Tiny Core Linux
General TC => General TC Talk => Topic started by: mavrothal on May 25, 2010, 04:04:36 AM
-
Let me described a small story that I think points to rather disturbing forum policies that may worth reconsideration.
The OLPC XO-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child) laptop is a rather unique piece of hardware (http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml) to the extend that requires a custom kernel (http://dev.laptop.org/~kernels/olpc-2.6.31-xo1/) a unique bootloader (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Custom_bootloader) an few additional user-space tweaks to work. Other than that can run the OS of your choice and so far, besides the official Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Gentoo, PuppyLinux, Tinycore Linux and probably others have been adapted to the hardware. These are not spins or re-mastering of the OS in the sense that no OS feature/user experience has been modified other than the kernel. That is why none of these builds (not even the official Sugar/Fedora) provide sources for the distro packages but only for the kernel/modified scripts.
In addition the XO-1 builds are so unique to the hardware that can not be used in any other hardware not even the newer OLPC's XO-1.5 (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_1.5) laptops (that also require their own kernel and minor user-space tweaks).
Based on the original tinycore-XO building script (http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2010-January/027364.html), I revised 3 scripts that could build a tinycore version that would boot on the XO-1 and could be potentially useful to the more than 1 million XO-1s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child#Deployment_of_XO_laptops) out there. I also made a number of builds ready to use and announced them also here in the relevant preexisting thread (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=3500).
At this point my saga starts. First the adaptation was deemed re-master and full mirroring of the TC builds and sources was requested, something that is not happening even with the official OLPC builds and Fedora (not to mention all the other distros). Thankfully my hosting site was already mirroring Tinycore.
Then support for the builds was banned from the TC forum although this is tinycore with a hardware-specific kernel. None of the core concepts, scripts or user experience has been altered in anyway, so is not a remaster. As a result of this ban users that may land in this forum remain helpless.
Third, links to a forum (http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4730.msg31395#msg31395) that does supports these builds was also banned from the TC forum. The reasoning behind this is totally unclear to me. Why people that landed on this forum looking for support for their tinycore builds of their XO-1, can not be redirected to a forum that does allow support for tinycore on the XO-1, elutes me. Certainly the link does not violates forum linking policies (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=3977.0)
What is way beyond my comprehension however is that even clues on how to seek support for these tinycore builds (assuming that some "other" rule banned direct links) were also banned from this forum.
I can really make no sense of all these. To me this looks like a thoughtless, autocratic and bureaucratic censoring approach. One that buries substance over form and does not even bother with substance. It certainly does not serve the specific hardware (without any apparent reason) but I seriously doubt it serves tinycore OS in any specific way, to the contrary.
However, given that in all these tinycore forum policies where materialized by ^thehatsrule^ through PMs, link and post deletion, and public posts (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=6106), I would like to know if this is the consensus policy/practice of the TinyCore team (http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=142.0), before I cast my vote.
Sorry for the long post but is a long story
[^thehatsrule^: removed link: remaster]
-
I'm not on the team but I think you've dragged on this issue long enough. The rules seem clear and fair to me.
- Sources - This isn't a TinyCore rule, this is a GPL rule. Once you take it upon yourself to distribute GPL'ed software, you have to fulfill the license's obligation to provide the sources. The FSF has stated very clearly that the distributor is obligated to do this directly, not indirectly by pointing or linking to upstream repositories. It's not TC's problem if others don't follow the rules so you should leave other distros out of this.
- Linking - Once you vary anything in the base, it's technically no longer TinyCore -- it's something else. You can call it what you want, but it is a remaster or remix. Why should the TinyCore site field questions related to whatever you've done with it? Open your own site and your own forums for that. That's your project, not TinyCore's, even if your changes are minimal.
- What TC allows or doesn't allow - Just because they allow you to advertise what you've done with TinyCore doesn't obligate them to provide links for anything else or deal with issues or questions arising from what you're doing. Your project isn't theirs. Be grateful for whatever they do allow and use your own site to fill in whatever gaps you think need to be filled in or to answer questions those using your remaster/remix have.
Ultimately this comes down to respect. Right now, it seems you have very little of it for the rules or for the admins. That's a shame because I think it's been explained sufficiently and reasonably already. (Edit: In all my dealings with hats over the years, he's never been one I would label as autocratic or thoughtless. Not even close. Pretty much the opposite. He's a decent guy.)
If you (and others) don't respect the policies, or even accept any changes to the policies as the team decides changes are warranted, there may not be an area in the forum for any of this. The TinyCore project isn't obligated to host your forum for you, host sources with or without notations to changes you've made to anything in the base, or even to allow you to advertise here and thereby give an appearance that what you're doing is TinyCore. The fact they've set up an area under which you and others can even mention remixes, remasters, or whatever you choose to call them is simply a courtesy they've extended to the wider community. Please don't abuse that privilege and ruin it for anyone else who may one day benefit from it.
-
I guess I never thought that following common practices (for other distros) is irrelevant and that is the letter of the rule that is the important part. That links to other help forums are advertisements and that all the posts in this forum have "the seal of the TC-team approval". That adapting a distro to a "peculiar" hardware not only is indifferent to the distro but is actually distracting, disturbing and (apparently) a forum resource hog. That the kernel is part of the base of any distro (I wonder what kernel developers think about it). That developing rules on the go as we see fit at the moment, is an established administrative practice. That administrators are always right because is "their site" and they are "good guys" (some linux history close to home may provide prospective on that...), etc.
Is good I think that all these came up so people know what they are up to, and decide if and how to proceed.
As far as I'm concern and to the extend that the above are true, I really see no reason for TC-XO to be presented in this forum thus I have deleted the remaining "offending" posts that survived ^thehatsrule^.
To the extend that the above are true, indeed I have no respect for thoughtless, autocratic and bureaucratic formalism.
-
I think you've blown things totally out of proportion. I also don't know what you're expecting.
The admins run the site whether you like that or not. Inmates aren't supposed to run asylums. Students don't lead classrooms. Patients don't direct the actions of their doctors.
As far as changing rules on the fly, you have to remember TinyCore is still young in development and the team isn't nearly as large as those running much larger distros. That means things have been decided as needed, not with a list of hard-set rules from day one. Consideration was at least given to allow remixes and remasters and similar projects to have a separate section to announce releases, etc. You're setting a bad example that may cause them to re-think even allowing that because in return for their consideration you're showing little consideration in return. Rather than working with people, you seem determined to dictate to them and question everything they say.
It's a shame you're unwilling to be cooperative, let alone that you choose to cast aspersions that others are thoughtless, autocratic, or bureaucratic.
-
When I feel like a sick, student, inmate, I'll reconsider.
-
If that's going to be your attitude, please don't bother.
-
I am not going to bother to try to answer the rest of the OP's posts in this thread for obvious reasons, as in http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=6106.0
mavrothal:
If locking the threads and trying to give you time to read the messages and think it over wasn't clear enough, here is your first warning: if you are going to flame/troll/etc, please keep it to yourself and out of these forums.
Also locking this thread for similar reasons.