My intentions as the new project manager


Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Most of you can probably guess that I have some plans brewing as the project manager for Shift. I've done up a little press release we can put out when the time is right, which details exactly what I want to do, but I won't put it out until everyone agrees on what we have. Some of these things are tough decisions, but ones that I've made with a few other members of the team, and I hope I can get your guys' cooperation on it.

So, here we go:

Shift Linux: A New Direction

Since its incarnation in 2005, Shift Linux has had an ambitious team behind it. We have always strived to be ?more than just another linux distribution?, a goal which has never been more important than it is now. Over the next little while, Shift will be reborn and redefined, moving farther away from traditional Linux roots, and into something newer. Linux will always be our core, but on top of that, we need to use new technologies, both those that exist and those which we can only imagine, to build something fresh. Today, Shift Linux will move forward.

We have several new goals that are being set. First of all, Shift needs to be streamlined. Some things are going to be cut out to make room for others. The biggest changes here: one distribution under one name. Shift Linux will be Shift Linux. There will be no Shift Lite or Shift KDE or Shift Gnome, there will be a Shift Linux. And Shift Linux will run Gnome by default. It is important, however, to make one thing very clear: we will always hold a place for alternatives, and where possible we will always offer KDE and Fluxbox for one click installation.

There are several reasons for this drastic change. First of all, we can not cover such vast territory with the small team we have. Having more than one version means we need to do everything twice, and our research shows a large majority of people would prefer to use Gnome over anything else. With only one flavor of Shift, we can put twice as much time into Gnome, resulting in something that truly is new. Secondly, user friendliness. Besides the obvious reason that one thing to download is one less decision for a user to make, having one distribution allows us to focus more on our other new goal of user friendliness. This goal is the number one priority for us. Our prime demographic is not Linux users; there?s no reason for a Linux user not to choose Shift, after all, it?s not like we?ll be locking them out of our technologies. There is, in fact, more reasons for them to use Shift.

User friendliness makes everyone?s lives easier. Whether you like power or not, the less you see of the terminal and the more you can do with less clicks, the more efficient of a workflow you have. Less time in the terminal. More time doing work. More time having fun. And you?ll always have the option of opening up the terminal and working from there if you want.

Being ?noob friendly? is never a good reason to not use something, because using it does not make you a ?noob?. Rather, using it gives you access to the simpler side of things. Anyone who doesn?t use a distribution because it?s too easy simply doesn?t care about their efficiency, and so honestly, we are not aimed at you with that kind of attitude. But we welcome you, and think your attitude should probably change.

Finally, Shift Linux will not be a rehash of things that already exist. Shift Linux will be something new. The third and final goal we now have is to not install things that already exist, but to invent the ideas we all want to exist. If there is an open source Linux application that suits our needs, we will use it. But that?s not all we will do: we will make the things that don?t suit our needs all over again. Linux has so much potential to tap into, and so many programming languages for us to use. The Neowin community has an infinite amount of people who can help us, no matter what their language. We can use Mono, we can use Python, we can use C, we can use Perl. Whatever you know programming wise, we want you.

Further on that point, Shift Linux will look good. Design will be integrated, because it fits into both our goal of ?something new?, and our goal of user friendliness.

Now, there are a few things I want to say that are not going to change yet. We will, for the time being, stay on Ubuntu. It suits our needs personally right now, because it is user friendly, but we can push it further. I do not believe that Ubuntu is what Linux should be, but I think the Ubuntu team has a fantastic initiative, and the work they have done would be perfect under our goals. When the time is right, and we have enough dedicated developers, we will move away from our Ubuntu roots. But right now, Ubuntu is just fine for us.

There is no time limit for Shift Linux. There are no deadlines. We will ship when we are ready. And what we ship will change Linux as we know it. I ask you to help us create something fresh. Something better than Windows, something better than Mac OS X. I have the motivation, and I know you do too. So if you are a veteran of our team, someone who hasn?t helped out in a while, or someone who is hearing about Shift, or even Linux, for the first time, we need you. Together, we can be the new face of Linux.

- Simon Andrews, Shift Linux Project Manager.

Sounds good, and I support this direction 100%

However, I am just a newbie in programming with Python, nor with my career change going on, will I have a lot of time to put in.

But I will contribute what I can, where I can, whenever I am able.

I want to know... do we want to use Ubuntu? That seems to be the biggest criticism, and we want to start from the ground up if we're really going to do something new. When I helped out a little bit on Raspberry, we used Arch Linux... if we get the team big enough, I think we should at least consider going for it.

Leveraging Ubuntu has several advantages, particularly from the Neowin Windows user viewpoint. Wubi comes to mind. If we can wubi up an Arch, I think it would be good.

We can leverage Wubi, as bma and I have mentioned in the past. And I want to do it, although I know Barney was always against the idea...

It might not be easy, but the long term benefits could be very good. People wouldn't be motivated behind a Ubuntu based distro, I don't think. Not as much as they would be proud of something built from the ground up (more or less).

The poll has LFS/Arch under 50%, but I think most of those votes were cast early on. I didn't want to show a bias either way, otherwise I would've done the pros and cons of each move, but I think that, considering where each of us stand on the issue from what I can tell, we should do it.

Honestly... Barney, if you're reading this, I want to know what you think. Regardless of who's in charge, this distro has and always will be your baby. I think the call is 100% in your hands at this point.

Thanks for your kind thoughtfulness, Simon.

I think that if you guys would like to take Shift away from it's Ubuntu base, that is fine. It definitely would set it apart from all of the current Ubuntu clones. However, the charm of Ubuntu is in its great coverage of apps and drivers for lots of computer hardware combinations, as well as it's ease of use (and installation.. as Mark points out).

I fully support a distro based on Arch (or any other base, for that matter) as long as it is awesomely fresh, easy to use, and appeals to the vast majority of those who use it. Remember that our original roots came from Morphix......

I always support the team! (Y)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!