当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时



发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 19 篇帖子 ]  前往页数 1, 2  下一页
作者 内容
1 楼 
 文章标题 : MarkShuttleworth
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-05 22:21 
论坛管理员

注册: 2005-03-27 0:06
帖子: 10111
系统: Ubuntu 12.04
送出感谢: 7
接收感谢: 128
About Me

*

irc: sabdfl on irc.freenode.net

Backgrounder: I'm 32 and counting, South African, living in London. Most of my time is devoted to the Ubuntu project as cheerleader and chief whip. I've spent the last year or so focused on the [WWW] Launchpad collaborative infrastructure, writing a fair portion of it and helping the team to define our goals. It's a thrill to see it all coming on stream! More details at [WWW] markshuttleworth.com.

FAQs: Why and Whither for Ubuntu?

I'm happy for other website editors to modify this page, fixing typos or things that we have discussed between us. It's written from my perspective ("I") since the buck, technically, stops here. So add to it on my behalf with care, please ;-)

Ubuntu is not without its controversies. This is a good thing (at least IMO) as it suggests we are both challenging the status quo, and taking some risks. Speaking for myself, my motivation for funding and participating in Ubuntu so heavily is in large part derived from a desire to do both of those things. I enjoy shaking up established lines of thinking, and I enjoy taking risks. This document exists to give the community some insight into my thinking - and to a certain extent that of the Community Council, Technical Board and other governance structures - on some of the issues and decisions that have been controversial.

I will try to address rumours, frequently asked questions, common allegations and neuroses, and of course controversies both within the project ("our default desktop should be *purple*") and in the open source community at large ("alert! alert! ubuntu is going to become a commercial project!"). You may have come across variants of both of those in the wild. You can take this document as canonical (;-)) for my perspective on them, and where noted, you'll also get the Ubuntu Community Council or Technical Board position. If you would like to see additional things addressed here, please raise them at a Community Council meeting on IRC, or correspond with me or the CC members, or raise it on ubuntu-devel.
Why do I do Ubuntu?

To fix bug [WWW] #1 of course. I believe that free software brings us into a new era of technology, and holds the promise of universal access to the tools of the digital era. I drive Ubuntu because I would like to see that promised delivered as reality.
Will Ubuntu ever demand licence fees or royalties?

No. Never. I have no interest in taking Ubuntu to join the proprietary software industry, it's a horrible business that is boring and difficult, and dying out rapidly anyway. My motivation and goal is to find a way to create a global desktop OS that is *free*, in every sense, as well as sustainable and of a quality comparable to anything you could pay for. That's what I'm trying to do, and if we fail, well then I will go and find some other project to pursue rather than get into the proprietary software business. I don't think any of the core ubuntu developers, or much of the community, would stick around if I went loony and decided to try this, anyhow.

If that isn't enough for you, then you will be happy to know that Canonical has signed public undertakings with government offices to the extent that it will never introduce a "commercial" version of Ubuntu. There will never be a difference between the "commercial" product and the "free" product, as there is with Red Hat (RHEL and Fedora). Ubuntu releases will always be free.

That said if you want to pay for Ubuntu, or something that includes Ubuntu code, you probably can. There is already Ubuntu code in Linspire, which you can pay for (w00t!). Though Linspire is not (yet) based directly on Ubuntu, it's not infeasible that the Linspire guys figure out what a good option that would be for them sooner rather than later. There are likely to be many specialised versions of Ubuntu, under other brand names, that have commercial or proprietary features. They might have proprietary fonts or software or add-ons or integration with services, etc. There is also likely to be quite a lot of proprietary software available for Ubuntu (there is already a fair bit - Opera for Ubuntu was announced recently, for example). But Canonical, and I myself, and the Ubuntu Community Council and Technical Board, will not produce an "Ubuntu Professional Edition ($XX.00)". There will certainly be no "Ubuntu Vista".
If you don't make a commercial "Ubuntu Professional Edition", how can Ubuntu be sustainable?

We have some initial revenues from services related to Ubuntu. We have been contracted to produce customised distributions, and we participate in large-scale tenders for big Linux deployments, usually in partnership with local companies, where our job is to provide escalation support. In addition to widespread adoption in developing countries, Ubuntu may well be running all over NASA's Moffett Field soon... So we have the foundations of a sustainable project, and I'm confident that we have a reasonable chance of getting Ubuntu to the point where it funds itself for ongoing growth.

Exactly how it will all pan out from a business perspective is difficult to judge. I don't have all of those answers. That's OK, this is a risky (ad)venture, which is still at an early stage, so I don't expect to know. I can personally justify my investment in Ubuntu on philanthropic grounds (at least, the money we spend on open source development and on tools for open source developers, like Launchpad) because most of my good luck and wealth could only have been created using open source tools. I'm happy to give back to the community. Inasmuch as we start to spend money on suits, they need to be sustainable quickly. We currently make some money offering certification related services (certifying developers, administrators, applications, and hardware) as well as customisation services (you want your own distro, based on Ubuntu, let's talk). Demand for those services is growing. I'm pretty confident that I can get Canonical to break even on that basis. And breaking even is fine by me, because it means that Ubuntu will continue to rock even if I decide it's time to go back to space and pick the wrong Soyuz.

It's also important to distinguish between Canonical, which is a for-profit services operation, and the Ubuntu Foundation, which has capital from me, on a non-profit basis, to continue Ubuntu's work. With the announcement of the Ubuntu Foundation, I was basically saying "OK, this project has legs, I'll commit enough capital to keep the core going for a long time no matter what happens to me or Canonical". So we have plenty of time to grow sustainability around the project. If you want to help on that front, send work to Canonical next time you need something done with Ubuntu. We won't let you down.
What about binary compatibility between distributions?

A lot has been said about the fact that Debian is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu. Sometimes this manifests itself as "I can't install Ubuntu packages on Debian", sometimes its more "Why does Ubuntu use GCC 4 when Debian is using GCC 3.3?". Or "Why is the kernel and glibc on Ubuntu 5.04 different from that in Debian Sarge?". I'll try to address all of those here.

I'll start with our general policy and approach, and then examine some of those examples in detail.

First, "binary compatibility" means different things to different people. If you've followed the trials and tribulations of the LSB standards process, you'll understand how difficult it is even to *define* binary compatibility in a meaningful way across multiple distributions. That, in essence, is why we don't set "binary compatibility" as a goal for Ubuntu. Sometimes it happens, but if so, it's accidental or because there was an opportunity to make something work nicely that someone took - not because it's a specific goal.

Just to be clear, I'll say it again, for the record. We don't aim for "binary compatibility" with any other distribution. Why?

In short, because we believe in Free Software as a collaborative process focused on SOURCE CODE, and consider it superior to the proprietary process which is focused on specific applications and binary bits. We choose to devote the large majority of our energy to the improvement of the source code that is widely and freely available, rather than trying to work on binary bits that cannot be shared as widely. When we spend hours of time on a feature, we want that work to be usable by as many other distributions as possible, so we publish the source code in "real time" as we publish new versions of the packages. We go to great lengths to make those patches widely available, in an easy to find format, so that they will be useful to upstreams, and other distributions. That benefits Debian, but it also benefits Suse and Redhat, if any of them are willing to take the time to study and apply the patches.

We synchronise our development with upstream, and with Debian, and with other distributions such as Suse and Gentoo and Mandrake and Red Hat, on a regular basis. We draw code from the latest upstream projects (which might not even be in Debian, or in Red Hat, or addressed in the LSB). We try to merge with Debian Unstable (a.k.a. Sid) every six months. We have no control over the release processes of other distributions, nor of upstream, so it would be impossible for us to define in advance an API or ABI for each release. We are in the hands of hundreds of other developers every time we freeze Ubuntu in preparation for a new version. Even though the Ubuntu community is substantial and growing rapidly, it is still tiny compared to the total number of developers working on all the free software applications that make up the distribution itself. Our job is to package what is there, efficiently and cohesively, not to try to massage it to some pre-defined state of compatibility. We focus on delivering the newest-but-stabilised-and-polished versions of the best open source applications for your server or desktop. If we were to set binary compatibility (at any level) as a top priority, it would massively diminish our ability to deliver either newer software, or better integration and polish. And we think our users care most about the fact that they are getting the best, and most integrated, apps on the CD.

It is worth noting that the Linux kernel itself takes the same approach, shunning "binary compatibility" in favour of a "custom monolithic kernel". Each release of the kernel requires that it be compiled separately from previous releases. Modules (drivers) need to be recompiled with the new release, they cannot just be used in their binary form. Linus has specifically stated that the monolithic kernel - based on source code, not trying to maintain a binary interface for drivers across releases - is better for the kernel. We believe the same is true for the distribution.

So the imperative to work with very current code overrides the idea of maintaining compatibility with a specific ABI, especially if we have little or no say in the ABI we should be trying to remain compatible with.
But, I heard that Ubuntu is LESS compatible than other similar projects?

That's absolutely not true. If you touch or change the kernel, or x server or clients, or libc, or compiler, you have effectively made yourself incompatible. And as far as I am aware every significant distribution has, with good reason, invested work in those components to ensure that they meet the needs of their users. In the process, they make themselves "binary incompatible". What makes open source work despite this, of course, is the fact that source code and patches usually travel across distros, which is why we focus our attention there, not on the binary bits.

Some people might say "but I installed a Linspire package on Ubuntu, and it worked, so they must be compatible". And yes, in many cases a binary package from Linspire or Debian will Just Work (TM) on Ubuntu. But this is "accidental compatibility", not "certified binary compatibility". Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV) is not the sort of certainty most people would accept, and can hardly be called "compatibility". Many packages have very simple dependencies, and don't really require specific versions of system libraries, and they may well Just Work. But if you look below the hood, at some level or other, you will find binary incompatibility in every significant derivative distribution, from Knoppix through Linspire and the DCC, with Ubuntu being no different.

It is possible to build a new distribution using only package selections from another distribution, and that's useful. It's like the CDD project - and will in future I think be important in the ubuntu world too. But it's not fundamentally very interesting - it's just package selection, which is useful for a specific set of users but does not advance the state of the open source art.
OK, why do you recompile packages?

We ensure that Ubuntu is entirely buildable using the toolchain that is the default in Ubuntu. We usually have a new version of GCC in Ubuntu, and certainly a newer version than Debian. So we make sure that we build all packages in Ubuntu with that new version.

In theory, using newer versions of GCC should give better binaries (though in the past, some version changes of GCC have included regressions laying the foundation for future progress). Also, it allows us to deal with ABI changes, especially in C++ code, and reduce the number of ABI package versions we have to keep lying around in the archive.

This is equally true of packages in "universe", which is all the thousands of packages in Ubuntu that mostly come from Debian, though there are alternative sources too. The MOTU ("Masters of the Universe ;-)") team in Ubuntu takes care of those packages, ensuring that ABI transitions, and (for example) Python version transitions happen there too. To ensure consistency, all of those packages are rebuilt too.
How about some specific examples?

There are some good examples of other distributions doing the same thing. Since Ian Murdock and Progeny have been very vocal about this, let's start there. Progeny 1.x was not "binary compatible" with the current Debian stable release at the time. Yes, really. The current "DCC Alliance" release uses a different kernel, and different LibC, to Debian Sarge. In both cases, however, source code patches will transport quite happily from those projects to Ubuntu, and to Debian, and we are happy to take them. That's what makes open source development, focused on the SOURCE CODE and collaboration around the code itself, more productive than proprietary development.

I don't in any way mean to disparage those other distributions. It's worth pointing out, however, that often the people who are shouting loudest about "binary compatibility" have happily disregarded it in their own work. Because in reality it is simply not that important in the open source world, and it is also not practical as a high-priority goal.
Why was Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog) not "binary compatible" with Debian Sarge?

Many people report no problems moving packages between Ubuntu 5.04 and Sarge. But they are not entirely compatible. Ubuntu 5.04 and Debian Sarge have slightly, but significantly, different libc versions. When Ubuntu 5.04 was released, it WAS compatible with the version in Sarge, which was then in deep freeze. After the Hoary release, a change was proposed in Debian. In order to implement it, the Debian team would have to break compatibility with Hoary, which had already been released. This was discussed openly, and the decision was taken to make the change. We (at Ubuntu) absolutely believe this was the right decision by Debian. This is about open source, and we can collaborate effectively if we focus on the source code. Had Debian felt obliged NOT to implement the change, in order to maintain Ubuntu compatibility, then the open source world would in fact have been impoverished.

So inasmuch as there is a binary incompatibility between those two releases, it was not introduced by the Ubuntu team. Furthermore, we actively support the decision process that led to the incompatibility - that's what makes open source strong.
What about the GCC 4.0 transition? Why did you adopt GCC 4.0?

We always try to include the latest stable development tools, libraries, and applications. GCC 4.0 was released early in the Breezy (Ubuntu 5.10) development cycle, so it was the appropriate choice of compiler for that release. This meant that C++ applications compiled on Breezy would by default have a different Application Binary Interface (ABI) to the same libraries compiled in Sarge, which used GCC 3.

This was discussed with the Debian toolchain maintainers, who were themselves planning to adopt GCC 4 at some time. A plan was agreed with regard to the specific naming of binary packages compiled with GCC 4, so that there could be a graceful migration and upgrade process for users who were updating from a previous release of Ubuntu (or Debian). The Ubuntu team then went ahead and pioneered the work, providing patches for hundreds of packages to bring them into compliance with the agreed naming for GCC 4. These patches are available to all the Debian maintainers, and make their life a lot easier with the GCC 4.0 migration in Debian.
Why is the default desktop in Ubuntu BROWN?

The overarching theme of the first set of Ubuntu releases is "Humanity". This drives our choice of artwork as much as our selection of packages and decisions around the installer. Our default theme in the first four releases of Ubuntu is called "Human", and it emphasises warm, human colours - brown.

Yes, that's rather unusual in a world where most desktops are blue or green, and the MacOSX has gone kitchenware. Partly, we like the fact that Ubuntu is different, warmer. The computer is not a device any more, it's an extension of your mind, your gateway to other people (by email, voip, irc, and over the web). We wanted a feel that was unique, striking, comforting, and above all, human. We chose brown. that's quite a high risk choice, because to render brown your screen has to render subtle shades of blue, and green, and red. Even slight variations from the norm can shift the "brown" substantially. But monitors and LCD screens these days are increasingly of a standard that we felt the risk was acceptable. In Hoary and Breezy we have gone with a richer, redder brown, based on feedback from lower-end laptop and LCD screen users.
Will brown always be the default desktop colour?

Unlikely that ANYTHING will be static forever, given that we expect Ubuntu to be around a long time :-)

Our current plan is that the Dapper Drake (Ubuntu 6.04 if we hit our April 2006 release date goal) will be the last of this first "set" of releases. So post-Dapper we have the opportunity to define a new "feel" or overarching theme. It would be unlikely to be... blue. But it might be substantially different to the current Human theme. For the moment, let's stay focused on the road to Dapper, polish up the existing Human theme to the max for that, and then break new ground post-Dapper.
Is Ubuntu a Debian fork? Or spoon? What sort of silverware are you, man?

Yes, Ubuntu is a fork. No, it isn't. Yes it is! Oh, whatever.

In short, we are a project that tries hard to collaborate with many other projects - such as upstream X.org, and GNOME, and of course Debian. In many cases, the code we ship is modified or different to the code shipped by those other projects. When that happens, we work hard to ensure that our changes are published as widely as possible, in a format that is easy for other project maintainers to understand and incorporate into their own working tree.

In practice, we have gone to great lengths to develop tools that make it easy to collaborate with Ubuntu, and help us to collaborate with upstreams and other distributions. For example, we have an automatic patch publisher that shows Debian maintainers what patches for their packages are available for Ubuntu. It couldn't be easier for DDs to decide which patches they want, and which they don't. And frankly, it's a lot easier for us if they DO take them, but we can't force that. Many of the patches only make sense in Ubuntu. As a side benefit, these patches are also available for Gentoo, Red Hat, Linspire (yes, really) and Suse. And we know they check 'em out and use some of them, which is cool.

Collaboration goes beyond patches though. We have developed [WWW] Malone, a bug tracker that explicitly tries to create collaboration between Ubuntu and other distros, and upstreams, on the fixing of bugs. Each bug can be tracked in lots of places, and in a single place you can see the status of the bug in all places. It's pretty cool.

One of the triggers that got me out of the "cosmonaut 囗囗囗囗囗囗囗 international love rat of mystery" game and into Ubuntu was the emergence of tools like TLA, which it seemed to offer the promise of even better collaboration on source code between distros and upstreams. So we did a lot of work on TLA, to the point where it looked different enough to call it [WWW] Bazaar. Then we did a ground up rewrite in Python, and the result is Bazaar-NG, or Bzr, which will be Bazaar 2.0 by March 2006. Why is this important? Because passing patches around is not nearly as effective as working in a genuinely distributed revision control system. Many of the Ubuntu guys don't work on the distro, they work on tools like Bazaar, and [WWW] HCT, which we hope will really accelerate the kind of collaboration that is possible in the open source world. Time will tell.

In summary: binary compatibility between Ubuntu and Debian is not a priority for us. We believe we contribute more to the open source world by providing patches to make Ubuntu (and Debian) packages work better, and providing a cutting edge (or bleeding edge, depending on your perspective) distribution for others to collaborate with. We invest a lot of energy in making sure our patches are widely published and easily available to developers of ALL other distributions as well as upstream, because that way we think our work will have the biggest long term benefit. And we develop tools (see Bazaar and Bazaar-NG and Launchpad and [WWW] Rosetta and Malone) that we hope will make source code collaboration even more efficient.

What about forking the community? The Ubuntu community has grown very quickly, and that causes some people to worry that this growth might come at some cost to other open source communities, Debian in particular.

Given that patches can flow so easily between Ubuntu and Debian, it seems to me that the bigger we can make our total combined developer community, the better for both projects. Ubuntu benefits from a strong Debian, and Debian benefits from a strong Ubuntu. This is particularly true because the two projects have slightly different goals. Ubuntu gets to break new ground sooner, and Debian benefits hugely from those patches (just scan changelogs in Debian Sid since the Sarge release, and you'll see how many references to "Ubuntu" are in there. And that's only the cases where credit has been given.

If the Ubuntu and Debian communities worked in the same way, then I think there would be more truth to this concern, because we would attract the same sorts of people, which would mean that we were competing for talent. But the two communities are quite different. We organise ourselves differently, and we set different priorities. That means that we tend to attract different sorts of developers.

Now, there are certainly Debian developers who have started doing most of their work in Ubuntu now. There are also developers who work equally in Ubuntu and Debian. But the majority of the Ubuntu community is made up of newer developers, who are attracted to the Ubuntu way of doing things. There will always be some churn and movement between communities, and thats healthy because it helps to spread good ideas.
What if Ubuntu's success means Debian dies?

That would be very bad for Ubuntu, since every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. And the Debian Way is under no threat, it's getting a lot more exposure in more interesting places now that ubuntu has shown what amazing things can be done within that community.
Why is Ubuntu not part of the DCC Alliance?

I don't believe the DCC will succeed, though its aims are lofty and laudable. It would be expensive to participate, and it would slow down our ability to add the features, polish and integration that we want in new releases. I'm not prepared to devote scarce resources to an initiative that I believe will ultimately fail. There's no point here in going into the reasons why I think the DCC will fail - time will tell. I would encourage members of the Ubuntu community to participate in the DCC discussions if they have time and are interested. If the DCC produces good code, we should merge that into Ubuntu releases, and it should be easy to do so.
Why are you funding Ubuntu, instead of giving the money to Debian?

I spent a lot of time thinking about how best to make a contribution to the open source world, and how best to explore the ideas I am personally interested in, such as the best ways to deploy open source on the desktop. One option was to stand for the position of DPL (I'm a DD, first maintainer of Apache in 1996 blah blah) and drive those ideas inside Debian. In the end I decided to create a parallel distribution, and invest in the infrastructure to make inter-distro collaboration a lot more efficient.

Here's why.

First, a lot of the things I want to do involve reducing the scope of the distro. That makes it MORE useful for one set of people, but quite clearly LESS useful for others. For example, we currently officially support only 3 architectures in Ubuntu. That's GREAT for people running those architectures, but clearly not so useful for people running on something else.

Similarly, we support about 1,000 core apps in Ubuntu. Those are the core pieces that are in the "main" component for Ubuntu, [WWW] Kubuntu and [WWW] Edubuntu. Everything else is accessible, as part of [WWW] Universe or Multiverse, but not officially supported.

The more I thought about it, the more I realised this was the wrong thing for Debian, which derives much of its strength from its "universality". It makes more sense to take these approaches in a separate project. We get to pioneer and focus on those things, and the patches are instantly accessible to the DDs who feel they are appropriate for Debian too.

Second, the problem of "sharing between distributions" is the really interesting one. At the moment, we tend to see the world, as upstream, a distro, and derivatives. Actually, the world looks more like a bunch of different projects that need to collaborate. We need to collaborate with Debian, but we should also be able to collaborate with upstream, and with Gentoo. And with Red Hat, too. We need to figure out how to collaborate effectively with distributions that use totally different packaging systems to us. Because the reality of the open source world is one in which the number of distributions continues to rise - each one fulfilling the needs of a specific group of people, based on their job, or their cultural identity, or the institution for which they work, or their personal interests.

Solving the "distro collaboration problem" would really advance the state of open source. So that's what we set out to do in Ubuntu. We work on Launchpad, which is a web service for collaboration on bugs, and translations, and technical support. We work on Bazaar, which is a revision control system that understands branching and distributions, and is integrated with Launchpad. And hopefully those tools allow us to make our work available easily to Debian, and to Gentoo, and to upstream. And also, allow us to take good work from other distros (even if they would rather we didn't ;-)).

And finally, it seems to me that the hard part is not making funds available, its allocating them to people and projects. I could easily write a cheque to SPI, Inc, for the same amount that I've invested in Ubuntu. But who would decide how that money was spent? Have you actually read the financial statements of SPI, Inc, over the past few years? Who would decide who gets hired full time, and who doesn't? Who would decide which projects get funded to be worked on, and which don't? As much as I admire the governance and social structures of Debian, I don't believe that it would be effective to allocate funds to it and expect to see the same level of productivity that we have been able to achieve in the Ubuntu project.

Mixing funding with volunteer work raises all sorts of issues. Ask [WWW] Mako to tell you about the experiment that showed that this difficulty might be hard-wired into our genes - there are deep social difficulties with projects that blend full time paid work with volunteer efforts. I'm not sure Debian needs that kind of challenge. You can very quickly get into deep conflict over who gets to allocate money and hire people, and who decides which ideas get funding and which don't. One of the things that I believe gives Debian its real strength is the sense of "untaintedness". And to a certain extent, the fact that Ubuntu does NOT force changes into Debian has helped to reinforce that healthy reputation for Debian.
OK, but why don't you call it "Debian for Desktops" then?

Because we respect the Debian trademark policy. You may have watched the mindbending contortions around the definition of "DCC Alliance" recently for an example of what happens when people don't. Very simply, the Ubuntu project is not Debian, so it has no right to use the name. And using the name would weaken Debian's own brand name. In addition, we like the "humanity" aspect of the name Ubuntu, so we chose that.
Now we are on the naming thing, what's with the "Funky Fairy" naming system?

The official name of any Ubuntu release is "Ubuntu X.YY" where X represents the year, less 2000, and YY represents the month of the release in that year. So the first release, made in October 2004 was Ubuntu 4.10. The (at the time of writing) next release is due in October 2005, and so it will be Ubuntu 5.10.

The development codename of a release takes the form "Adjective Animal". So for example: Warty Warthog (Ubuntu 4.10), Hoary Hedgehog (Ubuntu 5.04), Breezy Badger (Ubuntu 5.10), are the first three releases of Ubuntu. In general, people refer to the release using the adjective, like "warty" or "breezy".

Many sensible people have wondered why we chose this naming scheme. It came about as a joke on a ferry between Circular Quay and somewhere else, in Sydney:

*

lifeless: how long before we make a first release?
sabdfl: it would need to be punchy. six months max.
lifeless: six months! thats not a lot of time for polish.
sabdfl: so we'll have to nickname it the warty warthog release.

And voila, the name stuck. The first mailing list for the Ubuntu team was called "warthogs", and we used to hang out on #warthogs on irc.freenode.net. For subsequent releases we wanted to stick with the "hog" names, so we had Hoary Hedgehog, and Grumpy Groundhog. But "Grumpy" didn't sound right, for a release that was looking really good, and had fantastic community participation. So we looked arond and came up with "Breezy Badger". We will still use "Grumpy Groundhog", but those plans are still a surprise to be announced...

For those of you who think the chosen names could be improved, you might be relieved to know that the "Breezy Badger" was originally going to be the "Bendy Badger" (I still think that rocked). There were others...

For all of our sanity we are going to try to keep these names alphabetical after Breezy. We might skip letters, and we'll have to wrap eventually. But the naming convention is here for a while longer, at least. The possibilities are endless. Gregarious Gnu? Antsy Aardvaark? Phlegmatic Pheasant? You send 'em, we'll consider 'em.


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth


页首
 用户资料  
 
2 楼 
 文章标题 : 大致翻译了几节,感觉比较难翻译,先传上来,做个抛砖引玉,高手来翻译哦 :)
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-12 23:36 
头像

注册: 2005-07-11 17:37
帖子: 336
地址: 浙江
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
大致翻译了几节,感觉比较难翻译,先传上来,做个抛砖引玉,高手来翻译哦 :)
加粗的自觉有问题又不知道怎么改 :)
About Me
关于我
*
irc: sabdfl on irc.freenode.net

Backgrounder: I'm 32 and counting, South African, living in London. Most of my time is devoted to the Ubuntu project as cheerleader and chief whip. I've spent the last year or so focused on the [WWW] Launchpad collaborative infrastructure, writing a fair portion of it and helping the team to define our goals. It's a thrill to see it all coming on stream! More details at [WWW] markshuttleworth.com.
背景:我32岁,南非人,住在伦敦。我的大多数时间都是扮演一个Ubuntu项目的拉拉队长和主要鞭策者。我在过去的一年左右的时间里主要从事[WWW] Launchpad的共同架构,我写了其中的可观一部分并帮助小组确定我们的目标。看到它进入正轨是十分振奋人心的!详情参看[WWW]markshuttleworth.com.
FAQs: Why and Whither for Ubuntu?
FAQs:为什么要设立Ubuntu及其未来?

I'm happy for other website editors to modify this page, fixing typos or things that we have discussed between us. It's written from my perspective ("I") since the buck, technically, stops here. So add to it on my behalf with care, please
我很高兴有其他的网络编辑来修饰这个页面,修改排版或是我们之间谈论过的一些事情。这是我从我的角度来写的,因为技术上“雄鹿在这里停下来了”。所以以我的名义仔细的增加它。
Ubuntu is not without its controversies. This is a good thing (at least IMO) as it suggests we are both challenging the status quo, and taking some risks. Speaking for myself, my motivation for funding and participating in Ubuntu so heavily is in large part derived from a desire to do both of those things. I enjoy shaking up established lines of thinking, and I enjoy taking risks. This document exists to give the community some insight into my thinking - and to a certain extent that of the Community Council, Technical Board and other governance structures - on some of the issues and decisions that have been
controversial.
Ubuntu是不缺乏争议的。这是一件好事(至少在我看来)我们一边挑战现状,一边冒风险。就我而言,我热忱的赞助并参与到Ubuntu的动机很大一部分便是源自于对这两者的渴望。我乐于打破固有的思维,我也乐于冒风险。这篇文档的存在就是为了让社区里的人了解我的想法——这在一定程度上也是社区委员会,技术会议,和其他管理机构的想法——尽管在一些内容和决定上是存在争议的。
I will try to address rumours, frequently asked questions, common allegations and neuroses, and of course controversies both within the project ("our default desktop should be *purple*") and in the open source community at large ("alert! alert! ubuntu is going to become a commercial project!"). You may have come across variants of both of those in the wild. You can take this document as canonical () for my perspective on them, and where noted, you'll also get the Ubuntu Community Council or Technical Board position. If you would like to see additional things addressed here, please raise them at a Community Council meeting on IRC, or correspond with me or the CC members, or raise it on ubuntu-devel.
我会试着编一些谣传,问一些常见问题,作一些常见辩护或者发神经质,当然还参与项目内部的争议(“我们的桌面应该是紫色的”)和在开源社区里游荡(“警报!警报!Ubuntu要变成一个商业化项目了!”)。你可能在外面见过这两个言论的变体。你可能把这篇文档当成权威,因为它们包含了我的观点,更重要的是,你还会因此获得Ubuntu社区委员会或者技术会议的职位。如果你想在这里看到一些其他东西,请你在社区委员会的IRC会议上提出来,或者与我或CC(社区委员会)的成员联系,或是在Ubuntu-devel上提出来


_________________
ubuntu 5.10 +windowsxpsp2
HP NX6120
PM1.6+512M DDR333+915GM+40G HD+Combo

Life is Struggle!


页首
 用户资料  
 
3 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-12 23:46 
头像

注册: 2005-08-29 14:49
帖子: 1119
地址: 杭州
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 3
引用:
我会试着编一些谣传,问一些常见问题,作一些常见辩护或者发神经质


我会试着应对、解释一些……


_________________
用心×恒 | 豆瓣 | 门户 | Blog


页首
 用户资料  
 
4 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-14 9:24 

注册: 2005-10-08 12:46
帖子: 10
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
背景介绍:我32岁,南非人,住在伦敦,我大部分的时间都在进行Ubuntu的宣传推广和促进工作,我去年一直关注于 [WWW] Launchpad的共同架构,写了其中很大一部分并且帮助团队确定我们的目标。看到这些都得到应用是令人振奋的。更多的细节请看[WWW] markshuttleworth.com.

常见问题解答:为何要选择Ubuntu,而其又将如何定位?

我很高兴其他的网站制作者来指正这篇文章,完善版面或者其他我们讨论的事情。因为在技术上的所有问题到我这里为
止,我不会推诿给其他的人,所以这篇文章来源于我的看法,着重笔墨于我所关心的方面,清见谅。

Ubuntu并非毫无争议,这是一件好事(至少在我看来如此),争论促使我们挑战现状和冒一定的风险。对于我自己而言,我如此深入的赞助和参与Ubuntu计划,很大程度上是源于对这些挑战和冒险的渴望,我乐于打破常规思想,并且我也乐于冒险。这篇文章是为了向社区表达一些我对于问题和决议的想法(一定程度上也是社区委员会、技术委员会和其他管理机构的看法)。

我会试着发布一些没有经过验证的信息(比如流言、FAQ、各种申明和争论),这主要包括了项目和开源社区方面,比如“我们的缺省桌面应该是紫色的“,或者”警告,警告,ubuntu将成为商业项目“,诸如此类。你可能在其他的地方见过这些言论的变体。你可以把这篇文章看作我对这些没有根据的信息的看法,并且在显著的地方,你会看到Ubuntu社区委员会或者技术委员会的立场。如果你想看到这里所阐述的其他的附加信息,请在社区委员会IRC会议中提出,或者与我和其他委员会成员联系,也可以在ubuntu-devel中提交

========================
先翻到这里,我要去做实验了,呵,有时间再接着翻


页首
 用户资料  
 
5 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-14 17:16 
头像

注册: 2005-07-11 17:37
帖子: 336
地址: 浙江
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
Why do I do Ubuntu?


To fix bug [WWW] #1 of course. I believe that free software brings us into a new era of technology, and holds the promise of universal access to the tools of the digital era. I drive Ubuntu because I would like to see that promised delivered as reality.
我为什么要做Ubuntu?
当然是修复bug[WWW]#1.我相信自由软件将我们带入了一个新的科技时代,支持了在数字时代的工具人人可用的承诺.我支持Ubuntu是因为我想看到这个承诺的实现.

Will Ubuntu ever demand licence fees or royalties?

No. Never. I have no interest in taking Ubuntu to join the proprietary software industry, it's a horrible business that is boring and difficult, and dying out rapidly anyway. My motivation and goal is to find a way to create a global desktop OS that is *free*, in every sense, as well as sustainable and of a quality comparable to anything you could pay for. That's what I'm trying to do, and if we fail, well then I will go and find some other project to pursue rather than get into the proprietary software business. I don't think any of the core ubuntu developers, or much of the community, would stick around if I went loony and decided to try this, anyhow.

Ubuntu会收许可费或版税么?
不.永远不会.我对Ubuntu加入私有软件行业没有丝毫的兴趣,这是一个可怕的事情而且十分的无聊和困难,很快就会衰亡.我的动机和目标在于需求一种方式来创造一个世界性的自由的桌面操作系统,任何意义上而言,不仅可用而且质量比得上任何你可能购买的产品.这就是我尝试做的事,如果我们失败了,那么我会去追寻其它项目而不会进入私有软件业.如果我愚蠢到做出这样一个决定,我不认为任何一个Ubuntu的开发人员或是大多数社区的人会留下来.

If that isn't enough for you, then you will be happy to know that Canonical has signed public undertakings with government offices to the extent that it will never introduce a "commercial" version of Ubuntu. There will never be a difference between the "commercial" product and the "free" product, as there is with Red Hat (RHEL and Fedora). Ubuntu releases will always be free.
如果这还不足以说服你,那么你将会发现Canonical已经与政府官员签署了一个公开的承诺,保证其不会引入任何一个“商业化”的Ubuntu版本。永远也不会有什么“商业版”和“免费版”的区别,就如同Red Hat(RHEL和Fedora)一样。Ubuntu的发布永远是免费的。

That said if you want to pay for Ubuntu, or something that includes Ubuntu code, you probably can. There is already Ubuntu code in Linspire, which you can pay for (w00t!). Though Linspire is not (yet) based directly on Ubuntu, it's not infeasible that the Linspire guys figure out what a good option that would be for them sooner rather than later. There are likely to be many specialised versions of Ubuntu, under other brand names, that have commercial or proprietary features. They might have proprietary fonts or software or add-ons or integration with services, etc. There is also likely to be quite a lot of proprietary software available for Ubuntu (there is already a fair bit - Opera for Ubuntu was announced recently, for example). But Canonical, and I myself, and the Ubuntu Community Council and Technical Board, will not produce an "Ubuntu Professional Edition ($XX.00)". There will certainly be no "Ubuntu Vista".
当然如果你想要为Ubuntu或其中的代码支付一些钱,你可以这么做。在Linspire里已经有Ubuntu的代码了,你可以在那里为之支付.尽管Linspire现在不是直接基于Ubuntu,但是说不准哪天Linspire的人认为这是个好的选择.将会有许多特殊版本的Ubuntu,以其它品牌的名称,从而拥有了私有或是商业化的特色.他们可能会有私有字体,软件,附加软件或是整合服务,等等. 也可能会有许多适用于Ubuntu的私有软件(目前已经有了不少,例如最近公布的Ubuntu的Opera).但是,Canoical,和我自己,还有Ubuntu社区委员会和技术会议,将不会制造一个"Ubuntu专业版 ($XX.00)".将不会有什么"Ubuntu Vista" (译者注:Windows Vista?)


_________________
ubuntu 5.10 +windowsxpsp2
HP NX6120
PM1.6+512M DDR333+915GM+40G HD+Combo

Life is Struggle!


页首
 用户资料  
 
6 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-14 20:33 

注册: 2005-10-08 12:46
帖子: 10
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
If you don't make a commercial "Ubuntu Professional Edition", how can Ubuntu be sustainable?

We have some initial revenues from services related to Ubuntu. We have been contracted to produce customised distributions, and we participate in large-scale tenders for big Linux deployments, usually in partnership with local companies, where our job is to provide escalation support. In addition to widespread adoption in developing countries, Ubuntu may well be running all over NASA's Moffett Field soon... So we have the foundations of a sustainable project, and I'm confident that we have a reasonable chance of getting Ubuntu to the point where it funds itself for ongoing growth.

如果不推出商业性质的“Ubuntu专业版”,Ubuntu怎么能够维持下去呢?

我们从Ubuntu相关服务可以得到一些初期的收入。我们已经签订了协议推出定制的发行版本,并且我们参与了大型的Linux投标,通常是和全球性的公司合作,我们的工作是提供升级支持。除了在发展中国家被广泛应用,很快,Ubuntu还可能被很好的运行于太空总署的Moffett 领域…………所以,我们有支撑整个项目的基础,并且,对于我们有很好的机会来让Ubuntu集中力量向前发展这一点,我也很有信心。

Exactly how it will all pan out from a business perspective is difficult to judge. I don't have all of those answers. That's OK, this is a risky (ad)venture, which is still at an early stage, so I don't expect to know. I can personally justify my investment in Ubuntu on philanthropic grounds (at least, the money we spend on open source development and on tools for open source developers, like Launchpad) because most of my good luck and wealth could only have been created using open source tools. I'm happy to give back to the community. Inasmuch as we start to spend money on suits, they need to be sustainable quickly. We currently make some money offering certification related services (certifying developers, administrators, applications, and hardware) as well as customisation services (you want your own distro, based on Ubuntu, let's talk). Demand for those services is growing. I'm pretty confident that I can get Canonical to break even on that basis. And breaking even is fine by me, because it means that Ubuntu will continue to rock even if I decide it's time to go back to space and pick the wrong Soyuz.

精确的判断这个项目的商业远景是非常困难的,我无法给予全面的回答。这没什么,这是一个有风险的探索,而且正处于初期阶段,所以我并不指望知道一切。我个人可以认为我对于Ubuntu的投资是一种慈善事业(至少,我们的钱花在了支持开源项目的开发工作以及支持相关开发人员身上),我这么认为是由于我绝大部分的好运气和财富都只能通过开源工具来创造。我很高兴能还之于社会。由于我们开始在套件上投资,他们很快就会需要支持。我们现在通过提供相关认证服务赚一些钱(对开发人员、管理员、应用程序和硬件进行认证),同样的,我们也通过定制服务(基于Ubuntu的客户自己的发行版本)赚钱。对于这些服务的需求在不断增长。我很有信心的是,我也可以停止Canonical,即使已经有了一定的基础,并且打破那些即使是我自己制定的东西,因为这意味着Ubuntu将会继续迸发,即使我觉得是时候要回去那错误的Soyuz

注:我不清楚Soyuz的意思,似乎是俄罗斯火箭的名字,如果真是说火箭的名字,那么这句话应该是:即使我决定是时候要回到太空并且选择那错误的俄罗斯火箭


It's also important to distinguish between Canonical, which is a for-profit services operation, and the Ubuntu Foundation, which has capital from me, on a non-profit basis, to continue Ubuntu's work. With the announcement of the Ubuntu Foundation, I was basically saying "OK, this project has legs, I'll commit enough capital to keep the core going for a long time no matter what happens to me or Canonical". So we have plenty of time to grow sustainability around the project. If you want to help on that front, send work to Canonical next time you need something done with Ubuntu. We won't let you down.


区别Canonical项目和Ubuntu基金是很重要的,前者是以盈利性质服务的商业运作,而后者是来源于我的资金进行Ubuntu的工作,基于非盈利的目的。在Ubuntu基金的申明中,我根本性的提到:“是的,这个项目有资金后盾,我会筹集足够的钱来保证长时间的核心运营,无论有什么事情发生在我或者Canonical上”。所以,我们有大量的是件来开展项目的支持工作。如果你想帮助我们,下次你需要Ubuntu完成什么的时候,发送你的信息到Canonical,我们不会让你失望。

What about binary compatibility between distributions?

A lot has been said about the fact that Debian is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu. Sometimes this manifests itself as "I can't install Ubuntu packages on Debian", sometimes its more "Why does Ubuntu use GCC 4 when Debian is using GCC 3.3?". Or "Why is the kernel and glibc on Ubuntu 5.04 different from that in Debian Sarge?". I'll try to address all of those here.

不同发行版本的兼容性如何?

有很多人说Debian和Ubuntu存在不兼容性,有时候是“我无法在Debian上安装Ubuntu的软件包”,有时候是“为什么Ubuntu使用GCC 4,而Debian使用GCC 3.3?”,或者“为什么Ubuntu 5.04的核心和glibc与Debian Sarge不同?”,在这里我会解释所有这些问题的。


页首
 用户资料  
 
7 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-16 23:48 
头像

注册: 2005-10-16 23:26
帖子: 532
地址: 泉州
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 3
建议楼主吧原文切成一块一块的,以方便分头翻译,避免大家都只翻译前面那几节 :lol:


_________________
You make it fun
It will make you fun


页首
 用户资料  
 
8 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-17 21:43 
头像

注册: 2005-07-11 17:37
帖子: 336
地址: 浙江
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
呵呵,主要是这篇文章太长了
前面几段的翻译我和qwsqws都翻译了,我翻译的比较死板一点,因为想保留原文的风趣的语言风格,( 好象不太成功 :D )而qwsqws似乎就比较讲究通顺,以自己理解的意思为主. 其实也好,看到我们的不同翻译风格, :D
平时大家都接力的不错哦! :lol:
顺便说一下Moffett似乎是个地名后面的field翻成领域不太好,应该是个航空基地
还有break even 应该是收支平衡:D ,那一段我想这么翻译好一点
I'm pretty confident that I can get Canonical to break even on that basis. And breaking even is fine by me, because it means that Ubuntu will continue to rock even if I decide it's time to go back to space and pick the wrong Soyuz.
我相信我可以让Canonical达到收支平衡.对我而言,收支平衡就已足够,因为那意味着即使我决定回到太空,而且恰巧选了一个糟糕的Soyuz(译者注:是一种俄罗斯的航天飞船),Ubuntu仍然可以自己运营.

引用:
我这么认为是由于我绝大部分的好运气和财富都只能通过开源工具来创造。

因为我的好运气和财富都离不开开源工具的使用.


_________________
ubuntu 5.10 +windowsxpsp2
HP NX6120
PM1.6+512M DDR333+915GM+40G HD+Combo

Life is Struggle!


页首
 用户资料  
 
9 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-25 15:28 

注册: 2005-10-25 13:49
帖子: 4
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
jazzi 写道:
建议楼主吧原文切成一块一块的,以方便分头翻译,避免大家都只翻译前面那几节 :lol:

斑竹一定要制定翻译格式!!!!!!!!!!!!!
避免视觉疲劳,重复劳动,资源浪费,以及解决效率问题


页首
 用户资料  
 
10 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2005-10-25 16:43 

注册: 2005-10-25 13:49
帖子: 4
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
[引用原文第xx段到第yy段]
I'll start with our general policy and approach, and then examine some of those examples in detail.

First, "binary compatibility" means different things to different people. If you've followed the trials and tribulations of the LSB standards process, you'll understand how difficult it is even to *define* binary compatibility in a meaningful way across multiple distributions. That, in essence, is why we don't set "binary compatibility" as a goal for Ubuntu. Sometimes it happens, but if so, it's accidental or because there was an opportunity to make something work nicely that someone took - not because it's a specific goal.

Just to be clear, I'll say it again, for the record. We don't aim for "binary compatibility" with any other distribution. Why?

In short, because we believe in Free Software as a collaborative process focused on SOURCE CODE, and consider it superior to the proprietary process which is focused on specific applications and binary bits. We choose to devote the large majority of our energy to the improvement of the source code that is widely and freely available, rather than trying to work on binary bits that cannot be shared as widely. When we spend hours of time on a feature, we want that work to be usable by as many other distributions as possible, so we publish the source code in "real time" as we publish new versions of the packages. We go to great lengths to make those patches widely available, in an easy to find format, so that they will be useful to upstreams, and other distributions. That benefits Debian, but it also benefits Suse and Redhat, if any of them are willing to take the time to study and apply the patches.
===============================================
[T本文第xx段到第yy段]
我将会利用一般策略和方法对其中的一些示例进行仔细检查。
首先,“二进制兼容性”就会因人而异。如果要遵循LSB标准(翻译注:Linux标准化规范和工作组——LSB(Linux Standard Base)工作组是FreeStandardsGroup的成员工作组。LSB是Linux领域重要和有影响的标准化组织。LSB工作组以达成“Standardizing The Penguin”为目标,制定最基本的标准,例如公众命令集和文件传输的格式等,为 ...),其过程中所经历的试验和困难就会使我们明白,要为众多的发行版定义一个有意义的二进制兼容标准是多么困难。因此从根本上,我们就没有把“二进制兼容性”设为Ubuntu的目标。如果什么时候发生了这种事情,即使这样,也是偶然的或者有个机会使一些事情工作的更好--而不是因为它是一个很特别的目标。
刚才澄清了一下,为了有案可查我还要重申一次,为什么我们不像其他发行版关注“二进制兼容性”?
简而言之,因为我们认为自由软件是一种关注源代码的协作过程,其优先级应该高于特定的应用程序和二进制的比特格式。我们选择为使源代码更加自由和广泛的使用,投入大量的精力和热诚,而不是在不能广泛共享的二进制运行格式。当我们为了某个功能花费那么多时间,希望能在尽可能多的发行版上使用,所以当软件包发布新版本时我们几乎“实时”发布了源代码。We go to great lengths to make those patches widely available, in an easy to find format, so that they will be useful to upstreams,和其他发行版。它使Debian受益,也使Suse和Redhat受益,如果他们乐意花时间去学习和应用补丁。
[翻译进度]90%,还剩一句,不甚理解
[接续翻译]任何人


页首
 用户资料  
 
11 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006-02-03 18:08 
头像

注册: 2006-02-03 16:37
帖子: 26
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
We go to great lengths to make those patches widely available, in an easy to find format, so that they will be useful to upstreams.

我们尽力通过容易找到的方式让那些补丁程序更容易被人获得,以此使它们对主流的发行版有利用价值。

这句话里就是upstream不好翻译,它的基本意思是“向上游, 溯流, 逆流地”,我根据上下文的意思翻译成“主流”,哪位高手有不同看法欢迎交流。


页首
 用户资料  
 
12 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006-02-03 18:52 
头像

注册: 2006-02-03 16:37
帖子: 26
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
We synchronise our development with upstream, and with Debian, and with other distributions such as Suse and Gentoo and Mandrake and Red Hat, on a regular basis. We draw code from the latest upstream projects (which might not even be in Debian, or in Red Hat, or addressed in the LSB). We try to merge with Debian Unstable (a.k.a. Sid) every six months. We have no control over the release processes of other distributions, nor of upstream, so it would be impossible for us to define in advance an API or ABI for each release. We are in the hands of hundreds of other developers every time we freeze Ubuntu in preparation for a new version. Even though the Ubuntu community is substantial and growing rapidly, it is still tiny compared to the total number of developers working on all the free software applications that make up the distribution itself. Our job is to package what is there, efficiently and cohesively, not to try to massage it to some pre-defined state of compatibility. We focus on delivering the newest-but-stabilised-and-polished versions of the best open source applications for your server or desktop. If we were to set binary compatibility (at any level) as a top priority, it would massively diminish our ability to deliver either newer software, or better integration and polish. And we think our users care most about the fact that they are getting the best, and most integrated, apps on the CD.

我们根据一定标准,时刻与上流发行版保持同步,比如Debian,以及其他的发行版,包括Suse,Gentoo,Mandrake和Red Hat。我们从最新的上流版本(也许不是在Debian,Red Hat或者在LSB中提到的版本)中抽取代码。我们每六个月努力和Debian的不稳定版(又叫做Sid)合并一次。我们没有控制其他发行版或是上流版本的发行过程,因此我们不可能提前对每个发行版定义API或ABI。每次我们冻结Ubuntu要准备一个新的版本时,我们会让数以百计的开发者负责。即使Ubuntu社区现在很活跃并且发展迅猛,但相比与整个工作在开源软件的开发者的数量来说,仍然是很微小的。我们的使命就是有效得,相互合作得把目前有用的东西封装起来,而不是试图宣扬某一事前定好的兼容性。我们关注于把最新的,稳定的,精良的,最好的开源程序提供给你的服务器或桌面系统。如果我们把二进制兼容性(在任何层次上)做为头等重要的话,这不仅会极大降低我们提供新软件的能力,也会降低我们提供更具整和性和精良软件的能力。而且我们认为我们的用户最关心的是他们在CD中能获得最好的,最整和的应用程序。


最后由 alexfaye 编辑于 2006-02-04 15:40,总共编辑了 2 次

页首
 用户资料  
 
13 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006-02-03 19:13 
头像

注册: 2006-02-03 16:37
帖子: 26
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
It is worth noting that the Linux kernel itself takes the same approach, shunning "binary compatibility" in favour of a "custom monolithic kernel". Each release of the kernel requires that it be compiled separately from previous releases. Modules (drivers) need to be recompiled with the new release, they cannot just be used in their binary form. Linus has specifically stated that the monolithic kernel - based on source code, not trying to maintain a binary interface for drivers across releases - is better for the kernel. We believe the same is true for the distribution.

值得注意的是,Linux内核本身也采用了同样的方法以避开“二进制兼容性”,支持“自定义单片式内核”。内核的每一个发行版都要求独立与上一个版本被编译。模块(驱动程序)则需要在新版本中重新编译一次,因为它们不能以二进制的形式拿来用。Linus还特别提及基于原代码的单片式内核,没有试图为了跨不同发行版的驱动程序而保持一个二进制接口,是更好的内核。我们相信这对于我们的发行版也是正确的。


最后由 alexfaye 编辑于 2006-02-03 21:27,总共编辑了 1 次

页首
 用户资料  
 
14 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006-02-03 19:42 
头像

注册: 2005-07-11 17:37
帖子: 336
地址: 浙江
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
alexfaye 写道:
We go to great lengths to make those patches widely available, in an easy to find format, so that they will be useful to upstreams.

我们尽力通过容易找到的方式让那些补丁程序更容易被人获得,以此使它们对主流的发行版有利用价值。

这句话里就是upstream不好翻译,它的基本意思是“向上游, 溯流, 逆流地”,我根据上下文的意思翻译成“主流”,哪位高手有不同看法欢迎交流。


我觉得还是翻译成上游比较合适,因为这里指的是相对于发行版之前产生的,用于组成发行版的各个部分软件(如KDE,GNOME,甚至一个播放器等基础的软件)的开发.


_________________
ubuntu 5.10 +windowsxpsp2
HP NX6120
PM1.6+512M DDR333+915GM+40G HD+Combo

Life is Struggle!


页首
 用户资料  
 
15 楼 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006-02-03 21:58 
头像

注册: 2006-02-03 16:37
帖子: 26
送出感谢: 0 次
接收感谢: 0 次
firingstone的翻译确实到位,不过直接翻译成“上游”的话不容易被人理解,我想了半天也没想出个合适的词,firingstone有什么高见?


_________________
Welcome to my blog:
http://www.2fois.cn


页首
 用户资料  
 
显示帖子 :  排序  
发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 19 篇帖子 ]  前往页数 1, 2  下一页

当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时


在线用户

正在浏览此版面的用户:没有注册用户 和 1 位游客


不能 在这个版面发表主题
不能 在这个版面回复主题
不能 在这个版面编辑帖子
不能 在这个版面删除帖子
不能 在这个版面提交附件

前往 :  
本站点为公益性站点,用于推广开源自由软件,由 DiaHosting VPSBudgetVM VPS 提供服务。
我们认为:软件应可免费取得,软件工具在各种语言环境下皆可使用,且不会有任何功能上的差异;
人们应有定制和修改软件的自由,且方式不受限制,只要他们自认为合适。

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
简体中文语系由 王笑宇 翻译