The Reg takes note of Karmic problems [Archive]

bryncoles

November 3rd, 2009, 12:16 PM

And not only... The Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100004124/bad-karma-for-linux-koalas/) does too, under the headline "Bad karma for Linux koalas".

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks. Remember the damage word of mouth did to vista?

Both the Reg and the Telegraph link to this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1305924) poll as evidence of the disaster that is karmic.

Lets not give the popular press sticks to beat ourselves with now, eh? They're hardly likely to point out that every release is met with howls of "I wish I'd stayed with the last release". Hell, all the people who wish they'd stayed with 9:04 because it worked perfectly also wished they'd stayed with 8:10 because it worked perfectly, as did 8:04...

And remember, it only takes a month for Ubuntu to stabilize, rather than a year for the first service pack to make it usable!

SirBismuth

November 3rd, 2009, 12:34 PM

Falc7

November 3rd, 2009, 12:40 PM

The glaring problem is that people have upgraded, and not done a full install. Only time I ever tried to upgrade was from 8.04 to 8.10, it failed and broke my installation. Have been doing full installs since then, without any problems.

B

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

SirBismuth

November 3rd, 2009, 12:43 PM

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

This is true, maybe they should only let you upgrade after clicking on a a message, that goes something like "This upgrade may break your system".

Although, before Karmic Final was released, I saw a number of posts saying that you should rather do a full install, than upgrade.

B

bryncoles

November 3rd, 2009, 12:47 PM

I did upgrades from 7:10 (my first 'buntu *sigh*), and never had a problem. This is the first distro I've clean-installed with, and also had no problem with (though I did get the jaunty intel-crash bug!)

mivo

November 3rd, 2009, 12:49 PM

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks.

Are you suggesting we cover up the issues that people have? That we pretend everything is dandy, for the purpose of getting good press?

This is not a wake up call for the community. This should be a wake up call for Canonical. The distro upgrade has not been reliable for years now, to a point where by now most people just suggest to reinstall instead of upgrading. Old bugs are not fixed, new bugs are introduced by constant new additions and changes. The tower gets taller and taller, but the foundation crumbles in some places, and it isn't stable enough to continue to be able to carry all the new floors that are added all the time.

What Ubuntu needs is a consolidation release where nothing new is added and only existing bugs, problems, issues and weaknesses are tended to.

I do feel that the upgrade mechanism "sucks", and I have said so for quite a while now. And looking at the numerous help requests and "doesn't work" posts, which in my subjective observation exceed anything previous versions have seen, it certainly seems that 9.10 was rushed, because "we must stick to our 6-months cycle, no matter what". If the bad press is a result of this, then that is self-inflicted. Maybe that's what it takes to achieve improvement and change.

CbrPad

November 3rd, 2009, 12:52 PM

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

+1 The upgrade option should not be enabled by default. Anyone who knows and understands the risks can easily try an upgrade manually or change the settings to inform them of an available upgrade, or whatever, but it shouldn't just pop up to be clicked on by the average user.

Also, there are more serious regressions such as the fact that 3g usb modems are almost completely broken. This, imo, is reason enough in itself for Karmic not to have been released. These modems are incredibly popular, and how can someone be expected to install a patch or future update fixing the issue if they don't have internet access in the first place ?
There's no mentions of the problem in the release notes as far as I know either?

Overall I think a serious look has to be taken at releasing on time regardless, as the cost of releasing late can sometimes be easily outweighed by the cost of releasing a product with so many issues.

whitefort

November 3rd, 2009, 12:57 PM

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks. Remember the damage word of mouth did to vista?

The reason word-of-mouth damaged Vista is quite simple. Vista DID suck, so people talked about it.

Are you saying that if Canonical release an utter dud, we should all pretend it's wonderful? I love Ubuntu, but I'm not prepared to lie to promote it.

I've been (fresh) installing each successive Ubuntu across all my machines for about 4 or 5 years now. I've liked some better than others, but I've never encountered SO many hassles as I've had with Karmic. I've now switched most of them back to Jaunty.

If word of mouth gets Karmic a bad rep, perhaps - just perhaps - it will be because a bad rep was deserved. Maybe Karmic will be Canonical's Vista.

Merovius

November 3rd, 2009, 01:00 PM

+1 for a consolidation release. After half a dozen releases it seems maybe a good housecleaning release would be a good idea.

Like when your doing a renovation on part of your home you occasionally just stop work and clean up before moving on to the next stage. Makes things easier in the long run.

hoppipolla

November 3rd, 2009, 01:05 PM

Karmic brought a lot of large changes. Hopefully theyll be up to speed and polished in time for Lucid :)

I havent had a single issue.

bryncoles

November 3rd, 2009, 01:10 PM

I'm not intending to suggest that we don't report problems which exist. I'm suggesting that we don't proclaim the death of GNU/Linux every time a new release comes out! The point is that whenever the new version of Ubuntu comes out, we get the same threads about how people wish that they had never upgraded because the last version of Ubuntu span straw into gold, while the new version likes to throw sacks of kittens under trains. If everything works out of the box, except some obscure process which only a few people use, and which takes less than half-an hour to fix including the Googling time, then don't declare the end times to be upon us!

Algus

November 3rd, 2009, 01:13 PM

If anything, the level of expectation is higher on Canonical then it would be on Windows. If Canonical releases a range of bad distros like Vista, then half the people using it are likely to jump ship to a different distro. (Unfortunate for me, my preferred distro after Ubuntu is Ubuntu based lol)

It's true that it would be nice if Canonical (and/or other Linux distro organizations) were able to more broadly promote Linux but if it's a bad product, like another user said I'm not going to lie for them. If there are problems we should be straight forward and open about them. If newspapers want to run hatchet jobs...well unfortunately that's really their perogative. The best we, as Ubuntu users, can do is be honest and straightforward about our experiences. Hopefully this way Canonical will respond to issues that arise and fix them.

Remember, Ubuntu is no good to them if they drive away their user base.

sim-value

November 3rd, 2009, 01:25 PM

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 01:26 PM

Also, there are more serious regressions such as the fact that 3g usb modems are almost completely broken. This, imo, is reason enough in itself for Karmic not to have been released. These modems are incredibly popular, and how can someone be expected to install a patch or future update fixing the issue if they don't have internet access in the first place?
Yeah, I'm a bit screwed at the moment. I should've done some research before I upgraded to Karmic. Even when I go back to using Jaunty kernels my USB modem doesn't work, so not sure what's going on there. Also, going back to Jaunty kernels causes my touchpad to be disabled, even though Jaunty was fine regarding both my touchpad and USB modem. Went and used someone elses landline broadband connection yesterday to try and get things fixed, but to no avail.

gwagchunks

November 3rd, 2009, 01:31 PM

I wonder how many people actually tried the RC before installing the final 9.10? If more people tried the RC and then reported bugs, maybe the final would be a bit smoother? I must admit that I have never tried an RC, and I will only do a clean install with the final release when it has been around for about a month or so. (except my mythbunutu box, it's taken me ages to get it working the way I want, so when I come to try 9.10 I'll pop in a spare hard drive and test!) We must not forget though all the hard work all the devs and community put into releases. I also think the more experience you have with ubuntu and linux, the easier it gets. Stick with it everyone, it does get better all the time.

the fix it man

November 3rd, 2009, 01:42 PM

One of the reasons an upgrade is preferred by many people is because no backing up is

necessary and all files can be kept on the HDD and saves a lot of time.

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 01:43 PM

I wonder how many people actually tried the RC before installing the final 9.10? If more people tried the RC and then reported bugs, maybe the final would be a bit smoother?
The issues with USB modems were well reported in Launchpad, but they were classified as of "medium" importance, not high or critical, so didn't delay the release date.

koleoptero

November 3rd, 2009, 01:44 PM

And here I thought I had problems with karmic. Meh.

r4z0r_bl4d3

November 3rd, 2009, 01:51 PM

This is just my opinion, but, people need to remember that there is a price to pay for staying on the bleeding edge. If some things do not work with the new release, that is to be expected. Not everything can be ironed out during the short alpha/beta phase. Not everything is going to magically "just work" on a wide array of hardware.

If you want a really stable system, you should use the LTS releases. If you want certain particular features (ext4 comes to mind, especially on servers, which generally stick to LTS for production.) then wait a while and do a lot of testing before you commit to taking the plunge and clicking the install button.

If you install a new release on release day, and don't play around with the live cd A LOT to make sure most, if not all your hardware works or is easily fixable, then any problems that come up with your specific hardware are kinda your fault.

Remember, Debian has a stable and testing release. Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is the STABLE release, anything else except a new LTS release is basically a TESTING release.
**THINGS MAY NOT WORK THAT REQUIRE GOOGLEING**

For example, I clean installed 9.10 on my laptop (separate /home) and everything worked fine, until i tried to play a youtube video, and noticed the sound didn't work. I should have noticed the sound didn't work with the live cd, but I got lazy and wanted it right then. Lesson learned: take proper steps before you commit to installing and wasting your perfectly functional 9.04 install. (it was an easy fix I had done in earlier versions, took all of 20 seconds to fix.) For some reason it just worked in 9.04, and I don't really want to report or can't remember how I fixed it.

**rant over**
if you read this thank you.

CbrPad

November 3rd, 2009, 01:54 PM

Isnt that actually the purpose of LTS releases ?

Remember, Debian has a stable and testing release. Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is the STABLE release, anything else except a new LTS release is basically a TESTING release.
**THINGS MAY NOT WORK THAT REQUIRE GOOGLEING**

You could say that, but then on the other hand we have this disconnect...

http://www.ubuntu.com/

If we can only expect stability ready-for-use from the LTS then surely that's all that should be readily available on the front page, and everything else should be marked as beta ?

Don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu, but we/Canonical cannot both have our cake and eat it at the same time. I don't know how to get in touch with anyone there, but I would love to hear what they think of these issues (if in fact they're aware of them) and what proposals they may have, as right now I think Karmic may have come to a breaking point for many and a gap has opened in the current modus operandi which cannot easily be reconciled or waved away.

Paqman

November 3rd, 2009, 02:00 PM

From the article:

Canonical and Ubuntu should be worried. Typically, it's the more technical users overall who install Ubuntu - and early adopters tend to be the most technical of the technical.

I disagree with this. It's often the super-keen but inexperienced brigade that jump on the new version, because it's shiny and they're excited. The more savvy users know if they've got the skills or willingness to jump early. If not, they know enough to wait and enjoy a smooth ride later.

The highly techy users who go over early tend to not complain, but to just deal with any roughness. It's the overenthusiastic youths who get themselves into trouble then cry foul.

Viva

November 3rd, 2009, 02:03 PM

This is nothing new, happens with every release. It takes a few weeks of updates to fix all the problems. I don't know how many of you remember, but XP was very unstable until the first service pack.

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 02:05 PM

Nice rant, but upgrading shouldn't break internet connections.

mivo

November 3rd, 2009, 02:07 PM

If you install a new release on release day, and don't play around with the live cd A LOT to make sure most, if not all your hardware works or is easily fixable, then any problems that come up with your specific hardware are kinda your fault.

Consider the audience that Ubuntu heavily tries to target. Then consider that people here and on the Ubuntu main site were and are flooded with "Ubuntu 9.10 is out!!!" banners and links. Nowhere are there warnings or recommendations (other than from users on the forum) to try the Live CD first. The message that Canonical broadcasts is: "Upgrade, upgrade!", and of course, people do so.

If you got burnt a few times, you know better. But as I said, Ubuntu wants to appeal to the "Joe User", to a wide spectrum of people, including casual and average computer users, not just (and perhaps not even primarily) expert users.

whitefort

November 3rd, 2009, 02:08 PM

If we can only expect stability ready-for-use from the LTS then surely that's all that should be readily available on the front page, and everything else should be marked as beta ?

Absolutely. Canonical are directing new users towards Karmic, and so it's by Karmic that Canonical have to be judged.

Usually I hate the outbreak of whining that happens with every new release, but in this case I'm beginning to think there's some justification for it.

Viva

November 3rd, 2009, 02:09 PM

Nice rant, but upgrading shouldn't break internet connections.

Rant? I've done a fresh install and I've had problems with the network manager too, but every release comes out with bugs and takes a few weeks to become stable. We're unfortunate that Karmic came with the network manager bug.

OrangeCrate

November 3rd, 2009, 02:10 PM

I can confirm a lot of loose ends with Karmic, so the articles expressing frustration don't surprise me. Now that the dam has broken, I expect we'll see more.

I've thought for a while now, that the six month release schedule was pretty aggressive, and was designed primarily to keep the devs busy, rather than provide solid releases for the end users.

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of being treated as a perpetual beta tester, and with the release of the next LTS, I plan on moving to a new version of Ubuntu only with the LTS changes.

~sHyLoCk~

November 3rd, 2009, 02:10 PM

This is nothing new, happens with every release. It takes a few weeks of updates to fix all the problems. I don't know how many of you remember, but XP was very unstable until the first service pack.

So you are now comparing a Ubuntu release with XP? It's a sad sad day for Linux users.:o Anyway, I have not seen such disaster due to a new release earlier, sure there were some people unhappy with jaunty and intrepid, but I doubt the number was this huge. I have not done any statistical analysis as some of you will argue back, it's just an educated [obvious] guess.

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 02:14 PM

Rant? I've done a fresh install and I've had problems with the network manager too, but every release comes out with bugs and takes a few weeks to become stable. We're unfortunate that Karmic came with the network manager bug.
That wasn't aimed at you, sorry. I'm on my phone and took a while to reply. Anywho, breaking USB modem support is unacceptable, not unfortunate. Like many other users, I don't have a landline broadband connection.

Viva

November 3rd, 2009, 02:16 PM

So you are now comparing a Ubuntu release with XP? It's a sad sad day for Linux users.:o Anyway, I have not seen such disaster due to a new release earlier, sure there were some people unhappy with jaunty and intrepid, but I doubt the number was this huge. I have not done any statistical analysis as some of you will argue back, it's just an educated [obvious] guess.

Where did I compare Ubuntu with XP? I'm only saying that every OS comes out with bugs. As for the bolded line, I've heard that after every release. Somebody will always say that the particular release is the worst ever, but in a few months, everything settles down. Nostalgia at its best(or worst)

madhi19

November 3rd, 2009, 02:17 PM

Maybe we should just move to an eight months cycle the beta could last two months and the RC could last a full months instead of just a few days!

That way peoples could actually do some bug fix. I did not move to karmic because I just made a clean and stable Jaunty install a few weeks ago and it just too damn stable right now to mess with.

~sHyLoCk~

November 3rd, 2009, 02:24 PM

Where did I compare Ubuntu with XP? I'm only saying that every OS comes out with bugs. As for the bolded line, I've heard that after every release. Somebody will always say that the particular release is the worst ever, but in a few months, everything settles down. Nostalgia at its best(or worst)

Bugs of these proportions?
The only thing though, if ubuntu releases unstable release just to meet their deadlines, it effects the userbase a great deal. We all know majority of ubuntu users are new Linux users,either coming from windows or elsewhere. It is difficult for them to fix an issue effecting their system without the prior knowhow. When they install ubuntu they expect it to work out of the box. Atleast ubuntu did till now. Jaunty had a few problems but they were quickly fixed. I don't understand the testing karmic must have gone through, to be honest I only ran it in vbox without any problems but clearly it's not working for a lot of users. Prioritize stability and not release cycle, If you are gonna suggest "use LTS for stability" and any other release for fooling around for the heck of it, then put that in bold in Ubuntu homepage and download page.

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 02:24 PM

madhi19

November 3rd, 2009, 02:33 PM

Ubuntu would be too out-of-sync with GNOME if they switched to that kind of cycle.
To hell with being in sync with Gnome! The Ubuntu community is the largest crowd of Gnome users around so I say let the Gnome project sync with us if they want to not the other way around! We could use a longer beta and we could really use a real RC period so let get it done.

3rdalbum

November 3rd, 2009, 02:33 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't see these massive problems with Karmic. 3G modems are not "almost totally broken" - they are not as reliable as they used to be, but there is a fix in the pipeline (it's an upstream regression in the kernel). A couple of DAAP and DNLA packages don't work - annoying, but not a massive problem.

A lot of problems seem to be caused by:

1. People not realising that kernel updates will break any third-party drivers that haven't been added to DKMS
2. People ripping out Pulseaudio and then complaining that their volume control doesn't work or that they have no sound
3. People with lots of PPAs trying to dist-upgrade and having the PPA packages conflicting with the Karmic ones
4. People trying to do an in-place upgrade of their filesystem to Ext4 - which I think is just asking for trouble

(obviously, not anywhere near all of the problems are caused by these).

I'm running Karmic on three machines, and the only problems I currently have are the ones I just mentioned (3G and DAAP/DNLA). Even my Walkmans are mounting, which is more than I can say for Jaunty - although I'm sure they'll be broken again when I dist-upgrade to Lucid in April :-)

The headline of The Register is not correct. It's not the "Early adopters" who have been "bloodied". The early adopters were running the alphas or beta and reported all the bugs that they found, and got them fixed, and are now having a wonderful time. It's the late adopters (who never helped test) who are running into troubles; problems that nobody anticipated because they were not reported!

CbrPad

November 3rd, 2009, 02:40 PM

Ubuntu would be too out-of-sync with GNOME if they switched to that kind of cycle.

If for technical reasons that's fair enough, but I would then be asking where's the 'humanity' in that, i.e. is Ubuntu for the people first, or has that been superceded by technical/corporate requirements ?

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq
What does "Ubuntu" mean?

Ubuntu is an African word, which has been described as "too beautiful to translate into English". The essence of Ubuntu is that "a person is a person through other people". It describes humanity as "being-with-others" and prescribes what "being-with-others" should be all about. Ubuntu emphasises sharing, consensus, and togetherness.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29

'Ubuntu' - an ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other.

mivo

November 3rd, 2009, 02:41 PM

To hell with being in sync with Gnome! The Ubuntu community is the largest crowd of Gnome users around so I say let the Gnome project sync with us if they want to not the other way around!

Except that the Ubunutu community and Canonical are far from being the top contributors to Gnome. You really overestimate the contributions (code-wise) of Canonical/Ubuntu to the Linux community. They take more than they give. So, good luck trying to strong-arm the Gnome project. They'll give you the finger.

hellmet

November 3rd, 2009, 02:42 PM

Are you suggesting we cover up the issues that people have? That we pretend everything is dandy, for the purpose of getting good press?

This is not a wake up call for the community. This should be a wake up call for Canonical. The distro upgrade has not been reliable for years now, to a point where by now most people just suggest to reinstall instead of upgrading. Old bugs are not fixed, new bugs are introduced by constant new additions and changes. The tower gets taller and taller, but the foundation crumbles in some places, and it isn't stable enough to continue to be able to carry all the new floors that are added all the time.

What Ubuntu needs is a consolidation release where nothing new is added and only existing bugs, problems, issues and weaknesses are tended to.

I do feel that the upgrade mechanism "sucks", and I have said so for quite a while now. And looking at the numerous help requests and "doesn't work" posts, which in my subjective observation exceed anything previous versions have seen, it certainly seems that 9.10 was rushed, because "we must stick to our 6-months cycle, no matter what". If the bad press is a result of this, then that is self-inflicted. Maybe that's what it takes to achieve improvement and change.
Well said. While I truly appreciate upgrading to the bleeding edge software, I'd rather like to see Ubuntu release more stable releases every year. LTS could still continue every two years. Much more time to fix bugs, and more features that can be included. That's just my opinion, anyway.

ubuntu-freak

November 3rd, 2009, 02:44 PM

Well, USB broadband modems are broken for me. I've already posted the details.

Islington

November 3rd, 2009, 02:49 PM

Sorry but I stopped trusting the distribution updates since Dapper. The version before dapper my wireless card ran perfectly. It even used the connection to do the upgrade, but upon completion it could no longer recognize the card. This enraged me so much I got out of linux for a month or so. Since then I do not trust updates, not in windows, not in linux.

Swagman

November 3rd, 2009, 02:52 PM

My own experiences with 9:10

A few weeks ago I upgraded my mates laptop (asus A4) from 9:04 to 9:10 RC because he just bought a 3 dongle which, although it saw it, we couldn't connect. Now this might have been because I let the bloke in the Carphone Warehouse take the reins as he said it installed under WINE.

The GUI popped up but it still didn't work.

Anyway.. Took it home and uninstalled it from wine and googled. After X amount of pages someone said that 9:10 cures it.

So.... we upgraded. Went well until reboot time. Then it froze. Hit the recovery console and rescanned.

Bingo.

Sound was set at zero.. Trackpad double click disabled. Both easily fixed.

Worked a treat ever since.

************************************************** ************************

Rose's Desktop. (Last Saturday)

Her son had upgraded his entire computer (Minus case) so gave his old gubbins to his mum ( MSI K9 Athlon XP5000, Nvidia GTX8800, 4 gigs of ram... Better than the machine I use !!). They bought a new 250gb sata drive for it but were running machine on his old ide drive. ( dual boot - XP & Hardy Heron).

Disconnected IDE drive and started XP install.

They only had a UNkosher version of XP SP1 which means I had to find a floppy drive and jury rig it to get the sata drivers installed.

Much faffing about, about an hour later its installed. Avast & her Canon Multi Function Printer installed. It's only going to be used if she finds she just can't do something in ubuntu.

Ubuntu install

Sweet as.

Picked up XP install and imported stuff (I had copied her pix etc to my pendrive & copied them back).

Reboot..... BerL000000dy hell ext4 is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast. Hate the login screen though.

sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted extras

sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread4/install-css.sh

restricted graphics drivers 185 (nVidia) enabled.

Switch printer on

"Found new printer, downloading driver"

select model

Print test page

Success

She sez " Oh my god you didn't even use the cd" (Canon driver disk)

Happy punters !!

madhi19

November 3rd, 2009, 02:53 PM

Except that the Ubunutu community and Canonical are far from being the top contributors to Gnome. You really overestimate the contributions (code-wise) of Canonical/Ubuntu to the Linux community. They take more than they give. So, good luck trying to strong-arm the Gnome project. They'll give you the finger.

Well that another problem need fixing and probably another discussion altogether. Like I say I don't care about being out of sync with gnome in fact it may well do us good not to use the latest big gnome release until after a few months so they can do some bug fix on it.

CbrPad

November 3rd, 2009, 03:05 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't see these massive problems with Karmic. 3G modems are not "almost totally broken" - they are not as reliable as they used to be, but there is a fix in the pipeline (it's an upstream regression in the kernel).

Eh, are you serious, not as reliable ?? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/446146?comments=all

E.g. a new user with a Huawei E220 installs Karmic. Networking is gone, completely. That's it, it's not unreliable, it's gone, end of. How do you expect any new user without any great technical experience to find any info on a fix and manage to download that fix, without a working internet connection ? There's no point in trying to downplay this any, for that user it's a complete and utter disaster.

The early adopters were running the alphas or beta and reported all the bugs that they found, and got them fixed, and are now having a wonderful time. It's the late adopters (who never helped test) who are running into troubles; problems that nobody anticipated because they were not reported!

Check out the launchpad bug. That was reported, there are many, many requests there that it be fixed BEFORE final release, and that the release should be held off. These requests were ignored as no fix was released and these users are NOT having a wonderful time.

I've actually left Ubuntu because of this, I'm now running another o/s for the first time in five years. But yet I'm still here trying to raise a bit of consciousness that things aren't working because I care about Ubuntu - I realise it's not perfect but at least I'm not in denial, trying to downplay serious issues like these is both an insult to people and, I believe, to the original Ubuntu philosophy.

jward3010

November 3rd, 2009, 04:18 PM

Eh, are you serious, not as reliable ?? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/446146?comments=all

E.g. a new user with a Huawei E220 installs Karmic. Networking is gone, completely. That's it, it's not unreliable, it's gone, end of. How do you expect any new user without any great technical experience to find any info on a fix and manage to download that fix, without a working internet connection ? There's no point in trying to downplay this any, for that user it's a complete and utter disaster.
Keep something in mind, the workings of Huawei modems and more broadly all GSM, HSDPA modems is a very tough area for Linux. I read an article not so long ago about a new 3G modem that was released. A small linux group wanted to work on drivers for it and asked for technical information from the manufacturer - they we're told they could get a Software Development Kit for $25,000.

Thats what we have to face all the time. Apart from that those developers simply pump through guessed commands to see what works and what doesn't, if something somewhat workable comes through it might be released.

I realise it's not perfect but at least I'm not in denial,
Neither is anyone else (unless you're talking about that person at the beginning of this post). Ubuntu is not a commercial OS, it's never claimed to be perfect, in fact a constantly ongoing work in progress.

It doesn't get constant help and development from other business partners making hardware for it, fixing bugs with enormous amounts of money, writing and developing drivers solely for it over anything else. It ain't easy developing in the Linux world and the standard of Ubuntu is the pure testament to how much work has gone in over the years. It's funny there's such a dislike of Karmic, I'm getting on fine with mine, absolutely no problems - in fact really glad I have it. I dual-boot with Windows 7 and 7 yesterday gave up on the mousepad, no longer works. It works in Karmic.

jward3010

November 3rd, 2009, 04:23 PM

I agree completely Swagman, installing Ubuntu is the fastest thing I've ever done in my life. It laughs in Windows systems faces in regards that. It takes the guts of an entire day of hard work to get an XP, Vista, 7 system running the way you want.

With Ubuntu - 45 minutes from beginning of install to last app installed.

jeyaganesh

November 3rd, 2009, 04:37 PM

When a system grows, responsiblities also grow higher. In each upgrade people had some problems like network adapter, etc. Because of the ever growing popularity of the Ubuntu, this time the problem looks bigger.

Media used to cover only about Windows and Mac before. Now they have a third front - Ubuntu. This indicates the positive growth of Ubuntu.

Since I got MBP, I havent used the previous version of Ubuntu. Two days back I made an USB start up disk. I was really amazed about the improvement of Ubuntu. Installation process was stunning. I feel Ubuntu will easily surpass the desktop marketing share of Mac OS in few years.

Simian Man

November 3rd, 2009, 04:45 PM

The glaring problem is that people have upgraded, and not done a full install. Only time I ever tried to upgrade was from 8.04 to 8.10, it failed and broke my installation. Have been doing full installs since then, without any problems.

B

Surprisingly, if you look at the poll, people who upgraded seem to have had better experiences than those who went with a fresh install! Though perhaps this is caused by the fact that with an upgrade, your computer must be fairly Linux compatible since it had Linux working previously.

I guess if you want more press coverage you have to actually make sure your product is good :).

betrunkenaffe

November 3rd, 2009, 05:12 PM

Or maybe 1350 people bothered to read the thread and most users ignored it...

I know I did. Voted now. Upgrade->Flawless. I fresh installed Beta though and upgraded through it.

On Jaunty: Could not use, would randomly lock up entire machine and crash. Some update did that, went back to intrepid because that didn't have a horribly broken update in it. So ya, Karmic is fantastic in comparison.

Methuselah

November 3rd, 2009, 05:51 PM

Proprietary graphic drivers = bad news.
People are held hostage to these guys more than they realize.

mivo

November 3rd, 2009, 05:59 PM

Proprietary graphic drivers = bad news.
People are held hostage to these guys more than they realize.

There is little choice as long as there are no real open source alternatives. By "real" I mean alternatives that come even remotely close to the proprietary drivers. I didn't buy a $400 video card to get the performance I had ten years ago on a then-current model under Windows.

NJC

November 3rd, 2009, 06:26 PM

Ignore please.

CbrPad

November 3rd, 2009, 06:38 PM

Keep something in mind, the workings of Huawei modems and more broadly all GSM, HSDPA modems is a very tough area for Linux. Thats what we have to face all the time. Apart from that those developers simply pump through guessed commands to see what works and what doesn't, if something somewhat workable comes through it might be released.

Neither is anyone else (unless you're talking about that person at the beginning of this post). Ubuntu is not a commercial OS, it's never claimed to be perfect, in fact a constantly ongoing work in progress.

Hi, yes I fully understand and accept these limitations, I gave up on Windows and the expcection of support over eight years ago (not that Windows or any o/s is flawless either!). However, drivers aren't quite the issue here, but the release process is.

These modems have been working perfectly fine for at least a year, and were working for most of the way through Karmic, then a relatively late kernel update broke them. Testing worked, i.e. this was noticed, bugs were filed, notes were made as to how important this was, and so forth, but yet Karmic was released regardless.

Basically the issue doesn't seem to have been escalated, nor was there anything placed in the release notes to warn users about this.
It's been a while since I've worked in development, but this bug should have been caught by the process. And if it was noticed but it was decided to press on regardless, without even notification in the release notes, I would very much like to hear an explanation as to why this was the case because so far I've heard diddley.

papangul

November 3rd, 2009, 06:47 PM

If you want a really stable system, you should use the LTS releases.

People would do that if non-LTS release are marked officially as 'unstable or 'testing' by Canonical.

the.scarecrow

November 3rd, 2009, 07:12 PM

A quick question

I have downloaded and made my Live CD, tested it for errors and had a few live CD sessions finding no problems with it on my Laptop so far.

Currently I use Jaunty and normally do a fresh install a few weeks after the launch of new versions. My question is, are bug fixes incorporated into the new release? So, if you download the ISO file on day one of release, will it be exactly the same file if you download another copy 4 weeks later or will all the bug fixes be incorporated in the later download?

I think that LTS versions are ideal for those that want minimum hassle and Ubuntu should not be judged by release problems with interim releases so the Reg article is based on their not understanding or miss-representing the point of Karmic.

BackwardsDown

November 3rd, 2009, 07:28 PM

Currently I use Jaunty and normally do a fresh install a few weeks after the launch of new versions. My question is, are bug fixes incorporated into the new release? So, if you download the ISO file on day one of release, will it be exactly the same file if you download another copy 4 weeks later or will all the bug fixes be incorporated in the later download?

There are 'point' releases like 8.04.2 and 8.04.3. But I think they only do that for LTS releases.

BuffaloX

November 3rd, 2009, 07:42 PM

Maybe Ubuntu should release 9.10 2nd edition in 1 - 3 months.

So a more trouble free install option was available.
If you are non tech user or don't like to fix issues, wait for the 2nd edition.
Many want a safer option, LTS is cool, but only if you don't mind using really old stuff after a while.

Ubuntu has released upgraded install CDs with a .1 added to version number, but maybe this should be scheduled and advertised and given a cooler name.

This would also give Ubuntu a chance to be mentioned again when 2nd edition is released, and improve Ubuntus image for making a safer yet up to date version.

Crunchy the Headcrab

November 3rd, 2009, 07:47 PM

Seems to me like the best solution to the upgrade problem is to have a seperate /home partition. This way you do a fresh install and all your data stays with you. Then you just have to install the programs again (hopefully most of them coming from the repositories), making it fairly easy.

The current distribution upgrade needs to die. It's worthless.

BackwardsDown

November 3rd, 2009, 07:50 PM

Ubuntu has released upgraded install CDs with a .1 added to version number, but maybe this should be scheduled and advertised and given a cooler name.

This would also give Ubuntu a chance to be mentioned again when 2nd edition is released, and improve Ubuntus image for making a safer yet up to date version.

Those are mostly securityfixes.

You don't want to bork around much with the kernel and drivers of an existing release. Because the chance is that you fix it for 10 people, you'll break it for another one. So I'm against fixing hardware issues (unless its a bug that can be solved in a reasonable time) on already released versions. We should focus on 10.04 to make it the best version ever.

Btw Karmic works perfect for me :p (just want to say a positive thing about karmic, because there are a lot of people that do like it)

Pasdar

November 3rd, 2009, 07:54 PM

Pasdar

November 3rd, 2009, 07:56 PM

I think: Canonical pushed through a lot of changes because the next release is LTS and they want it fully tested. Ubuntu 9.10 is the VISTA of canonical and Ubuntu 10.04 will be the win7 of Canonical... i think they are going to change minimal to nothing in the upcoming release and fix many things... maybe now they will also change the design...

PS: i'd like to add that its not just the upgrade... I upgraded and it had problems, but I fresh installed and it had 10 times more problems than the upgrade...

mahy

November 3rd, 2009, 08:16 PM

I wonder how many people actually tried the RC before installing the final 9.10? If more people tried the RC and then reported bugs, maybe the final would be a bit smoother?

I tried the Alpha 5, the problematic laptop hotkeys in my Toshiba A300 worked, but in the final release they don't! I don't have any other explanation, except for the obvious conclusion, that someone in Canonical clearly isn't up to their job. If you can produce any other explanation, I'll love to see it.

redbook4574

November 3rd, 2009, 09:44 PM

Eh, are you serious, not as reliable ?? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/446146?comments=all

E.g. a new user with a Huawei E220 installs Karmic. Networking is gone, completely. That's it, it's not unreliable, it's gone, end of. How do you expect any new user without any great technical experience to find any info on a fix and manage to download that fix, without a working internet connection ? There's no point in trying to downplay this any, for that user it's a complete and utter disaster.

Check out the launchpad bug. That was reported, there are many, many requests there that it be fixed BEFORE final release, and that the release should be held off. These requests were ignored as no fix was released and these users are NOT having a wonderful time.

I've actually left Ubuntu because of this, I'm now running another o/s for the first time in five years. But yet I'm still here trying to raise a bit of consciousness that things aren't working because I care about Ubuntu - I realise it's not perfect but at least I'm not in denial, trying to downplay serious issues like these is both an insult to people and, I believe, to the original Ubuntu philosophy.

I completely agree, I moved from suse to ubuntu about 2 years ago (after 11.0) and loved the experience. Now after 9.10 (I need mobile broadband). I decided to give suse another go, 11.2 rc2. guess wot I have mobile. I have a KDE4 desktop which boots in 40 secs on a netbook and I'm a happy bunny. I still have ubuntu on my desktop but I must admit I am leaning towards returning to suse altogether.

SunnyRabbiera

November 3rd, 2009, 10:42 PM

The part that gets me is that they seem to praise how great win7 was to upgrade to when it too had difficulties, what about the endless reboots people reported with win7?

uberdonkey5

November 3rd, 2009, 10:52 PM

yeh.. face it software development sucks!!!

Maybe we need more people doing beta testing.. and also I agree that ubuntu should not be updated every 6 months. Why? A top priority for users is STABILITY and FUNCTIONALITY. People would go for simpler systems if they know everything will work.

Unfortunately, myself included, we get caught in a trap of thinking..'the next version will solve all the bugs' whereas in reality it creates even more and different bugs! Only extra thing I wanted out of Koala is ext4.

And as for promoting Ubuntu.. we have freedom, as in freedom of speech as well. If its rubbish, its rubbish. Development and competition is difficult now, but the number of people who have retained XP (and Dapper!) should show that people want things to WORK properly, before getting extra gadgets.

Zoot7

November 3rd, 2009, 10:58 PM

The part that gets me is that they seem to praise how great win7 was to upgrade to when it too had difficulties, what about the endless reboots people reported with win7?
+1 I can't understand that either, with some places it's like Microsoft can do no wrong, despite being the direct source off a lot of the IT industry's problems today... :confused:

True, Karmic has problems, it's been fine for me, but I won't deny people have had problems with clean installs and upgrades.
I do love Ubuntu, but I won't pretend for a second that's it's ready for mass adoption until 3-5 weeks after a release. I'd also love to see some sort of warning pop up when the "Upgrade" option is selected.

murderslastcrow

November 3rd, 2009, 11:06 PM

Many of these issues are overexaggerated and uncommon. But I do think that, with Lucid Lynx, Ubuntu should start making sure everything is stable and easy to upgrade, even on non-LTS releases.

I think Karmic's benefits are being drown out in the white noise when it really is a great release, and with much fewer issues than the Jaunty upgrade (in my experience, it has only improved these computers).

issih

November 3rd, 2009, 11:22 PM

bonfire89

November 3rd, 2009, 11:40 PM

I think I will always do a full install. Getting all the apps back is so easy and fast, who cares.

Fresh, formatted computer every 6 months for me. (at minimum, I'll probably break the install a few times during the 6 months)

OrangeCrate

November 4th, 2009, 12:00 AM

Anyone who has been through more than one cycle of ubuntu releases will know that these issues crop up every single time...

Until the number of beta testers rivals the number of installed users then these kind of problems will absolutely always appear - I'm afraid this is not an especially bad release, its exactly what I expected to happen, and frankly so should all of you...sorry, but that is just the reality of it.

The numbers on the polls are almost exactly the same as for the last few releases, its just the way that these things go. Same goes for windows and mac, both of which have had their share of install complaints/issues recently.

As for the article, this is what reporters do in the modern age. Find a non story, misrepresent the facts and spin it to create drama....it's easier and cheaper than real investigation. That being said, I am slightly disappointed to see it from el reg, who generally I respect.

Now, where did I leave my cynic flakes?

If a person has low expectations, I guess, that they're easily satisfied.

Frankly, I would expect that Canonical is quietly, and privately, turning back-flips over the bad press that Karma has received. To the publicly stated business plan for Canonical, this is hardly a good thing that has happened.

But hey, apparently, if we accept your line of thinking, we should expect, and accept mediocre work, as norm. It may be O.K. for you, but, though I respect your opinion, I don't buy that philosophy one bit.

addtoqueue

November 4th, 2009, 12:08 AM

Slashdot also took notes:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/11/03/2211231/Some-Early-Adopters-Stung-By-Ubuntus-Karmic-Koala

I completely agree, I moved from suse to ubuntu about 2 years ago (after 11.0) and loved the experience. Now after 9.10 (I need mobile broadband). I decided to give suse another go, 11.2 rc2. guess wot I have mobile. I have a KDE4 desktop which boots in 40 secs on a netbook and I'm a happy bunny. I still have ubuntu on my desktop but I must admit I am leaning towards returning to suse altogether.

Same here. Right now I'm debating between installing Fedora 12 or OpenSuse 11.2 over the Ubuntu partition when they become available.

Sealbhach

November 4th, 2009, 12:13 AM

I've been looking at the carnage in the Installation and Upgrade Forum, there seems to be two main problems:

Grub 2
Graphics

Thing is I know hardly anything about Grub 2, and the Xorg setup seems to different too, so even if many of us wanted to help people, we wouldn't know how.

.

JayKay3000

November 4th, 2009, 12:19 AM

I got zero probs, had to revert to old nvidia driver but i think a fresh install might fix it as the nvidia controll panel is just auto adjusting the colour to blue or something, prob something corrupt.

But overall the upgrade went fine.

The only prob I have is tiscali speedtoutch modem but I gave up trying to get the modem to work through all the tuts so networked this pc with my laptop, plugged the modem in the windows laptop and am connecting through the router, through the laptop to the interwebs.

Nice big 16 port switch works fine, stupid crummy plastic modem not. ho hum. Like I said. Only a few probs :D

I think i will try a fresh install when I have a bit more time. See if that fixes the nvidia control panel problem (yes I did re-install it)

issih

November 4th, 2009, 12:24 AM

If a person has low expectations, I guess, that they're easily satisfied.

Frankly, I would expect that Canonical is quietly, and privately, turning back-flips over the bad press that Karma has received. To the publicly stated business plan for Canonical, this is hardly a good thing that has happened.

But hey, apparently, if we accept your line of thinking, we should expect, and accept mediocre work, as norm. It may be O.K. for you, but, though I respect your opinion, I don't buy that philosophy one bit.

Nope, you should accept that nothing on earth can produce 100% reliable software on every random combination of hardware without being able to test it on every single one of those almost limitless combinations.

You should look back and realise that this is no different to the storms of protest when jaunty was released, when hardy was released and so on...it is just in the nature of any software release, and has nothing to do with the quality of the work being done.

It might be helpful if you took the time to understand the skewing effects on statistical analysis caused by hosting a poll in a help forum, and the self selecting nature of the participants in any such poll. A gist of how very lazy journalism that consists of little more than repeating the stories that popped up on your competitors site helps propagate and exaggerate these kind of stories would be good too - (for this I recommend reading the bad science website).

You should also realise that software that isn't released until the bugs are gone is NEVER released. The thing has to leave the door whilst it is still relevant to the market, if you are happy with something less than that there are myriad incredibly stable options available, not least running an LTS version of ubuntu.

Its nothing to do with accepting mediocre work, its to do with understanding the processes that bring these things to life, and the inherent limitations that exist within those processes. Is it sad that people are having issues? yes, is it inevitable? I'm afraid so..

As I said, this is a non-event, sorry if you don't like that.

wulfgang

November 4th, 2009, 01:03 AM

I do not see the need for two upgrades/releases a year. There are plenty of bugs to deal with now, even in 8.10.

Roasted

November 4th, 2009, 06:33 AM

This is true, maybe they should only let you upgrade after clicking on a a message, that goes something like "This upgrade may break your system".

Although, before Karmic Final was released, I saw a number of posts saying that you should rather do a full install, than upgrade.

B

I always, always, always do full installations of Ubuntu. But this time around, Karmic still introduced a couple problems to the mix. For example, Jaunty can recognize all 4 of my hard drives, yet Karmic only recognizes 2, and thinks the other 2 are raid when they are NOT. Meanwhile, if I install Karmic and add the other 2 drives to fstab to auto-mount, they all error out.

The fact of the matter is - Karmic has problems. I love Ubuntu, I think it's great what the developers do, but I'm taking a back seat on this one and staying with 9.04 till the next LTS comes out. I just think it's important to note that there are people (me) who have done fresh installations and still had weird things happen.

bigbrovar

November 4th, 2009, 07:04 AM

Am feeling like a prophet already. It didn't even take long http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8197074#post8197074 :D

SirBismuth

November 4th, 2009, 07:29 AM

I always, always, always do full installations of Ubuntu. But this time around, Karmic still introduced a couple problems to the mix. For example, Jaunty can recognize all 4 of my hard drives, yet Karmic only recognizes 2, and thinks the other 2 are raid when they are NOT. Meanwhile, if I install Karmic and add the other 2 drives to fstab to auto-mount, they all error out.

The fact of the matter is - Karmic has problems. I love Ubuntu, I think it's great what the developers do, but I'm taking a back seat on this one and staying with 9.04 till the next LTS comes out. I just think it's important to note that there are people (me) who have done fresh installations and still had weird things happen.

I don't deny that Karmic has issues, but most of this has been when upgrading and not a full install. Also, Karmic was only released last week, I would be worried if there weren't any bugs.

The issue with multiple hard drives seems to be a common problem, it seems. I have never installed Ubuntu on multiple-hard-drive-systems, so I can't comment on that.

B

SouthOfHell

November 4th, 2009, 07:37 AM

I'm thinking of downgrading myself, since installing 9.10 (fresh install) several of my favourite games refuse to budge, pretty disappointed.

danebramaged

November 4th, 2009, 08:17 AM

Yes, it is true that the "internet effect" makes for a far more extensive testing and debugging development lab than any single corporation could ever afford and, yes it is true that we all end up being beta testers as a result of this unique experiment which started so long ago...

However; we should no longer be in beta. These are not early days. This is supposed to be a very mature release version 9.10 and, it's not. Problems with backward compatibility with hardware that should not have been in 9.04 to begin with were left unresolved.

Issues regarding ext4 in 9.04 should have been resolved prior to its release. When it was released maybe the version number would have been something like 9.06 or 9.07. And maybe it wouldn't have gotten released until summer, but it is pointless to simply assign arbitrary release versions twice a year that have no bearing on where the project is actually at.

Let Microsoft sell release version 6.1 and call it Windows 7. I don't much care. What I mind is the adoption of Microsoft like attitudes from the unix community, buggy bloated software and all.

In the end, whether I am using Mandriva 2010 or Ubuntu or Sabayon or whatever, I will still be looking at either gnome or kde. The bottom line is that whichever distro does the best job of detecting my hardware gets my vote. 8.04 and 8.10 worked for me. 9.04 and 9.10 do not because they are not backward compatible with my hardware. In other words, that which worked and should have continued to do so, no longer does but should have.

9.04 broke code that used to work and 9.10 is no different. I can solve the problem by buying new hardware however, I choose to be as environmentally conscientious as I possibly can, and so I take a great deal of pride in using "Windows Computers" that other people have thrown away.

I may install 9.10 on one laptop and get great results or not, but it is still hit or miss and quite honestly, that is the real achilles heal of linux in general. But only when newer hardware is encountered, not when older hardware is encountered. Until Jaunty Jackalope/Karmic Koala. So, it seems to me like creating a black list of hardware as long as my arm that Ubuntu won't run on just isn't getting the job done.

Of course, it's not like this holy grail of getting "Linux on the Desktop" hasn't already been accomplished. OS X was built on top of BSD and, Snow Leopard works quite well because of how it's tied to the hardware. What we really need is more open hardware. (Like that will ever happen...)

Anyway, I would say that at this stage of the game, there is no excuse for Ubuntu to come across as such a buggy and permanently immature beta release.

Jekshadow

November 4th, 2009, 08:23 AM

I think that Ubuntu moves too fast, and that is the cause of many problems. Debian has a 1.5 year release cycle, OpenBSD 1 year, Slackware 1 year and so on. If Ubuntu moved to a 9 month release cycle, 6 months for features, 3 months for making sure everything works, it would function better and get much better reviews.

Zoot7

November 4th, 2009, 09:27 AM

Pasdar

November 4th, 2009, 09:51 AM

CbrPad

November 4th, 2009, 10:06 AM

They will not just change the release cycle until they're forced by other developers, so they can together agree to a new cycle.

However don't get your hopes up... Shuttleworth has been propagating six month cycle to the whole scene for the past 10 years... I think he would consider it loss of face on his part if he just changed that...

Hmmm, well I would hope he has a little more humility than that. There's nothing worse than having a giant ego at the helm who steamrollers over all suggestions no matter how valid and helpful that they may be.
I'm not saying the six month cycle should be thrown right out but I do think another look should be taken at it, and that the very idea of doing so should not be immediately discarded simply for 'saving face'. Having a rigid mindset in a fast changing technological landscape is not a good thing.

Pasdar

November 4th, 2009, 10:13 AM

Hmmm, well I would hope he has a little more humility than that. There's nothing worse than having a giant ego at the helm who steamrollers over all suggestions no matter how valid and helpful that they may be.
I'm not saying the six month cycle should be thrown right out but I do think another look should be taken at it, and that the very idea of doing so should not be immediately discarded simply for 'saving face'. Having a rigid mindset in a fast changing technological landscape is not a good thing.

Just imagine, you have been propagating something for so long that everyone knows you for it... you've convinced so many developers, teams projects to follow the same timeline... then suddenly you backtrack... saying it was wrong all along... most people would not do that... There is only one way to do this without loss of face and that is if multiple important projects can agree to a new release cycle (e.g. 9 months)...

This short cycle also makes it difficult for manufacturers if they want to embed it in their laptops, etc...

Most people don't or notice the main changed components anyway (e.g. kernel upgrade, etc)... Maybe its best for Ubuntu to have a longer release cycle, BUT open updates of general software to latest version... (e.g. updating to latest open office when it gets released)...

graabein

November 4th, 2009, 10:17 AM

CbrPad

November 4th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Just imagine, you have been propagating something for so long that everyone knows you for it... you've convinced so many developers, teams projects to follow the same timeline... then suddenly you backtrack... saying it was wrong all along... most people would not do that... There is only one way to do this without loss of face and that is if multiple important projects can agree to a new release cycle (e.g. 9 months)...

This short cycle also makes it difficult for manufacturers if they want to embed it in their laptops, etc...

Most people don't or notice the main changed components anyway (e.g. kernel upgrade, etc)... Maybe its best for Ubuntu to have a longer release cycle, BUT open updates of general software to latest version... (e.g. updating to latest open office when it gets released)...

All very true, but I'll always have a helluva lot more respect for somebody who is willing to look at things and change. That doesn't necessarily imply that things were wrong in the past or that it was the wrong way to go, it would simply be a recognition that circumstances have changed.

There will always be an ignorant few who will try to use change as an opportunity to scoff and score points, but these people aren't worthy of much consideration let alone contempt. If there are genuine reasons for change then I think that the vast majority would recognise this and be more than willing to go ahead with it.

On the other hand sticking with a failing model just because of 'face' is the action of a coward. But I don't know enough about the background and workings of the six month cycle to give any input, for all I know it's working fine. After all, no o/s is perfect and there will always be failures and incompatible h/w etc.

I've personally had to leave Ubuntu because a regression has caused my system to lose serious functionality (my network connection is gone), but I'm sure this will be sorted and I hope to be back. However, in this case the regression was found, the bug reported and completely ignored and Karmic released.

The question being, was this a flaw in the bug cycle process meaning it wasn't really noticed and escalated properly, were the thousands of users of these modems not considered important enough to warrant consideration, or was Karmic released anyway simply because of the 6-month cycle, or was it a combination of all of these ?

gn2

November 4th, 2009, 12:26 PM

Have a look at the numbers in the poll referenced in the El Reg article.

700(ish) people having serious problems from a userbase of millions?

Pretty insignificant if you ask me.

jocheem67

November 4th, 2009, 12:34 PM

Still, that proves that Ubuntu has a long road to haul before installing even this popular Linux distro is the no-brainer that helps makes Windows the success it is among regular PC users.

Is from the article. And without wanting to bash/start a comparison here, but installing any OS is definitely not a no-brainer. One has to know a bit about computers...
I agree that if ubuntu is aiming towards the casual user, that then the casual user should be able to install this OS. However I also know that this is virtually impossible.
If and when the big players start to support Linux more and more, then the driver-issue will become less and less a hassle, and already a lot of probs will be gone.
In the meantime..issues will remain.

Pasdar

November 4th, 2009, 12:42 PM

Is from the article. And without wanting to bash/start a comparison here, but installing any OS is definitely not a no-brainer. One has to know a bit about computers...
I agree that if ubuntu is aiming towards the casual user, that then the casual user should be able to install this OS. However I also know that this is virtually impossible.
If and when the big players start to support Linux more and more, then the driver-issue will become less and less a hassle, and already a lot of probs will be gone.
In the meantime..issues will remain.
Wubi needs to have an option for people with little to no knowledge about computer stuff. A Wubi easy, or Weasy... only give them the choice to enter name and password... the program should should choose and do everything else on chosen defaults...

the partition part is even considered "difficult" by many of those who claim they know something about computers... :roll:

ubuntu-freak

November 4th, 2009, 01:20 PM

Have a look at the numbers in the poll referenced in the El Reg article.

700(ish) people having serious problems from a userbase of millions?

Pretty insignificant if you ask me.
That's a bit of a silly comment if you ask me. I don't take part in every available poll when I have a major problem. I doubt new users who can't connect with their USB stick modems are frantically searching for polls to take part in either.

t0p

November 4th, 2009, 01:53 PM

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks. Remember the damage word of mouth did to vista?

Both the Reg and the Telegraph link to this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1305924) poll as evidence of the disaster that is karmic.

Lets not give the popular press sticks to beat ourselves with now, eh? They're hardly likely to point out that every release is met with howls of "I wish I'd stayed with the last release". Hell, all the people who wish they'd stayed with 9:04 because it worked perfectly also wished they'd stayed with 8:10 because it worked perfectly, as did 8:04...

So are you suggesting that we keep quiet if we're dissatisfied? That we post about only the good things? That if something stinks, we quietly pinch our nostrils and carry on regardless?

papangul

November 4th, 2009, 02:01 PM

But I don't know enough about the background and workings of the six month cycle to give any input, for all I know it's working fine.
At least from Kubuntu there is a public admission that it's not working fine, I am quoting from the 'Project Timelord' anouncement made recently:

At the moment we really can't provide total support for 4 releases all at once. For example the non-security SRU rate for Intrepid is abysmal, with Jaunty only gaining fixes for the most critical of issues it was released with. Once we come up with something concrete, we should write it down.

Only the rolling release distros appear to be at ease with the 6 month cycle.

Here is the 'Project Timelord' announcement:
http://www.kubuntu.org/news/timelord

NCLI

November 4th, 2009, 02:20 PM

"Sigh"

Karmic is not an especially problematic release! (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t0XWfWgqJpYxCGAZ1G8U-og&output=html)<-Link
Actually, if we go by the poll I used (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1305924) for the spreadsheet, Karmic and Jaunty are the most stable releases of Ubuntu since Gutsy!(When the poll was first started.)

This happens every single time a new version of Ubuntu is released. The releases are not deteriorating, if anything, they're improving.

ubuntu-freak

November 4th, 2009, 02:38 PM

NCLI

November 4th, 2009, 02:48 PM

Yes, I agree that Ubuntu is steadily improving on each successive release, but any upgrade which kills internet connections is serious IMO. I can live with other less serious bugs for a while.

True, but if you read the bug report, you'll see that several patches were submitted, but none completely solved the problem, and, in the end, it was recommended that all problems should be reported to the Linux Kernel guys, since the problem seems to come from there.

Anyway, I do agree that Karmic should have been postponed, and it probably would have been had the next release not been an LTS.

mivo

November 4th, 2009, 03:01 PM

Yes, it is the worst release that I have experienced, from Dapper to now. The poll is meaningless since people who lost the ability to connect to the net can't participate, and people who are busy fixing their system also have better things to do than to vote in a poll. People who do not have problems have time for that. :) Just look at the sheer number of problem reports in the support sections. Or look at the bug reports. That would give you a better picture than a poll.

Simian Man

November 4th, 2009, 03:25 PM

Have a look at the numbers in the poll referenced in the El Reg article.

700(ish) people having serious problems from a userbase of millions?

Pretty insignificant if you ask me.

That poll is just a sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_%28statistics%29). You could argue that it's not representative, but I think if anything it would make the results look better for Ubuntu since people on this forum are probably more likely to be more knowledgeable than those who are not.

Also if someone can't boot their computer or get their wireless working, it makes it tough to take internet polls </joke>.

Roasted

November 4th, 2009, 06:22 PM

This thread makes me so sick it's unreal.

I have a quick answer for everybody here.

If Karmic does not work for you, install Jaunty. Period. Done. Over.

You guys need to remember, we are a solid reason as to why Ubuntu exists. The dedicated users who are largely involved in this forum and are always discussing issues, bug fixes, how to set things up, etc. I'm more than certain the developers are working very hard to resolve these issues. If Karmic doesn't work for you, do something about it. Be a part of the community to submit bug report so the developers can actively take your issue and iron it out. Don't sit there, stomp your feet, and cross your arms in a corner because you didn't get your way. You didn't pay 200 dollars for Ubuntu, let's remember that. That's the idea behind open source software, to keep it free and get everybody involved so ultimately a solid product is available to everybody.

Let's also remember that there's a reason Ubuntu works on an LTS release, for sheer stability and long term support. If you need stability and that's your top priority, you should be on the LTS. If you like messing with the 6 month releases, yet you still want stability, why, OH WHY, are you upgrading to Karmic when it is only days old? If you're somebody who likes to try something new, knowing that a new product might have issues, THEN it's understandable why you would be trying out Karmic. Let's not let a few issues with Karmic get to us, as Ubuntu has had a very long track record of very solid, user friendly Linux releases.

There are other options on the table here, and certain ways that things need to be handled. Constructive criticism I'm sure is welcomed, because otherwise the developers will never know what the users want. Have a little faith in the Ubuntu team and pull your weight and help out with bug reports.

mivo

November 4th, 2009, 06:40 PM

You didn't pay 200 dollars for Ubuntu, let's remember that. That's the idea behind open source software, to keep it free and get everybody involved so ultimately a solid product is available to everybody.

No, the idea is not to keep it "free as in beer", but to keep it "free as in speech". If you use Linux because it doesn't cost money, then you completely miss the actual spirit of free (as in speech) software.

An OS should not, ever, be measured by whether it costs a little money (Windows doesn't cost most people anything since it is included in the computer's price, and pre-loaded Linux machines cost more!), but by how well it runs. It is completely irrelevant from a quality perspective whether it costs nothing (everything has a price, and unless you live at Hotel Mama, your time has a money value) or $200 once every five years (if that, see above).

I really dislike this "you didn't pay for it, so suck it up and shut up" mentality. 9.10 was rushed and released in a poor state. Critical bugs, like the UBS modem issue, were classified as "medium". Medium bugs don't delay a release, but how long could they have delayed it anyway? Release was on the 29th, the month ended on the 31st, and quality and stability take a backseat behind the 6 months release schedule that must be followed. Nevermind that tons of people have severe issues, many can't even get online anymore, etc pp.

But I guess you feel all of this is perfectly fine, because these people didn't pay for Ubuntu. So it's fine that they spend numerous hours and energy on trying to fix stuff that was broken needlessly and that could have been avoided if 9.10 had been given more time or if instead of adding new stuff the devs had taken the time to actually fix old bugs.

And even "free as in beer" doesn't mean "worse".

Roasted

November 4th, 2009, 07:17 PM

Point being, Karmic doesn't work for certain users. Well, guess what. There's only 24 hours in a day, not 200. The developers won't be able to fix everything overnight. So instead of whining like a ton of users have done here on the forums, it'd be incredibly more beneficial if they would submit bug reports and offer some constructiveness in their attitudes. So far, very few people have exhibited that. I have actually seen users in the IRC chat flat out say, no, I will not waste my time putting in a bug report that I just know developers will ignore. Yet they continue to bash their heads against the wall with trying to troubleshoot their problem. This OS is DAYS old. I'm sure it'll become more and more solid as the days progress to weeks, and the weeks progress to months. That's the cycle of life and the reality of the matter with something like an operating system. I will be the first to admit, I too am having Karmic problems that drive me nuts. But I also know there's ways to handle these issues instead of stomping your feet, and meanwhile, I'm remaining a happy Jaunty user since I still have things I need to get done on my computer.

Reality is, if Karmic isn't working for you, you still need to get your job done. Therefore, install Jaunty. Period. Done. Just do it. If you need stability and an OS that works while Karmic is not working - you have very little choice in the matter but to move to a version of the OS that will get the job done. Look at the rest of the world, still using XP while there's TWO later versions of Windows. Sometimes that's just how things are.

I'm not saying just shut up and suck it up. You took that the wrong way. What I'm saying is, don't be a baby. Be mature and let's do our part to help out where we can. It's really not that hard of a concept - I promise.

jward3010

November 4th, 2009, 07:23 PM

It really depends on who you are, I'm currently using it on a Dell Vostro 1520 and apart from a little rfkill related bug with wireless during Alpha5 and BETA stage everything is perfect. NO PROBLEMS whatsoever. This is a very mixed boat.

Although I would say to Canonical and Ubuntu - iron out out the really important stuff first - make Nautilus great (well Nautilus should do that), improve wireless compatibility, suspend and sleep stuff has to be fixed. Work on the old and forget about the new for a while. Putting in home directory encryption means a whole pile of developers diverted away from the 5 year old problems which are probably simple fixes and although an interesting piece of new technology home directory encryption is not at all paramount.

mivo

November 4th, 2009, 07:29 PM

it'd be incredibly more beneficial if they would submit bug reports and offer some constructiveness in their attitudes.

Well, see, that is the problem. Many people who have problems now did post bug reports -- prior to the release. Now after the release, they still have the same problems, or new ones. That is, I believe, where the frustration comes from.

I didn't update my 9.04 box because the Live CD test wasn't without trouble. (I also have a W7 box and one with Arch, well, two, an old laptop that I renovated.) Personally, I can wait, really. I do, however, feel that Canonical needs to slow down. I firmly believe the distro needs a consolidation release where nothing new is added, old bugs are ironed out and issues (like dist upgrade) are addressed.

jward3010

November 4th, 2009, 08:26 PM

I couldn't agree more, they are just constantly adding problems and hey Ubuntu is getting more complex all the time and matching up to and often overtaking features in competing OS's (Vista, 7, OS X) but thats happeneing in a messy way. It's a case of "Oh look, we've got home folder encryption! No-one else has that! Now it doesn't exactly work but it's on it's way to being great in about 8 years time!"

issih

November 4th, 2009, 09:18 PM

As has been pointed out several times the raw numbers on the poll are meaningless because the sample is heavily skewed.

The only even vaguely valid comparison is to the equivalent polls for previous releases...where we see that this release is no different at all from what has gone before...the only reason for all this hoo ha is a few lazy journalist and a lot of vocal shouting.

As for a consolidation release...well first of all that is what you can expect to the degree that it is possible with lucid lynx, because it will be an LTS release - that being said, I guarantee there will be lots of people proclaiming it the worst release ever in 6 months time.

As a general rule though, a consolidation release is impossible, unless you want to be out of date. Lets say that for this hypothetical consolidation release we keep everything the same and just pull major upstream changes - lets say thats any new gnome components and a new kernel, but keep everything else bolted down.

Can I ask you to go check where jaunty's intel graphics bugs came from please..oh yes it was the kernel - and therefore we'd still have that kind of major regression. The 3g modem issues in karmic are looking like kernel taint too.

You cannot pull some stuff, keep the rest the same and expect stability to arise as if by magic..stability comes from NOT CHANGING THE SOURCE apart from bug fixes, and then waiting a long long time. That is why debian releases are so stable...they follow this model, the only one that has ever worked. In a similar manner, the LTS releases of ubuntu tend to be very stable from 6 months into their lives until they die.

If you want to stop progress in the name of stability, then do, the options are there for you to use...just stop pretending that an extra month here or there will magically change the fundamental rules of software development and make the interim releases suddenly 100% reliable - it won't.

The only way to make a release really stable is keep it in testing for ages and ages and ages from the point where you do a feature freeze, and if that freeze happens to freeze a major upstream bug in place then you are in the brown stuff anyway. This is just what happens.

gmp34

November 11th, 2009, 04:05 PM

I think all pieces of answers have already been posted, I'll just give you my practice before upgrading:
- before going for a new release just do as you do when changing important files by copying initial file as "org" or "sav" file, which translates into creating a live CD on a CD/RW (so you never lose a CD, make it a try by a ride through the different features you usually use this will tell you right away if this version is ready for you repeat this step every now and then (eveyr month ?)
- until it's ok for you keep your existing version and it's own updates.
- on my configuration the upgrade is working perfectly but for two things an umountable swap space (fixed and provided to the community) and green screen on Lifecam VX-1000 (but I don"t really care). I will upgarde the 2 Portable of my kids as soon as they are back home for vaccation using the above procedure.
- the best test of all being the live test, one should go for the upgarde as soon as the basics he is fond of is working for him.

afrodeity

November 11th, 2009, 06:42 PM

Consolidation +5, btw the last round of updates freaked out my network manager which was running just fine. So maybe folks at Canonical are getting freaked out by negative vibes. This is karma, and its about the community doing its thing. Deal with it folks. We need to keep calm and avoid getting psyched out by the Vista Windows comparison.Karmic is the best Ubuntu yet, and its not just because of the new look.

forrestcupp

November 11th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Wow. After reading that, I'm never going to use Ubuntu again. ;)

jward3010

November 11th, 2009, 07:47 PM

Yes, I agree that Ubuntu is steadily improving on each successive release, but any upgrade which kills internet connections is serious IMO. I can live with other less serious bugs for a while.
Yeah, I agree with this. There are some things which just have to work in a release as they could be you're only way out or you're only way to troubleshoot. It's a bit like the flawless support there seems to be for ethernet cards in Ubuntu, if wireless ain't gonna work then at least the LAN adapter will, that will help with getting you online either for updates, packages you need or online support. I have had ONE problem with an ethernet card before, in the hundreds (no joke) machines I have tried with Ubuntu.

I really cannot wait for the day that hardware manufacturers start co-operating with us, or we have the revolution and we take them all over anyway.

HappyFeet

November 11th, 2009, 07:57 PM

Isnt that actually the purpose of LTS releases ?

EXACTLY! Why do people feel they have to upgrade? If things are working well, leave it alone. There are people out there still using windows 2000, and it works well for them. And if you need an updated package, just get a PPA version and upgrade only that package. And if you feel you must upgrade, wait a couple of months and do a clean install. Use common sense and you will be OK.

HappyFeet

November 11th, 2009, 08:02 PM

Consolidation +5

No. If you want something that goes through much testing, go use Debian. Ubuntu is what it is, and if you don't like it, use something else.

And finally, it's funny how most of the problems I've seen are from "upgrading", instead of fresh installs. Don't want problems? Don't upgrade. No one is twisting your arm to do anything. Blame yourselves.

danebramaged

November 11th, 2009, 09:56 PM

EXACTLY! Why do people feel they have to upgrade? If things are working well, leave it alone. There are people out there still using windows 2000, and it works well for them. And if you need an updated package, just get a PPA version and upgrade only that package. And if you feel you must upgrade, wait a couple of months and do a clean install. Use common sense and you will be OK.

I agree.

I am one those people who have a creative labs sound card. 9.04 doesn't work with it. 9.10 doesn't either. But the only reason I was upgrading was just to upgrade for the hell of it. I basically wanted to see what ext4 was all about and to have grub2.0 on my system.

I need none of the above. So I got caught breaking one of the golden rules of unix. (Upgrading for no apparent reason.) This is why I will always think of 9.04 as "Jonesin Jackalope" because, I was just wanting to keep up with the Joneses. :D

After I went back to 8.10 I suffered a moment of clarity which can be brought on by not caring much about "the crowd". I realized that what brought me over to Ubuntu in the first place was the fact that it recognized all my hardware right from the start and that it was easy to download and install additional software.

The moment clarity though is this:

No matter what distro I choose, I am still going to be looking at either gnome or kde and, I will still be running compiz. I will modify my desktop to look like the grateful dead "American Beauty" album cover no matter what. So the only thing that one distro is better at than another is the install routines and the apt-get or yast approach (.deb or rpm) and that's it.

The reason Ubuntu does not like my system is because the KERNEL has simply moved on. If I loaded PCLinux or Fedora or whatever, but the kernel was just as new, I would have the same problems because the drivers live in the kernel.

Ultimately though, Ubuntus' mission ( or goal ) of getting desktop market share is going to be held back if it is not backward compatible with older hardware. Ubuntu is supposed to be the distro for non-technical types and yet, when it comes to getting everything up and running, whether or not it's Mandriva or Sabayon or Ubuntu or whatever, the skill level remains the same from one distro to next for me.

...and since snow leopard was originally built on top of bsd, I'd say the big push to get Ubuntu on the desktop kind of got done already. We may not like the apple licensing scheme, but the development effort only goes to show that Ubuntu is not really moving forward as fast as it's arbitrarily assigned release versions would indicate.

Sorry, didn't mean to re-write "War and Peace". Just thought I'd share. :D

jward3010

November 11th, 2009, 10:15 PM

mivo

November 11th, 2009, 11:43 PM

... and do a clean install.

That works for geeks. Most average users will never, ever accept this. I find it amusing how people here bash Windows for slowing down after a year or so, but then turn around and recommend clean installs every six month for current software and OS features. :)

Ubuntu will never gain a really significant market share as long as a clean reinstall is the preferred, and really: the only reliable, method of upgrading to a new version (on a 6-months schedule). Windows users would be up in arms if for Service Packs clean reinstalls were recommended or necessary.

Blame yourselves.

What a terrible, immature attitude. People should blame themselves for using the "Upgrade" button that the OS offers them? For actually believing that it does anything other than making their system unusable? God forbid that perhaps Canonical should fix this problem that has been around for over two years.

HappyFeet

November 12th, 2009, 03:08 AM

Ubuntu will never gain a really significant market share as long as a clean reinstall is the preferred

May I ask what you do for a living? I'll tell you what I do. I fix computers. I can assure I have seen my share of windows upgrades and service packs go bad. It is not only an ubuntu problem, it is an OS problem. When you've worked on many 100's and 100's of computers, your opinion might hold more water with me.

And yes, even in windows circles, those in the know will tell you a clean install is always the preferred method of install. If you don't want to believe it, oh well.

Roasted

November 12th, 2009, 04:59 AM

Ubuntu will never gain a really significant market share as long as a clean reinstall is the preferred

Think about what you're saying here.

Microsoft has the EXACT same problems when upgrading from OS to OS. EXACT. It's the nature of the beast with operating systems in general, not just Ubuntu.

jward3010

November 12th, 2009, 12:50 PM

The only problem with Ubuntu is that the release cycle is every 6 months, with Windows it's years and random and you'd typcailly buy a new Windows PC at that stage.

But at the same time I agree that any new OS version typically needs a fresh install, it's a generally better idea anyway.

mivo

November 12th, 2009, 04:04 PM

Microsoft has the EXACT same problems when upgrading from OS to OS. EXACT.

Except that a new Windows version is released every three+ years, and even XP, which was released in 2001, is supported until 2014. Service Packs, which frequently change as much as Ubuntu's 6-months releases, do not break installations or require a reinstall.

I used XP from 2001 to 2009, when I switched my desktop to Windows 7. I never needed to re-install. Even right before switching the box to W7, the OS was up-to-date security-wise, I could use current versions of all my software, new hardware was always supported.

This is what non-geek Windows users are used to. Do you really think this is in any way comparable to the Ubuntu situation? Even remotely? Exact? I would say "not at all". (Understand here that it is not my goal to "bash" Ubuntu, but to get dist upgrade fixed or at least improved. In my opinion, this is of paramount importance if more desktop adaption is desired.)

Linux in general is a different issue. My Arch box has not needed a reinstall over the past eighteen months either, and it's perfectly up-to-date, more so than 9.10. I had to fix Xorg server issues twice over that period of time.

longtom

November 12th, 2009, 04:13 PM

EXACTLY! Use common sense and you will be OK.

Look, big boy, we are certainly not sitting on the same river bank at times - but you have, on occasions, the ability to reduce something blown out of proportion into a single sentence. This is signature stuff.

Good on you!

mivo

November 12th, 2009, 04:22 PM

MAnd yes, even in windows circles, those in the know will tell you a clean install is always the preferred method of install. If you don't want to believe it, oh well.

New Windows versions are not released every three years. See my post above. Your point is irrelevant, as the issue here is the 6-months release cycle of Ubuntu, without any consolidation releases in quite some time (the last LTS was released with Firefox 3.0 Beta 4!), which has led to many of the current problems. 9.10 was rushed, critical bugs were not fixed, old bugs linger, new ones are added, without there being enough time to address them. They just pile up. Take a look at the RCs of Fedora and OpenSuSE, and compare the stability and polish to 9.10.

Now, you can either continue with your implied personal attacks and rude attitude, or you can comment on the actual points. If you want to play in the sandbox, you'll have to do this by yourself, though.