PDA

View Full Version : How many of you have tested karmic?



praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 04:50 PM
Iam just eager to know . Did you test karmic?

praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Just 6?

V for Vincent
November 9th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Nope. I will be testing Lucid, though. I'll be downloading it when alpha 3 or so comes out.

phrostbyte
November 9th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Yes, I test every Ubuntu release.

vexorian
November 9th, 2009, 06:43 PM
I tested, though the only two issues I found (sound volume and static IP issues) were already reported so simply added 'me too' posts. static IP got fixed before the retail I think (at least it works now) will install karmic in my desktop (only computer having the volume issue) and see if it got fixed (I hope so)

meborc
November 9th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Iam just eager to know . Did you test karmic?

if you really want to know, check out the number of threads generated and people that took part in the karmic sub-forum (now closed)

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=359

praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Ok

praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 06:47 PM
if you really want to know, check out the number of threads generated and people that took part in the karmic sub-forum (now closed)

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=359

oh , I didn't think of that. Thanks

Claus7
November 9th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Hello,

for your curiosity, since alpha 4 or 5.

Regards!

chriskin
November 9th, 2009, 06:48 PM
Iam just eager to know . Did you test karmic?

i always get on the new release at alpha 6. if any reportable bug pops up, i report it.

9.10aplha6 was more stable than 9.04 for me , so i had nothing to report (only had one problem that seems to have been my bad, not the OS's)


Actually, I was trying to find out if poor testing is the reason for the bugs in Ubuntu.

the regular user of these forums would attack you at this one saying that you are trolling - there is always one ready to say that this is the case :P

Tibuda
November 9th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Actually, I was trying to find out if poor testing is the reason for the bugs in Ubuntu.

Bugs, which bugs?

wojox
November 9th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Did not test and I have no bugs. Karmic desktop and Karmic server.

vexorian
November 9th, 2009, 06:58 PM
There are 3 main reasons there are bugs in new ubuntu releases. One is that beta testing can only find just an small amount of bugs, there are way too many variations of hardware setups out there.

A bigger problem is with the fixed release cycle, I hope they will one day give up with that stupid idea that waiting exactly 6 months before releases is advantageous in anyway, they should instead move to a method in which they won't release until the current releases gets all critical bugs fixed.

And finally, and most importantly, the main reason ubuntu has bugs is that all software has bugs.

chriskin
November 9th, 2009, 07:01 PM
There are 3 main reasons there are bugs in new ubuntu releases. One is that beta testing can only find just an small amount of bugs, there are way too many variations of hardware setups out there.

A bigger problem is with the fixed release cycle, I hope they will one day give up with that stupid idea that waiting exactly 6 months before releases is advantageous in anyway, they should instead move to a method in which they won't release until the current releases gets all critical bugs fixed.

And finally, and most importantly, the main reason ubuntu has bugs is that all software has bugs.

the 6 month cycle is the best feature of ubuntu - if one wants the release to come out when everything is perfect, why not move to debian?

praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Bugs, which bugs?

there used to be atleast one or two bugs associated with a release

vexorian
November 9th, 2009, 07:05 PM
there used to be one or two bugs associated with a release
If there were only one or two bugs per ubuntu release, ubuntu would be the holy grial of software development.


the 6 month cycle is the best feature of ubuntu


I can't possibly think of how it can be helpful at all.


- if one wants the release to come out when everything is perfect, why not move to debian?

I do not mean waiting till everything is perfect, I just wish a delay of up to two months would be possible if there are critical bugs with fix pending. IE the grub freeze bug is something that was really worth waiting 2 months before releasing karmic.


Anyway, pro tip: Want a ubuntu version with very few bugs? Always wait for the first point release of the LTS. (For example 10.04.1 coming next year in June/July is probably going to be a great alternative if you want to play safe)

praveesh
November 9th, 2009, 07:07 PM
There are 3 main reasons there are bugs in new ubuntu releases. One is that beta testing can only find just an small amount of bugs, there are way too many variations of hardware setups out there.

A bigger problem is with the fixed release cycle, I hope they will one day give up with that stupid idea that waiting exactly 6 months before releases is advantageous in anyway, they should instead move to a method in which they won't release until the current releases gets all critical bugs fixed.

And finally, and most importantly, the main reason ubuntu has bugs is that all software has bugs.

And I think canonical is a small company . They might not get enough time to fix all the bugs before the release.

Tibuda
November 9th, 2009, 07:10 PM
I do not mean waiting till everything is perfect, I just wish a delay of up to two months would be possible if there are critical bugs with fix pending.
It happened before to 6.06 (instead of 6.04).

chriskin
November 9th, 2009, 08:07 PM
It happened before to 6.06 (instead of 6.04).

he beat me to it - i was going to say that as well

maflynn
November 9th, 2009, 08:14 PM
A bigger problem is with the fixed release cycle, I hope they will one day give up with that stupid idea that waiting exactly 6 months before releases is advantageous in anyway, they should instead move to a method in which they won't release until the current releases gets all critical bugs fixed.

Agreed, as ubuntu has grown in popularity and canonical's desire to keep adding more stuff, it becomes even more important to release stable [relatively] bug free stable Operating Systems. Saying that Canonical is a small company and may not have the resources doesn't wash. They need to determine what's more important, a quality product or throwing new features in, a la Microsoft.

SunnyRabbiera
November 9th, 2009, 08:15 PM
I tested it and repored no bugs...
But for me I had no bugs to report, all went fine in the betas for me and even in the RC's and final.

lovinglinux
November 10th, 2009, 03:20 PM
I have created a new poll How many Karmic bugs that you've reported have been fixed? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1321651) ;)