On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Tom H <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Knapp <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:21 PM, zongo saiba <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> What I would like to understand really is why regressive bugs? I had
>>> sound in 9.10 on my external speakers and I could use my internal
>>> microphone out the box. In 10.04, I had to modify alsa-base.conf in
>>> order to use my external speakers in such a way that now I am unable to
>>> use my internal microphone. The point being not the issue of not using
>>> my internal microphone but more why a regressive bug ? How can that
>>> happen and most importantly why?
>> Read the Cathedral and the Bazaar to get a deeper understanding.
>> Basically Ubuntu has broken one of the golden rules of open source.
>> You develop and release based on goals not times.
>> To look at it from a different way. They are changing the whole boot
>> loader so that they can get under 10 seconds boots. This will break a
>> lot of stuff and of course all the other bits are changing as they are
>> improved or updated. All this breaks stuff. Open source is ALWAYS
>> changing, even when it does not need to. This leads to better stuff in
>> the long run but breaks stuff in the short run. You have to pick, new
>> and broken or old and stable. Ubuntu runs more to the new side.
>> Also a driver might be made 20% faster but that change breaks 3% of
>> the users' computers. That is not seen until it is released because
>> the programmers did not have that computer system in shop. They then
>> get a bug report and fix it. YOU must file that report or it will
>> never get fixed. That is how open source works.
> I don't think that having a release every six months or so is a
> problem, as long as the people who are installing it or upgrading to
> it do not expect it to work without a hitch. Both Ubuntu and Fedora
> releases follow a twice-yearly release schedule (more or less for
> Fedora) and have teething problems when they are first published (in
> the same way that OSX had when it was on a yearly schedule).
> I take issue though with the Ubuntu model for LTS. It makes people
> think that a release is OK as soon as it is published when in fact it
> is only slightly less buggy, if at all, than Ubuntu's non-LTS
> releases. I am at the moment in a permanent fight with my clients to
> convince them to wait for 10.04.1 before I upgrade their servers. I
> upgraded the boxes of a new client immediately after the release
> because I would have lost/not gained him had I kept on saying "wait"
> but it was a silly risk. Thankfully, they are running OK, probably
> because the unstable stuff is generally pulled in by the desktop
> tasksels or other desktop-related apps.
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Wouldn't an Open Source hardware (if such a thing existed) make things
a lot easier on bugs for Linux users? Or, are those bugs really
software bugs ? If I take the Mac platform, Apple builds its own
machines and edit the soft with it. I do know that not releasing the
low level firmware on parts to the Linux developers make it a lot
harder to have a stable system.
The point being that I would agree with you. I have lowered my
expectations on new releases for next time
Still though being
grateful to be able to run such a great system as Ubuntu 10.0.4 which
I think is full of promisses
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users