
Apparently (particularly according to medieval, western, knife manufacturers
everywhere) the fork is hell-spawn, not to
mention economically damaging, particularly when bundled with rice. But, what
is a fork ? Wikipedia's write-up is
but extremely broad.
Back in the day - I used Slackware Linux (cue
nostalgia for antique hardware etc.) but now I read up on it, I seem to have
been duped: Slackware seems to have been based on a fork of SLS! - I
was cheated out of using the real thing. Worse than that, apparently
SLS was forked again by that Ian
Murdock guy into something called Debian. Sadly, since then, SLS appears to
have gone the way of the "Save
the Stegosaurus" campaign.
Of course - there are now hundreds of Linux Distributions
with different choices built in, many with different packages. Of course, there
is some nuance here - is Mandriva a fork of RedHat ? is Ubuntu a fork of
Debian ? is Mepis
further fork of Ubuntu ? are these cycles of creative destruction: branching,
tweaking, trail-blazing new directions, including new features, and/or
failing and disappearing bad ? should we have a central planning committee
wielding powerful legal tools to pro-actively stamp them out ? or are they a
positive side-effect of open-ness: allowing bad ideas to be weeded out by
Waffling and yardsticks
What makes a fork ? Can a budding etymologist confirm the relation to
the unix 'fork' system
call ? If you use that, in a miracle of copy-on-write-ness; post fork, anything
you change is not shared with the parent process ?
Why are linux distributions not generally seen
as forks ? I hypothesise that the answer is primarily that development is
(for the most part) not independent - distros work on the same underlying
code, and (hopefully) contribute their changes back to the common underlying
code-pool. Of course, they tend to put different branding on top, have
different configuration settings, and often include packages specific to
their own distribution, some of them (sadly) not Free software.
What about branching ? is
cvs tag -b gnome-2-22 a fork ?
do projects go forking themselves regularly as wikipedia suggests ? again,
usually people don't call this a fork - it's a branch, and code changes go
into both sides of the branch. What then about adding components to a package ?
is writing a new out-of-tree kernel module a fork ? what if you give it to
some of your friends ? Does this apply more broadly ? is open-sourcing
Solaris creating a fork of the GNU/Linux stack - by replacing a key component
with a duplicate ? or is that just duplication ? or is Linux itself a fork/
duplication of PrimevalNix and thus intrinsically bad ? does licensing matter ?
is duplication for licensing reasons acceptable ? how about purely for
David A. Wheeler's forking
appendix (to his interesting paper) postulates intent here; is the intent
to become a competing or replacement project ? Well, certainly I'd like go-oo to
become, as long as Sun pointlessly excludes our features, a replacement distribution
(NB. not fork) of OO.o to the one Sun controls: simply because I'd like to get
this injustice addressed, but of course, I'd far prefer to have a single
up-stream community controlled source for OO.o.
Re-applying this to the world of OO.o, lets look first at StarOffice
- was that a fork of OO.o ? in the past when it included proprietary closed
source pieces and custom tweaks, and clearly was intended to compete with OO.o,
did Sun fork it's 'own' project ? or was that a commercial re-distribution of
OO.o with bits added ? How about ooo-build / go-oo ? that
includes plenty of patches that for one reason & another (mostly the pain
threshold) are not yet up-stream, the snapshot looking far worse than it is,
since many patches have already gone up-stream over the years. Of course
go-oo also includes some pieces (mostly well separated) that Sun simply
refuses to accept up-stream because it wants to own them. Does that make
it a fork ? if so, who is to blame for any negative effect ?
Some issues are great for endless charged debate - to quote Yes Minister,
The problem is all my facts are statistics, and all your statistics are facts.
I (of course) pass on useful and relevant information; it is other people that gossip,
I take a lively interest in my surroundings; it's the other people that are nosy etc.
People can call go-oo a fork certainly, it's a convenient way of
putting it in a box marked 'evil' without mature consideration - but perhaps
for consistency they need to call rather a number of other things forks,
putting us in good company. Personally, I think forking is sometimes
justified, but is go-oo really a fork ? you decide. Whatever your answer,
it is totally facile to insinuate that because we encourage people to work
on go-oo, that none of their work will get into Sun's OO.o - some of it
will (we hope), and we'd love Sun to take the components too, under the
copy-left license of their choice.
Prodded mail, specced up some work for a new OO.o hacker / volunteer,
good stuff. After much digging, once again managed to find
- the pulseaudio thingit that lets you actually set the output volume level to
a sane level (thus saving neck injury while trying to get the ear near the
speakers). For some reason I keep forgetting it's name. Why the underlying
device likes to have a really low level in the first place is beyond me.
Prodded a fun samba autotools issue, soon fixed. Lunch, with Laura
& Benjy. Voted for the OpenSUSE board suitably. Call with Frank, Holger,
Guy & Peter.
Up earlyish, packed people off to school. Poked at yast2-gtk,
fixed up the regression tests, created a new version with more nice
fixes from Ricardo. Recalled I need to commit to the osc branch I
Noticed some of the on-line interest in my article last Friday;
excerpt of my conclusion is perhaps more stark when dis-connected
from my definition of an 'active developer' (and the several caveats
around that); obviously the real number of active developers
(in either the Linux kernel or OO.o) is unlikely to actually dip
around release time, yet it's clearly an interesting metric.
apparently think I'm a hijacker (clearly an under-emotive & balanced
view; After all, I have a beard; what more proof should be necessary !).
Admittedly I would love to see some sensible changes in control &
direction for OO.o, but I happen to think these would be good for Sun as
well as OO.o. As for the rampant factual inaccuracies the most amusing
is the apparent lack of understanding that Sun's OO.o
3.0 ships with built in MS/OOX import too, oh and that Sun have a
patent cease-fire in-place with Microsoft.
Of course, it's right to be frustrated that OO.o is not getting
enough developers - join the club. This
guy clearly has the right attitude, apparently I should get actively
involved in OO.o (the sad truth being that I have less time than ever
before on it currently - with lots of other Desktoppy things to look at).
In general though, that's excellent advice, please do mail me if you are
a developer and want to get actively involved, we can help out.
Poked at espeak vs. festival, some Evolution bits - seemingly performance
is substantially improving wrt. the sqlite re-work. Lunch, Clarity, FATE,
hopefully, eventually back to prodding gdm.
Interested that Roy published Simon's (apparently private) E-mail:
quick call with Simon. Fascinating to hear Simon holding forth on behalf
of the OO.o engineering community, while in the same breath accusing me
of spin; cue reality check. In other sections we start with a reasonable
summary: "he doesn't trust Sun to use the aggregated copyright
wisely." before moving on to something I happen to be sure is
a rather egregious falsehood: "Note that the aggregated copyright has
been used twice in the last 4 years, once to drop SISSL as a dual
license (an act that got IBM to start contributing) and once to adopt
LGPLv3 instead of LGPLv2.". If this is so, and the ownership rights
are just used to simplify really occasional re-licensing between
free-software licenses (and they're not needed to drop a second license),
it should be trivial to proscribe that use in the SCA, and I
(for one) would be thrilled; sadly it is not so. Much more spin than
substance there, but I'll go easy on Simon since apparently it was
not for publication & thus not dissection proof, or apparently
Mini lie-in; walked to All-Saints - Hannah singing in a
harvest festival thingit - complete with carboard combine harvester
animated by several fun-sized people. Good stuff.
Left H. for lunch with Naomi B. and headed home, dinner,
cycling practice with N. in the road - nine steps without falling
over. Went to pick H. up, who griped about tucking her dress into
her knickers to ride back; un-tucked it as soon as the Father's back
was turned, and managed to wreck her favorite dress in the chain -
it's a (own) goal ! poor dear.
Piano practice, and put babes to bed. Out for a drink with
Chris, up rather late.
Up early, let J. sleep. Sawed extraneous chair in half from the
front room - lots of cotton wadding, and horse-hair bits in there. Off to
the tip, amusinglyrecognised from my hackergotchi by some member of the
cognoscenti. Home, cleaned perishing mould from the windows: easier than
expected, thank God the moulds havn't worked out how to eat my tasty
plastic windows yet.
Off to Thetford Forest's High Lodge
for picnic and play with the girls. Discovered the new, and unfeasibly
large Pyramid Slide
rather a triumph of fun loving over the health & safety nuts. Lifted
small people up inside at length.
Up early, experimented cycling H. to school before punting
that to J. hmm. Baby-sat a bit, and onto compiz - Beta3 should be in
rather good shape, osc down so filed bugs variously. Poked at yast2.
Prodded at boot charts; it seems on my machine, Jon's sexy new
gdm - complete with nice a11y features, speech and so on, appears to
start an entire session before noticing it is in auto-login mode &
tearing it down again, poked at that.
Lunch, sidetracked by an interesting OO.o crasher. Poked at
gdm again; halfline pointed me at
is somewhat helpful, but these async, multi-process, intensive IPC
designs are still hard to grok; bother.
What is success?
Is success measured in downloads, or up-loads? are bugs
filed as good as bugs fixed? are volunteer marketers as valuable
as volunteer developers? If we have lots of bugs filed and lots
of volunteer management material is that success? is the pace of
change important? Does successful QA exist to create process to slow
and reject changes, or by accelerating inclusion of fixes improve
quality? Is success having complete, up-to-date and detailed
specifications for every feature? Is success getting everyone to
slavishly obey laborious multi-step processes, before every commit?
Alternatively does success come through attracting and empowering
developers, who have such fun writing the code that they volunteer
their life, allegiance and dreams to improve it?
I encourage people to download & use OpenOffice.org
in one of it's derivatives. I'm pleased when people file bugs,
help with the QA burden, promote the projet etc. However, in a Free
Software project the primary production is developing and improving
the software - ie. hacking. So the question is: how is
OpenOffice.org doing in this area? Are we a success in attracting
and retaining hackers? Is the project sufficiently fun to be involved
in that lots of people actually want to be involved?
As we are finally on the brink of switching
away from the creaking (22 years old) CVS (provided by Collab.net), to
an improved Sun hosted Subversion (sadly not a DRCS) -
Kohei and I created a set of scripts to crunch the raw RCS files
as they go obsolete. They reveal an interesting picture.
As with any measurement task, we believe these numbers are
fairly reasonable; and we try to make them meaningful. On the other
hand perhaps there is some horrendous thinko in the analysis, bug
reports appreciated. It'd also be nice to see if the internal Sun
statistics match these.
Firstly - the data is dirty; since we're analysing RCS
files; so - when files are moved to the binfilter, or even renamed
they have been simply re-committed - causing huge commit spikes.
Similarly license changes, header guard removals
and various other automated clean-ups, or check-ins of external projects
cause massive signal swamping spikes. We have made some
(incomplete) attempts to eliminate a few of these. In recentish
times all work happens on a CVS branch, which is later merged
release engineers (who appear to have done ~50% of the commits
themselves), so we filter their (invaluable) contribution out
by account name (cf. rt's oloh
Secondly - another distorting factor is that we chart
only lines added: in fact when you change a line it is flagged
as an add and a remove; so the number is more correctly lines
added or changed. This of course fails to capture some of the
best hacking that is done: removing bloat, which should be a
prioirity. In the Linux kernel case this metric also gives extra
credit to bad citizens that dump large drivers packed with
duplicated functionality, and worse it rewards cut & paste
coding. I don't often agree with Bill Gates but:
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.
still at least the 'lines changed' facet should be helpful.
Thirdly - release cycles cause changes in contribution
patterns, clearly frantic activity during feature development
lapses into more bug-fixing later in the cycle. Thus we expect
to see some sort of saw-shape effect.
Fourthly, working on OO.o is infernally difficult, getting
code up-stream is extremely and unnecessarily painful - this
results in many contributors leaving their code in patches attached
to bugs in the issue tracker, and we make no account for these; these
changes (if they are committed at all) would appear to be Sun commits.
Thus it is possible that there is at least somewhat wider contribution
than shown. Clearly we would hope that full-time contributors would
tend to commit directly to CVS themselves.
Magnitude of contributions
This graph is more meaningless than it might first appear,
the raw data still shows noise like individuals committing obvious
sillies copying chunks of OO.o to the binfilter eg. To some extent
it is further distorted by us trying to clean this up for the past
couple of years before giving up:
So the data is not that useful. Is it more useful to look
at an individual to see if they are contributing something?
If we threshold the data we can at least approximate an activity
metric / boolean. The graph below shows two developers - the
Sun developer Niklas Nebel, and the Novell hacker Kohei Yoshida.
Both work primarily on calc, and you can see the large bar when
Kohei committed his solver to a branch at the end of 2006.
It seems clear that we can at least approximate activity with
some thresholding. More interesting than this though, we can see a most curious
thing. Despite Calc (apparently) being the relative weakness
of OO.o, and Niklas being the maintainer of the calc core engine, and the
calc "Project Lead" (with special voting privileges for the 'community'
council), in fact he hasn't committed any real amount of code recently.
That jumps out in the comparison with (vote-less) Kohei in the last six
months. It is very sad indeed to all but loose Niklas from the project,
though at least we'll see him
at OOoCon. Verifying this counter-intuitive result with bonsai
reveals the same picture.
Extending this metric to the entire project we see perhaps
a more interesting picture. By thresholding contributions at one
hundred lines of code added/changed per month, we can get a
picture of the number of individuals committing code to OO.o. Why
one hundred? why not? it's at least a sane floor. Clearly we get
a metric that is very easy to game, but luckily that's hard to
It is clear that the number of active contributors Sun
brings to the project is continuing to shrink, which would be fine if
this was being made up for by a matched increase in external
contributors, sadly that seems not to be so. Splitting out just the
external contributors we see some increase, but not enough:
Novell's up-stream contribution appears small in comparison
with the fifteen engineers we have working on OO.o. This has perhaps two
explanations: of course we continue to work on features that are apparently
not welcome in Sun's build cf. the rejection
of Kohei's solver late in 2007, and much of the rest of our work happens
in ooo-build, personal git repositories, and is subsequently filed
as patches in IZ.
So, it should be clear that OO.o is a profoundly sick project,
and worse one that doesn't appear to be improving with age. But what
does a real project look like that is alive? By
patching Jonathon Corbet's gitdm I generated some
similar activity statistics for the Linux kernel, another project of equivalent
code size, and arguably complexity:
Graph showing number and affiliation of active kernel developers
(contributing more than 100 lines per month).
Quick affiliation key,
from bottom up: Unknown, No-Affiliation,
IBM, RedHat, Novell, Intel ...
There are a number of points of comparison with the data
pilot of active developers aggregated by affiliation for OO.o.
Similarities: both graphs show the release cycle. Spikes
of activity at the start reducing to release. Linux' cycle is a loose
3 months, vs. OO.o's 6 months.
: most obviously, magnitude and trend
: OO.o peaked
at around 70
active developers in late 2004 and is trending downwards, the
Linux kernel is nearer 300
active developers and trending upwards.
- this is drastically reduced for the Linux kernel - down
to the sheer volume of changes: eighteen months of Linux' changes bust
calc's row limit, where OO.o hit only 15k rows thus far.
: the linux graph omits an in-chart legend, this is a result
of the 300+ organisations that actively
contribute to Linux;
interestingly, a good third of contribution to Linux comes from external (or
un-affiliated) developers, but the rest comes from corporates. What is
stopping corporations investing similarly in OO.o?
Crude as they are - the statistics show a picture of
slow disengagement by Sun, combined with a spectacular lack of growth
in the developer community. In a healthy project we would expect to see
a large number of volunteer developers involved, in addition - we would
expect to see a large number of peer companies contributing to the common
code pool; we do not see this in OpenOffice.org. Indeed, quite the
opposite we appear
to have the lowest number of active developers on OO.o since records
began: 24, this contrasts negatively with Linux's recent low of 160+.
Even spun in the most positive way, OO.o is at best stagnating from a
Does this matter? Of course, hugely ! Everyone that wants Free
software to succeed on the desktop, needs to care about the true
success of OpenOffice.org: it is a key piece here. Leaving the project
to a single vendor to resource & carry will never bring us the
gorgeous office suite that we need.
What can be done? I would argue that in order to kick-start
the project, there is broadly a two step remedy:
Kill the ossified, paralysed and gerrymandered political system
in OO.o. Instead put the developers (all of them), and those actively
contributing into the driving seat. This in turn should help to kill the
many horribly demotivating and dysfunctional process steps
currently used to stop code from getting included, and should help
to attract volunteers. Once they are attracted and active, listen to
them without patronizing.
Distance the project from Sun: perhaps less branding, certainly less
top-down control, reduce the requirement to 'share' all your rights
over to Sun before you can contribute to the project. Better still,
share ownership of the code with a non-profit foundation to
guarantee stability and an independent future for the code-base.
Unfortunately, the chances of either of these points being
addressed in full seem fairly remote - though, perhaps there will
continue to be some grudging movement in these directions.
A half-hearted open-source strategy (or execution) that is not
truly 'Open' runs a real risk of capturing the perceived business
negatives of Free software: that people can copy your product for free, without
capturing many of the advantages: that people help you develop it, and
in doing so build a fantastic support and services market you can dominate.
It's certainly possible to cruise along talking about all the marketing
advantages of end-user communities, but in the end-game, without a focus
on developers, and making OO.o truly fair and fun to contribute to - any
amount of spin will not end up selling a dying horse.
Why is my bug not fixed? why is the UI still so unpleasant?
why is performance still poor? why does it consume more memory than
necessary? why is it getting slower to start? why? why? - the answer
lies with developers: Will you help us make OpenOffice.org better? if
so, probably the best place to get started is by playing with go-oo.org and getting in touch,
please mail us.
Finally - we invite you to repeat the analysis, the raw spreadsheet
data (for data-miners) is here:
and the RCS parsing scripts
with dependants in that same
To work; turns out my USB key, while having reasonable burst
read speeds makes for a thoroughly pathetic root file-system; and while
excellent at seeky reads (Alt-F2 doesn't kill the machine grokking
.desktop files), is overall slower than a turgid slugnoodle.
Greg Swift reports, that instead of editing my
file I should be doing
ssh-keygen -R , which is a good
point, though hopefully something I'll have to do a lot less of now.
Started to poke at an interesting bug Thomas Biege threw up. Since
my 11.0 OO.o build is broken on 11.1 Beta2, decided to use the new split builds
we have in 11.1 - grabbed the
package (11Mb), and zypper got me another 46Mb of -devel package (we're working
on shrinking that too). Realised I need to tweak
to add an
/opt/icecream/bin to CC & CXX, then:
sudo bash -l -c "/usr/bin/rpmbuild --eval '%define jobs 10' -ba SPECS/OpenOffice_org-libs-gui.spec"
and bingo, it built for 10 minutes and died with some Java problem; bother
(missing some package dep somehow). Luckily I had enough built to debug,
and committed some deferred dependency generation speedup before hitting the
gdb-is-not-working issue: filed that instead.
Lunch with Laura, back - prodded text; tried to get compiz working
on my hardware - eventually it did: a beautiful accelerated experience on
top of radeonhd, prodded multi-monitor support too. Prodded wall plugin
crasher with David.
An exciting morning of bug filing, and investigation. Finally set too
with the evolution snapshots
which avoided at least one already-fixed bug being filed again; nice.
Poked at the session bus problem, which (it seems) doesn't like root
connecting to it, causing grief for yast. Discovered my setting for "what
happens when the suspend button is pressed" was "Do nothing" - which explains
the absence of action on Fn-F4: with users like this who needs real bugs ?
Prodded the build service - Darix kindly helped me create a home
project, such that osc branch doesn't complain
no permission to
create project ..., which is great. Apparently the latest osc needs
--no-verify to build things, and flies more gracefully with
su-wrapper = sudo in ~/.oscrc.
Lunch, looong analyst call. Did a live-install to a USB key -
wow, it's a really nice installation workflow, albeit the write-rate to
the key is impossibly bad: 1Mb / second x 4+Gb == 67+ minutes, fun -
almost makes sense to write it to an on-spinning-disk ext3 image, then
blit it en-masse across.
Poked mail, estimated travel budget for the next financial year,
call with Henne; Clarity. Poked at yast2-gtk a little wrt a11y. Nice to
see Mike's ORBit2 / root stuff working nicely. Nailed hideous yast2
interaction bug - whereby 'log' assumes it can hang about to the
const char *s you pass to it forever.
Lie in, to NCC; Tony spoke on an overview of Judges. Mike &
Leanne back for lunch, tidied up, some Violin practice with N., put the
kids to bed, slept.
Dealt with babes to give J. a lie in. J cycled into town
to get the market shop done. Poked at yet more architectural
drawings trying to fit stairs into here and there, printed and
read the fire regulations, inner rooms on floor three are not
Lunch; took H. to the Funky Fun House for Loren's party,
lots of playing, some 'disco' thing afterwards, it never ceases to
amaze me that the Barbie Girl song is thought to be at all
suitable for young children. Took a tired Naomi Brighty home early
Prodded mail, somehow a mass of tiny administrative
irritations has accumulated over the last days; started on them
somewhat reluctantly. Prodded Evolution gingerly with Sankar,
then split-build image issues.
Phoned Abbey's Zoe Burnett to be re-assured that my
flexible mortgage is in fact not structured as a savings account,
hence the tax-free interest, and as such is neither covered by
government guarentee, and would not be lost in the case of a
OO.o call, call with JP, call with Kelli, I'm at other
people's call it seems.
Mail, poked Tor wrt. DNS lookups on Win32, wrote up PDX
summary finally, chat with Olaf, backed up laptop, poked at Evolution
some more with Sankar.
Lunch with Mary Rogers, back to work, Kelli's staff, sync
with Roger. M. waking people up multiply in the night.
Back to work, poked mail. Set off a build of the latest layout
work from Janneke, annoyed by helpex performance (building 8-way with
icecream it bites). Seems to do 3 system calls per line read from a
300k line file, a million sys-calls here & there - but where
is it slow ? Made the code 40% faster but realised that the real
system hit is from the well-known ext3 / page write-back / sync
evilness; and the fact we generate 100's of Mb of output file,
Lunch, Nick came over, chat with Guy, OO.o team meeting, call
with Florian, call with Guy. Out to Alpha in the evening.
In case it's not painfully obvious: the reflections reflected here are my
own; mine, all mine ! and don't reflect the views of Novell, The
Lithuanian Gov't or Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's also important to
realise that I'm not in on the Swedish Conspiracy.
Occasionally people ask for formal photos for conferences,
Michael Meeks (email@example.com)