(09-22-2016, 11:07 PM)UnixOutlaw Wrote: Longsleep Debian XFCE build
Please stop using this term since there is no such thing! Longsleep did an amazing job getting the BSP stuff (u-boot and kernel) to work with Linux. Every OS image available that provides display output relies on his work: longsleep's original Ubuntu, Pine64's crippled Ubuntu, Armbian's legacy images, DietPi and even pine64.pro's Debian XFCE build.
The only connection between any Debian XFCE stuff and longsleep is that the former relies on the latter's work. That's all. But calling this a 'Longsleep Debian XFCE build' is almost an insult.
09-22-2016, 11:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2016, 11:57 PM by MarkHaysHarris777.)
(09-22-2016, 11:28 PM)tkaiser Wrote: (09-22-2016, 11:07 PM)UnixOutlaw Wrote: Longsleep Debian XFCE build
Please stop using this term since there is no such thing! Longsleep did an amazing job getting the BSP stuff (u-boot and kernel) to work with Linux. Every OS image available that provides display output relies on his work: longsleep's original Ubuntu, Pine64's crippled Ubuntu, Armbian's legacy images, DietPi and even pine64.pro's Debian XFCE build.
The only connection between any Debian XFCE stuff and longsleep is that the former relies on the latter's work. That's all. But calling this a 'Longsleep Debian XFCE build' is almost an insult.
hi, I don't see any problem with the terminology in as far as 'longsleep - debian - xfce' refers to 'kernel - repositories - desktop'.
In other words unixoutlaw is refering to the kernel (longsleep's work) the distro repositories (debian) and the desktop of choice (xfce).
I understand your point tkaiser, but I'm wondering if you would provide some further details; for instance, what makes pine's ubuntu 'crippled' (this is important), what makes any of these distros different if they all use the same bsp kernel and uboot, why does it fundamentally matter? I appreciate your opinion on this, I'm just certain that most new users are not going to understand what you're talking about.
Not to mention that outside the SBC communities (including armbian) ubuntu derives from debian, not the other way 'round. (that confuses folks too, on its own merit). So I'm wondering if you would talk about the specific differences ( maybe in a large single write-up that I could pin as sticky ) that details what the differences really are so that users can make informed decisions.
thanks
marcushh777 
please join us for a chat @ irc.pine64.xyz:6667 or ssl irc.pine64.xyz:6697
( I regret that I am not able to respond to personal messages; let's meet on irc! )
(09-22-2016, 11:55 PM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: hi, I don't see any problem with the terminology in as far as 'longsleep - debian - xfce' refers to 'kernel - repositories - desktop'.
In other words unixoutlaw is refering to the kernel (longsleep's work) the distro repositories (debian) and the desktop of choice (xfce).
All images available here are based on BSP u-boot/kernel brought in shape by longsleep (relying on work done by linux-sunxi community, apritzel, ssvb, many others which relied on work done by a much more broader Linux community which...). All those images also rely on a kernel a certain Linus Thorvalds played a specific role. So why not speaking of 'Linus Debian XFCE' blabla instead? It's also no differentiation criteria.
The base of all images available here is the same (longsleep) but that does not apply to the specific OS image in question. And there only one OS image is longsleep's. That's his original Xenial image. Made with care.
Take the Ubuntu image from Pine64 wiki and you see the difference (added the 'same MAC address' bug for example). It's bloated but still misses useful/essential packages (nano for example). Take pine64pro's Debian image for example. Also added manually the stupid 'same MAC address on every device' bug, chose strange cpufreq settings and so on. But since both maintainers of pine64 wiki and pine64.pro don't care it's useless to complain anyway. Nothing will change here. This micro community here is condemned to live in this strange micro reality (not realizing that A64 is just another Allwinner SoC and that experiences being made years ago are valid for the 'new and shiny' Pine64 as well)
Last example: Using longsleep's Xenial image when using Pine64+ as NAS you get ~30MB/s by default, using pine64.pro's Debian XFCE image you end up with ~9MB/s. That's not Ubuntu vs. Debian, that's also the same kernel. The only difference is whether the distro baker took care or not. And longsleep took care and that's why his image is faster. So calling OS images from pine64.pro or from pine64 wiki 'longsleep images' is simply not fair.
And why (not only) I call OS images from Pine64 wiki crippled (and why I think less good OS images are better than many unmaintained OS images) can be read here: http://forum.pine64.org/showthread.php?t...97#pid7797
Tom, thanks much; will study further today. You might be interested in knowing that I spoke with terra854 today and he may be taking up the challenge to get openSuSE going again ( with the xenial image as base ).
PS I appreciate the link; I hadn't read that one yet.
marcushh777
please join us for a chat @ irc.pine64.xyz:6667 or ssl irc.pine64.xyz:6697
( I regret that I am not able to respond to personal messages; let's meet on irc! )
(09-23-2016, 01:31 AM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: You might be interested in knowing that I spoke with terra854 today and he may be taking up the challenge to get openSuSE going again ( with the xenial image as base ).
If I would think about providing any Linux image I would use Armbian's build system in a stripped down variant (since only automated builds ensure that mistakes doesn't happen and the most important part when baking OS images for SBC are ruling out issues with u-boot and kernel). There's also a lot I don't like with Ubuntu and especially Debian but providing anything else for SBCs is pretty much useless IMO if the target audience has not that much experiences.
The reason is simple: Raspbian. There are zillions of tutorials mentioning Debian syntax and using OpenSuse you're lost when you read 'apt' but should use 'zypper' instead. It makes not that much sense and as already written: less OS images are better for a platform (that's why Raspberries are where they are, not because the hardware would be worth a look but due to a large community that can rely on software that works identical everywhere)
Anyway: The problem with the 'style' OS images are maintained here is just: all the hard work has been done months ago (2D acceleration and HW accelerated video decoding to name that what most of the people seem to be interested in for whatever reasons). It's available, it can be used, it's just that people don't know about and get OS images where the stuff is not even included. Instead they are served with fairy tales from Mali land (see LCD support, see the numerous questions about 'acceleration' in the past). The problem is called ignorance and some of the moderators here were and are heavily involved.
(09-22-2016, 11:55 PM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: hi, I don't see any problem with the terminology in as far as 'longsleep - debian - xfce' refers to 'kernel - repositories - desktop'.
In other words unixoutlaw is refering to the kernel (longsleep's work) the distro repositories (debian) and the desktop of choice (xfce).
The problem is that longsleep did NOT put that image together, so he is being unfairly attributed as being the author and thus gets the glory and the blame. It is actually Lenny's Debian XFCE build. And that is of course IF UnixOutlaw mean it the way you think he did... Regardless... it's Lenny's work, so should be referred to as that. Lenny was/is all things debian, and longsleep all things ubuntu.
And as far as stickies about differences between ubuntu and debian... that has nothing to do with the pine64, so another writeup is not needed. It merely needs mentioning as part of a 'guide for beginners' with links to the external resources explaining it... we don't need to re-invent the wheel!
And tkaiser is spot on as far as distribution of effort... people are putting too much effort into going in all directions... ubuntu, debian, arch, opensuse... rather than just focusing on getting one right to start with... then branching out once there is a rock solid base.
(09-23-2016, 03:21 AM)pfeerick Wrote: (09-22-2016, 11:55 PM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote: hi, I don't see any problem with the terminology in as far as 'longsleep - debian - xfce' refers to 'kernel - repositories - desktop'.
In other words unixoutlaw is refering to the kernel (longsleep's work) the distro repositories (debian) and the desktop of choice (xfce).
The problem is that longsleep did NOT put that image together, so he is being unfairly attributed as being the author and thus gets the glory and the blame. It is actually Lenny's Debian XFCE build. And that is of course IF UnixOutlaw mean it the way you think he did... Regardless... it's Lenny's work, so should be referred to as that. Lenny was/is all things debian, and longsleep all things ubuntu.
Yes, this much I understood... what I was|am after is the perspective I'm getting from the armbian group (specifically Tom) because I missed out on most of the earlier discussions so I'm trying to piece together the rift, but also more than that wanting to have a good feel for where this community is headed; leadership is necessary certainly, and also follow-up; so also to you, thankyou.
The other thing is that just like the world outside of SoC(s) ubuntu is just a 'special' debian. This is true outside the SBC world and its true inside too. The only thing that makes ubuntu 'ubuntu' is Canonical. Both the images here (debian and ubuntu) are really just debian ( I'm speaking pragmatically, not from the 'care' angle that Tom is discussing ). So, its good to know the armbian perspective going forward; I too believe the right move is to narrow the offerings to a well controlled careful build which anyone can then freely build on from there. It still comes down to leadership and expectations.
marcushh777
please join us for a chat @ irc.pine64.xyz:6667 or ssl irc.pine64.xyz:6697
( I regret that I am not able to respond to personal messages; let's meet on irc! )
09-23-2016, 04:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2016, 04:21 AM by tkaiser.)
(09-23-2016, 03:21 AM)pfeerick Wrote: And as far as stickies about differences between ubuntu and debian...
It's not about Ubuntu vs. Debian or the more general differences. It's about problems of individual OS images provided here (or not -- still nowhere on Pine64 wiki is written "if you want an Ubuntu OS image that does not suck then click here and use longsleep's")
If longsleep would have started with a Debian Jessie image and a 3rd party would have later provided an image with an Ubuntu rootfs then the Debian Jessie image would've shown ~30MB/s when Pine64 is used as a NAS. Since longsleep uses interactive cpufreq governor. If the 3rd party providing an Ubuntu OS image would've chosen also interactive, performance would be the same, if he would've chosen ondemand then performance would suck. It's not about Ubuntu vs. Debian, it's about taking care about details or not.
When looking at the various Ubuntu images available it's even more obvious: Take longsleep's and you don't run into network troubles when you use more than one Pine64, take the one from Pine64 wiki and you do. Why? Since bugs were added manually (forum flooded with complaints about since months!) but no one cares.
And then for whatever reasons some 3rd parties do something like this: https://www.pine64.pro/getting-started-linux/ -- look at the bottom please. OS images only of historical interest linked there. Nearly 3500 poor souls downloaded 'Ubuntu Base Longsleep (3.10.65 BSP)' dated from April. Nowhere is mentioned that this is outdated like hell, nowhere is written how to update this image (just a small link no one will click on). How many unfortunate users got their OS images from the overhyped pine64.pro site just to realize that 'nothing works'? If one sets up a mirror then please keep the mirror up to date.
It's unbelievable what's happening here (and there). The various Debian images pine64.pro provide have been downloaded in total 3.377 times. These have been updated in July to latest kernel version. The horribly outdated Ubuntu image from April has been downloaded more often than all Debian images together. But this image should not be available any longer since... it's outdated like hell. For obvious reasons it's only available in OLD directory at the primary location: https://www.stdin.xyz/downloads/people/l...es/ubuntu/ -- it's only available or let's better say 'featured' at pine64.pro. But why? That's just insane!
Anyway: instead of fixing all these issues that are well known since months the Mali dance happens. And if anyone here wants to improve 'Linux feeling' on Pine64+ why not simply make the LCD work, adding the missing HDMI resolutions, turning the upper USB port into a real USB port and so on? There's so much real work to do... in fact it's already done (see for example HDMI-CEC ported over from H3 by the great Android guys), it's just not integrated into 'upstream' BSP kernel and all the OS images. And now the funny question: For such processes... does it help to have more or less OS images flying around?
09-23-2016, 10:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2016, 10:10 PM by MarkHaysHarris777.)
The above posts have been moved from the Chromium thread and reposted here; with the exception that 'redirection posts' asking for this change have been removed; all content has been preserved--- no essential post has been altered nor deleted.
marcushh777
please join us for a chat @ irc.pine64.xyz:6667 or ssl irc.pine64.xyz:6697
( I regret that I am not able to respond to personal messages; let's meet on irc! )
09-25-2016, 10:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2016, 10:30 PM by UnixOutlaw.)
I didn't mean to start some kind of flame war, or intend to incorrectly assign credit to any individual... Part of my calling it "Longsleep XFCE Debian" results from the numerous different O/S images for this SBC and the multitude of different locations where the images are hosted, causing me confusion.. My error was one of confusion...
I for one would wish that Pine would take some sort of control - direct ALL energy and efforts to ONE single platform, concentrate on that - then when it's rock-solid, build other environments from there.
I've barely touched Arch at all, and haven't used Suse for over a decade, however my limited knowledge of the average Arch user - they'd have the skills and time to be able to retro-fit Arch onto a working kernel and u-boot. Suse? I don't really care.
The trouble is that there's too much fragmentation... I'm a Debian and/or Ubuntu user... I'm not a zealot for anything really... However Debian does seem the ideal candidate as a starting point... The folks over at NTC concentrate 100% on Debian - and it's a much more consistent and "stable" ecosystem (i.e. the NTC ecosystem, not necessarily "Debian")...
At work we have to run EVERYTHING on Wheezy - which seems like a bizarre choice when we're using open source software anyway...
|
