Re: Gosa vs. CipUX
Hi Andreas,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:57:29PM +0100, Andreas B. Mundt wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:44:35PM +0100, Klaus Knopper wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:48:12PM +0100, Andreas B. Mundt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 01:01:57PM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> [...]
> > > Candidates were LWAT used in lenny, unmaintained and with dead
> > > upstream, GOsa, with upstream activities and support, but not
> > > especially targeted for schools, and finally CipUX. As the CipUX
> > > people seem to see no chance to integrate their work for reasons they
> > > can tell you better, nobody active in the international project worked
> > > on the integration of CipUX. (This is a rather critical point, and it
> > > seems there are a lot personal feelings and the like involved ...).
> >
> > Sorry for potentially making this discussion longer than it should be...
> > Would you please explain to me, again, what "the CipUX people" have to
> > do, or failed to do, in order to get their working packages integrated
> > into Skolelinux? I think "the CipUX poeple" really _want_ to have their
> > stuff integrated into Skolelinux, but apparently don't know how the
> > magic is going to happen.
>
> I don't know, and I don't want to accuse anybody at all. I even don't
> know if anybody failed to do anything. There was this lengthy thread
> last year <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2010/10/msg00106.html>,
> where you explained your point of view a bit, and for some of your
> points I can really imagine what happend, and your points are
> absolutely valid. For sure there is an other point of view, and as
> usual reality is probably somewhere in between. We are all humans, we
> all have our vanities and egos and there's no big boss here to decide
> how it's done and everybody follows. We all want to be (little) big
> bosses. Some of the problems might be that we have no structure to
> make controversial decisions in a transparent way and there are a lot
> of unspoken arguments, feelings and the like around ...
>
> [...]
Sorry if you got the impression that I was bitter about something. I'm
not. I was really just asking, because I thought that you had some
information that I missed. :-)
> > Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see a technical problem on the side of
> > "the CipUX people". This has already been discussed, but with no
> > apparent result that explains to me why CipUX is out of question (or I
> > just missed it?).
Btw, I used quotes around "the CipUX people" because I really don't know
any except Christian Külker, the main developer, and Jonas Smedegard as
packager. I don't think the CipUX users (students, teachers, ...) also
qualify as "CipuX people" as well, since most of them won't even know
they are using it in some way. I believe you mean the developers. Sorry
if I forgot anyone amongst them.
> Don't know. Perhaps just try implementing it in SVN until someone
> cries out and stops you (or doesn't). That's kind of how I did it with
> GOsa, but you might realize, I'm also not very happy with the situation.
I believe that the CipUX developers do use a version management system
that is publically available, like most free software projects, and
probably don't want to duplicate or completely migrate to another
platform... Well, we discussed that earlier, too. I don't think using
SVN at a specific place is a requirement for integration.
> > > So if you ask me, I think as long as I am the only one supporting
> > > GOsa, it will go away as soon as there is a working alternative
> > > available.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. So, it is probably not a
> > good idea for us to either put any effort into GOsa integration of our
> > tools, since it is "temporary", right?
>
> Again I don't know. I am just a little contributer and I will neither
> have time nor energy to drive things in the near future. I would
> prefer a more flexible system in general [1], as I think that's what
> schools need and I think this can be realized with GOsa. If others,
> that have much more experience and time to spend on the project, don't
> support this approach, I have to live with that.
At the moment, there is a certain uncertainty about the future LDAP tool
which makes it somewhat difficult to develop extensions connected to LDAP.
> So along these lines I suggest to try to be as flexible as possible
> with regard to the necessary ldap structure. Or if that's not
> possible, don't make a bad compromize which doesn't fit in the end but
> invent a sensible structure yourself.
We try to not reinvent the wheel, but rather use the existing
recommended structures in DebianEdu.
> BTW, the expression "the CipUX people" is in no way meant to
> be condescending or insulting. Absolutely not.
No offense taken. But I do not consider myself part of the "CipUX
people", just recycled your expression. :-)
Regards
-Klaus
Reply to: