Re: No good user experience of Debian (Was: Packaging r-bioc-simpleaffy)
On 01/03/11 18:56, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 01:37:23 Tony Travis wrote:
On 28/02/11 22:59, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi all,
I missed the beginning of the thread but neverthelesse I would like to chip in
a few thoughts as well.
The goal seems to be to make Debian as attractive to a biologist as MS. Worthy
goal but
1) When you decide to use Debian (for whatever reason) you accept the
responsibilities and ideas behind it (like it or not)
So if Debian decides (usually for good reasons) to exclude something then it
is their decision and one has to live with it when one *decides* to use
Debian.
Hi, Sebastian.
The beginning of the thread was a joke by Steffen Moeller on Debian-Med
that I might be persuaded to return to Debian from Ubuntu...
Andreas posted his response to my comments on Debian-Med here instead
because it seemed like a more appropriate forum.
In fact, I did decide to use Debian long before Ubuntu existed and for
good reasons. In particular, cross-platform support on SPARC and x86.
What's frustrated me is that it seems to be a lot more difficult than I
first realised to put the Bioconductor repository as deb packages into
Debian according to the accepted policy. The issue of making Debian (or
Ubuntu) attractive to biologists is a side issue. However, it was a
topic that I raised at the recent Debian-Med sprint in Travemuende.
In my opinion, there is very little difference between Debian and Ubuntu
at the technical level. Someone, somewhere, suggested that Ubuntu is
Debian untested. I think that is a bit unfair, but it's true that Ubuntu
is nothing without Debian. However, when introducing naive users to
Debian and Ubuntu their reactions are quite different because Ubuntu
seems like a credible alternative to M$ but Debian does not.
In the struggle to win the hearts and minds of biologists to use
Bio-Linux instead of M$ Windows we've introduced them to Ubuntu, not
Debian. Bio-Linux was originally based on Red-Had Linux, then Debian
Sarge. At this point, I created 'biobuntu' using the Debian packages
from Bio-Linux4 and the Ubuntu Dapper (6.06 LTS) live CD:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/biobuntu
The UK NEBC (Natural Environment Research Council Environmental
Bioinformatics Centre), the creators of Bio-Linux, then developed
Bio-Linux5 based on Ubuntu Hardy (8.04 LTS) and I helped them instead of
developing 'biobuntu' any further. Now, NEBC have released 64-bit
Bio-Linux6, and one objective of our Debian-Med meeting was to foster
collaboration between Debian-Med and Bio-Linux. The snag, for me, is
that I want to continue using Ubuntu not Debian. That, in itself, is not
a big problem. However, it raises the question of why I feel so strongly
that the user experience really does matter.
2) If you *decide* that you want to use Debian and *not accept* Debian's
decision then you are on your own to find clever ways to circumvent the
problems (e.g. set up your own repositories to fill the gap) but you cannot
expect the Debian people to change their mind.
Although I used Debian a lot in the past, I now use Ubuntu. I attended
the sprint because want to learn how to work in a way that facilitates
cooperation between the two. I have very little experience of Debian
policy (intent) or politics (how collective decisions are made) so this
is all new to me. I don't expect Debian to change, I was trying to
explain to Steffen and Andreas why I don't want to return to Debian,
from Ubuntu but I do want to work on projects that are relevant to both.
It is well know that having strict principles will not make your life easier.
So the goal should not be to change Debian until it will meet the principles
of MS so your problems will go away but educate biologists that the tradeoff
is worth it.
That's rather patronising, and not helpful to my argument. I don't think
biologists are stupid people - I used to be a biologist :-)
If one (biologist) does not *want* to accept the tradeoffs imposed by Debian
one should rather look for alternatives or stay with MS. There is little to be
gained *making* people like Debian without them *genuinely* accepting its
principles.
I'm not suggesting that we make anyone do anything. I don't know where
you got that impression from. In my experience most biologists are
pragmatic and they use whatever tools are available. Rather than just
accepting trade-offs imposed by Debian, I want biologists to get the
best experience possible. The point I raised with Andreas is that IMHO
the user experience of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is 'better' than Debian 6. Of
course we know that it's all practically the same under the GUI, but I
don't think I'm alone in believing that a good user experience matters.
See. I would like to make my electric car go 900 km per charge like my diesel
car. Well I either accept the fact that this currently is not possible and
start to like my electric car or I stay with my diesel car. I am not going to
lure diesel car drivers into an electric car well knowing that they will
dislike the experience. And neither will I pressure the electric car maker to
add a diesel engine so the diesel car drivers will feel at home. It is all
about decisions.
Sorry, I think you've taken my comments the wrong way...
I personally have stoped to *talk people into Linux*. They either find their
way themselves (and I will provide support) or they will stay with Windows.
I work as a bioinformatician (formerly a biologist) and most often I
encounter people who try to use M$ Windows to do bioinformatics, but
reach a point where they realise that they can't go any further. I would
not dream of "talking" anyone into using Linux. That's not what my
comments were about. They were about expectations that M$ Windows users
have about how to use a computer. I want to help them use Linux without
them having to climb up a steep learning curve. The issue is not about
'converting' M$ Windows users to our cause, it's about why I believe
that Ubuntu meets M$ Windows users expectations better than Debian. As I
said before, I don't want to start an advocacy debate.
As for the NX example. They went closed source recently. And if they really
wanted they could make it run on gcj and IcedTea.So it would be worth the
effort to kindly ask them to make it work on Debian.
I've got an iMac at home running Ubuntu and I use the "qtnx" client on
it because there is no free-as-in-beer Nomachine NX client for PowerPC
Linux. However, we use the FreeNX server in Bio-Linux. The problem was
with Nomachine's Java 'helper' applet. Most of the biologists who use
our NuGO machines use a web browser to run the 'helper' applet, which
checks/updates the native NX client on their M$ Windows or Mac client.
What was such a disaster for me at the meeting in Florence was that they
were familiar with this working well from $M Windows but saw how many
problems we encountered doing the same thing under Debian. It was an
uncomfortable moment. The computer lab now runs M$ WIndows :-(
But I probably totally missed the point.
Maybe, a little :-)
Bye,
Tony.
Reply to: