PDA

View Full Version : I love Ubuntu - but here's a note to Mark Shuttleworth



Truefire
November 11th, 2009, 11:42 PM
I'm going to keep this brief, because I'm tired, and maybe, just maybe, it'll get across to the 'big guy'.

Dear Mark Shuttleworth,

I just want to let you know, I see the bigger picture. This open letter did not come from frustrations of 'OMG! my app isn't working!" I know Karmic is just a point release, not an LTS or anything. And that's not the 'point' anyway. (I haven't installed it, I'm fine with Jaunty, thanks.) My problem is that you seem to be ignoring a few things in your passion to move forward with Ubuntu as a technology, and I'm only going to mention the broad, important part, as your time is valuable.

First off, lets 'tighten the code' before moving on. Why add new software technology when we haven't even gotten the old stuff working properly? Learn from the giant that fell before you - consumers will go for stable before they ever go for 'shiny'.

Windows 2000 may be old roadkill now with the launch of the stable and shiny Windows 7, but it used to be the industry standby, before XP, and even into the aftermath of Windows Vista.

Stable first, shiny second.

The second and last point I want to make is one that everyone in the community has felt at some time, but it's normal, as confrontations are inevitable. It can be helped, though- we seem to missing something, a sort of 'oneness' or 'completeness' to Ubuntu as a whole.
Sure, Karmic's new splash(es) are pretty neat, (But I think all UI designers across the free world suddenly cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silenced, if you know what I mean.) but there's no fluidity. Why do we have a clean, retro apple-esqe (forgive me) start, and then it humming bright orange and black modern freak out. Pick one, or streamline it somehow. (my personal opinion: take out the first altogether - you barely see it anyway.) Please, please, listen to the brilliant UI designers of the contributing artwork team. They've got some amazing stuff, and it looks like you forgot you had them.

All in all, practice makes perfect, learn from mistakes, and listen to users. Microsnot took a long time to learn and use that last one, but apparently, they* got the memo. It's your turn, Mark.

* except for their advertising committee. The ads are ridiculous.

howefield
November 11th, 2009, 11:48 PM
consumers will go for stable before they ever go for 'shiny'.

Your oft repeated mantra doesn't bear scrutiny.

slumbergod
November 11th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Whether or not it bears scrutiny the author makes a very good point. I agree with the statement.

SeanHodges
November 11th, 2009, 11:59 PM
Well said.

I personally would re-word the "consumers will go for stable before they ever go for 'shiny'." slightly to:


Consumers will go for 'shiny', but they will stay for 'stable'.

Lets face it. Almost everyone loves shiny, sometimes irrationally so. People will buy a car because of its colour, or a house because of how the kitchen is fitted. But if the car keeps breaking down, or the house keeps flooding, or the O/S keeps crashing - they will soon run a mile and warn off everyone they know and care about.

Other than that, I concur.

#11u-max
November 12th, 2009, 12:01 AM
i agree with this motion!

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Why add new software technology when we haven't even gotten the old stuff working properly?

- Because people are constantly screaming about every little feature Ubuntu lacks that Win/OSX have as the reason Linux will never "beat" Windows

- Because things only get stable through use, and only get significant use when released as part of a major distribution

- Because MOST of what Ubuntu does is compile upstream projects into a complete OS, and has no control over how upstream projects perform development...

- ...and therefore, if upstream releases new features and bugfixes in the same release, we get new features in order to get bug fixes...

- ...and therefore, if upstream development dies or moves in the wrong direction, a new piece of software being actively developed must be found to replace it


Ubuntu is not the most stable Linux distribution, yet it appears to be the most popular. Given the point that Linux users can freely run any distro they choose, what does that tell us about what the average Linux user really prefers?

bradleypariah
November 12th, 2009, 12:53 AM
I had no idea we had anything to be angry about. Huh. How funny.

Here I was - an idiot - just happy to be able to use the world's coolest operating system and all my favourite programs for free.

linusr
November 12th, 2009, 01:13 AM
- ...and therefore, if upstream development dies or moves in the wrong direction, a new piece of software being actively developed must be found to replace it


having xplash or booting in 30 seconds was great to have

but I would have preferred is to have an better media player & an better photo management app

rhythmbox is obsolete, can't read id3 tags. songbird shud had been the default media player if not banshee

solwic
November 12th, 2009, 01:15 AM
- Because people are constantly screaming about every little feature Ubuntu lacks that Win/OSX have as the reason Linux will never "beat" Windows

- Because things only get stable through use, and only get significant use when released as part of a major distribution

- Because MOST of what Ubuntu does is compile upstream projects into a complete OS, and has no control over how upstream projects perform development...

- ...and therefore, if upstream releases new features and bugfixes in the same release, we get new features in order to get bug fixes...

- ...and therefore, if upstream development dies or moves in the wrong direction, a new piece of software being actively developed must be found to replace it


Ubuntu is not the most stable Linux distribution, yet it appears to be the most popular. Given the point that Linux users can freely run any distro they choose, what does that tell us about what the average Linux user really prefers?

+1 to all of that.

1roxtar
November 12th, 2009, 04:26 AM
It seems like Ubuntu is the new baby that is born and gets all the attention. All along, the siblings are mad and constantly murmuring about how much people like it and just point out it's flaws. I can't help but notice that within the Linux circle Ubuntu gets so many haters. Like the old expression goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies"???? I keep hearing a lot of crap like....I like Ubuntu, but I use Arch, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, OpenSuse, Mint.....so on and so forth. "Die-hard" Linuxers get so infuriated when the mainstream looks at Ubuntu as THE Linux. I applaud Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical for their vision and mission. UBUNTU is my distro choice and my LINUX!!!

wilee-nilee
November 12th, 2009, 04:40 AM
I think a open letter serves you not the community, it is chocked full of personal opinions not based on any concrete data. And what makes you think Mark cares about your personal opinions?

stinger30au
November 12th, 2009, 04:59 AM
why not email Mark directly and tell him

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/


at least we can do that


when was the last time you saw Steve Bullmers email address freely available on the net for anyone from the planet to email him?

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 05:02 AM
When did Karmic become unstable?

3rdalbum
November 12th, 2009, 05:36 AM
consumers will go for stable before they ever go for 'shiny'.

Sorry. The first public version of Compiz sparked a massive number of people to try out Linux for the first time, despite Compiz having very low levels of reliability at that time :-)

They do go for shiny before they go for reliable.

ruel24
November 12th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Do you know why there are so many haters? Because:

1.) Mark Shuttleworth opens his mouth and talks about improving Linux, yet he does so little to improve it, himself. There isn't any real development in Ubuntu in the same manner that takes place in OpenSuse or Fedora. Shuttleworth needs to put his money where his mouth is! Many don't feel Ubuntu deserves the marketshare it has, given how much money and time companies like Novell and Red Hat put into Linux and FOSS development compared to Canonical.

2.) Ubuntu touts itself as being so easy to use, yet...the first problem that arises by a user gets responded with "open a terminal and type 'sudo...'" This is easy to use? NOT!

3.) Ubuntu tries to push itself out there as if it's on the same level as Mac OS X and Windows, acting as if it, alone, will challenge them. It isn't and it won't. It's no better than other Linux distros out there. However, the ego is much larger.

4.) Ubuntu and it's users try to replace the word 'Linux' with the word 'Ubuntu'. Let's get something straight: If you use Ubuntu, you're using Linux. However, the collective dismisses everyone else as if they don't count.

5.) Many users find using Sudo with your user password both annoying and a security issue. Using one password for your account and root privs is not exactly state of the art security.

6.) When you're the most popular restaurant, people begin to get sick of your menu. It's a reality.

7.) Ubuntu is too much in the face of everyone. Everywhere you look in the Linux arena, Ubuntu's name is pushed in your face. It gets old an tiring.

wilee-nilee
November 12th, 2009, 06:36 AM
Do you know why there are so many haters? Because:

1.) Mark Shuttleworth opens his mouth and talks about improving Linux, yet he does so little to improve it, himself. There isn't any real development in Ubuntu in the same manner that takes place in OpenSuse or Fedora. Shuttleworth needs to put his money where his mouth is! Many don't feel Ubuntu deserves the marketshare it has, given how much money and time companies like Novell and Red Hat put into Linux and FOSS development compared to Canonical.

2.) Ubuntu touts itself as being so easy to use, yet...the first problem that arises by a user gets responded with "open a terminal and type 'sudo...'" This is easy to use? NOT!

3.) Ubuntu tries to push itself out there as if it's on the same level as Mac OS X and Windows, acting as if it, alone, will challenge them. It isn't and it won't. It's no better than other Linux distros out there. However, the ego is much larger.

4.) Ubuntu and it's users try to replace the word 'Linux' with the word 'Ubuntu'. Let's get something straight: If you use Ubuntu, you're using Linux. However, the collective dismisses everyone else as if they don't count.

5.) Many users find using Sudo with your user password both annoying and a security issue. Using one password for your account and root privs is not exactly state of the art security.

6.) When you're the most popular restaurant, people begin to get sick of your menu. It's a reality.

7.) Ubuntu is too much in the face of everyone. Everywhere you look in the Linux arena, Ubuntu's name is pushed in your face. It gets old an tiring.

Nice rant for a first post with total BS opinions. You can set a different password for sudo then the login for one.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:38 AM
Sheesh. Why does everyone have to be either a hater or a fanboy? Can't we love Ubuntu and at the same time express frustrations with it when we have them?

I thought about switching my main laptop to Debian Testing when Karmic was mistreating me (I would've had to if I hadn't discovered the new kernel makes it work for me). But I wasn't sure I'd like it as much as Ubuntu, since I really appreciate getting the latest software and living a bit on the edge. Grass is always greener...

I'd say that Ubuntu needs to focus on "stable" for a while after a couple of years of lotsa bling-bling shiny, but otoh I do enjoy the shiny when it doesn't blow up in my face.

EDIT: Wow! I had 666 beans when I posted this! Hail Satan!

ruel24
November 12th, 2009, 06:49 AM
Nice rant for a first post with total BS opinions. You can set a different password for sudo then the login for one.

No kidding... Huh... After 11 yrs of Linux you'd think I'd know that by now (sarcastically).

This isn't my first post to the forum... I used to be an Ubuntu/Kubuntu user, but left. I have no idea why my posts aren't registered, but my account was still active. I only logged in - didn't create an account.

FWIW, this sentiment actually does exist out there and it's based a lot in truth and a lot in assumption, because Canonnical financials aren't made public as to what they spend on actual upstream development, etc.. Ubuntu isn't a bad Linux, it just isn't the second coming of some messiah, or anything, despite the fanboyism. However, Linux Mint fixes most of the annoyances in Ubuntu and looks good doing it. Personally, I use Mandriva these days. It's so much easier to use and maintain, and it spends plenty on upstream development and actually innovating, particularly considering it's size.

For something insightful, please read:

http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/

keplerspeed
November 12th, 2009, 07:01 AM
For something insightful, please read:

http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/
Your Kidding right? I have read it....

Gen2ly
November 12th, 2009, 07:06 AM
Wonder if Mark reads the forums? Be nice if he did. Like to see a bit of that user touch.

Tamlynmac
November 12th, 2009, 07:12 AM
Back to the topic of excessive use of sudo and the terminal.

This must be a recurring discussion that got loose. ;)

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 07:13 AM
Do you know why there are so many haters? Because:

1.) Mark Shuttleworth opens his mouth and talks about improving Linux, yet he does so little to improve it, himself. There isn't any real development in Ubuntu in the same manner that takes place in OpenSuse or Fedora. Shuttleworth needs to put his money where his mouth is! Many don't feel Ubuntu deserves the marketshare it has, given how much money and time companies like Novell and Red Hat put into Linux and FOSS development compared to Canonical.

2.) Ubuntu touts itself as being so easy to use, yet...the first problem that arises by a user gets responded with "open a terminal and type 'sudo...'" This is easy to use? NOT!

You see this because it is easier for the volunteers here to type in a code than to try and explain where to find which GUI to fix the problem. I have found GUIs to fix every problem I have come across.


3.) Ubuntu tries to push itself out there as if it's on the same level as Mac OS X and Windows, acting as if it, alone, will challenge them. It isn't and it won't. It's no better than other Linux distros out there. However, the ego is much larger.

It is on the same level. I know quite a few average people who have gotten tired of MS's issues and came to Ubuntu on their own.


4.) Ubuntu and it's users try to replace the word 'Linux' with the word 'Ubuntu'. Let's get something straight: If you use Ubuntu, you're using Linux. However, the collective dismisses everyone else as if they don't count.

Ubuntu is the easiest distro to install and use.


5.) Many users find using Sudo with your user password both annoying and a security issue. Using one password for your account and root privs is not exactly state of the art security.

So use the proper GUI to fix your issue. I have given people advice on how to fix things via GUI and terminal. Many find it easier to copy and paste a terminal command. I wouldn't call depending on freeware anti-virus like so many people use as state of the art either.


6.) When you're the most popular restaurant, people begin to get sick of your menu. It's a reality.

Beats the pooh out of MS's solution to the menu, "open your wallet and buy that program to get your work done."


7.) Ubuntu is too much in the face of everyone. Everywhere you look in the Linux arena, Ubuntu's name is pushed in your face. It gets old an tiring.

Then use your distro and maybe even advertise it to make it known. "Don't be haten'."

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 07:23 AM
If the volunteers in this forum want to teach people GUI or CLI, it is their decision. Most people getting help here did not read the manuals to know how to fix things via GUI and that is why they need help in the first place. Yes, there are many problems that are most easily fixed with a simple sudo command, making that the most productive route. We are volunteers, give us a little credit for what we do. Even if I were using a different distro, I would say the same.

JBAlaska
November 12th, 2009, 07:23 AM
Do you know why there are so many haters? Because:

2.) Ubuntu touts itself as being so easy to use, yet...the first problem that arises by a user gets responded with "open a terminal and type 'sudo...'" This is easy to use? NOT!

11 years of using Linux and you have a problem using the term...Huh..

Arup
November 12th, 2009, 07:27 AM
It seems like Ubuntu is the new baby that is born and gets all the attention. All along, the siblings are mad and constantly murmuring about how much people like it and just point out it's flaws. I can't help but notice that within the Linux circle Ubuntu gets so many haters. Like the old expression goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies"???? I keep hearing a lot of crap like....I like Ubuntu, but I use Arch, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, OpenSuse, Mint.....so on and so forth. "Die-hard" Linuxers get so infuriated when the mainstream looks at Ubuntu as THE Linux. I applaud Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical for their vision and mission. UBUNTU is my distro choice and my LINUX!!!

Very well said and for those who keep running that tired old line of stability, for umpteen time, please take a look at LTS, ONCE FOR ALL. Ubuntu is on right track and therefore its the point of flack for all, one look at distrowatch.com will tell you where it stands. Obviously if its so full of problems as some claim, it should be at the bottom of the heap. Thankfully it isn't so. I have been a Unix and Linux user since long but for me to recommend Linux to others wasn't even remotely possible till Ubuntu came along. I would say keep up the good work Mark, you are on the right track.

sittingpenguin
November 12th, 2009, 08:38 AM
For something insightful, please read:

http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/
Linking to an article from a Fedora and formerly Mandriva marketing person to prove how Ubuntu sucks, congratulations. This stuff is getting lamer and lamer every day.

And to make my Karmic crash the only way is to unplug the power cord for me. No surprise, it' Linux.

Arup
November 12th, 2009, 08:49 AM
Of course other distros would hate Ubuntu, what was once their exclusive point of geekiness and snoberry is now getting to be common human domain. Not good when you are trying to be the exclusive geek running Linux.

Time and again, with nautilus-gksu installed, you don't need the terminal, however bear in mind, once you get into the Windows behavior pattern of deleting files via icons, unlike in windows where system files are usually hidden and there is a warning about deleting system files, here you are full root and with total access to any file, so delete in caution or suffer the consequences.

Exodist
November 12th, 2009, 08:56 AM
I agree with the OP on the point about Stability before Shiny.

One thing I have noticed tho, seems the worst theme artist seem to be getting their themes with Ubuntu. I have been so confused about this. There is some really good themes on Gnome-Look. But the themes that end up on Ubuntu have a 40% approval rating on Gnome-Look. So confusing..

Bodsda
November 12th, 2009, 09:05 AM
- Because things only get stable through use, and only get significant use when released as part of a major distribution
Except for pulseaudio which has caused a lot of problems for a lot of people ever since it was implemented into Ubuntu. I agree with most of the things the OP says, except for the shiny bits. People will always go for shiny, the only thing that differs is the time frame before they go back to stable


I agree with the OP on the point about Stability before Shiny.
One thing I have noticed tho, seems the worst theme artist seem to be getting their themes with Ubuntu. I have been so confused about this. There is some really good themes on Gnome-Look. But the themes that end up on Ubuntu have a 40% approval rating on Gnome-Look. So confusing..
Agreed. I would love to see something like SlicknesS included, and perhaps some nice icon themes like Black and White.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 09:19 AM
Linking to an article from a Fedora and formerly Mandriva marketing person to prove how Ubuntu sucks, congratulations. This stuff is getting lamer and lamer every day.

I agree with you there. He's like, "Waaa! Capitalism is so unfair!" And I'm like, "Duh!"

But on the other hand, a number of non-marketing types are starting to voice concerns or even jump ship entirely, to wit:
http://www.fewt.com/2009/10/i-give-up.html


And to make my Karmic crash the only way is to unplug the power cord for me. No surprise, it' Linux.

Congrats, but my clean Karmic installation crashed or froze at least 500 times before I figured out a way to keep it running on my hardware.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 12th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Do you know why there are so many haters? Because:

1.) Mark Shuttleworth opens his mouth and talks about improving Linux, yet he does so little to improve it, himself. There isn't any real development in Ubuntu in the same manner that takes place in OpenSuse or Fedora. Shuttleworth needs to put his money where his mouth is!That has to be the most poorly chosen analogy (http://dneary.free.fr/gimp_bounties.html) I have seen all month. I can demonstrate this further if you need, but I honestly don't see how it could be necessary.

For that matter, the insightful point (http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/) you link to happens to refute your analogy rather quickly. A problem with Canonical in 2008 (which is gradually going away, piece by piece) has been that it was funded straight from Mark's own wallet. A problem, granted, but that's detached from your original point which is now completely moot.


2.) Ubuntu touts itself as being so easy to use, yet...the first problem that arises by a user gets responded with "open a terminal and type 'sudo...'" This is easy to use? NOT!This does not fit in to your other arguments at all. This is the sort of thing a Windows person says, unaware that the reason people do this is simply that the terminal is a consistent, quick and easy way to deliver technical help remotely. (After all, GNOME Terminal + Bash is vastly superior - interface wise - to what you get in Windows).


3.) Ubuntu tries to push itself out there as if it's on the same level as Mac OS X and Windows, acting as if it, alone, will challenge them. It isn't and it won't. It's no better than other Linux distros out there. However, the ego is much larger.This I'll agree with, to a point. I haven't seen this misguided ego in the developer community, for what it's worth.
On the other hand, it is on the same level for me. In some cases, it's above.


4.) Ubuntu and it's users try to replace the word 'Linux' with the word 'Ubuntu'. Let's get something straight: If you use Ubuntu, you're using Linux. However, the collective dismisses everyone else as if they don't count.It's GNU / Linux, you insensitive clod!
(Get it?)
(TiVo, WebOS and Android are all self-contained platforms built on Linux. Should people refer to them as TiVo Linux, WebOS Linux and Android Linux?)


5.) Many users find using Sudo with your user password both annoying and a security issue. Using one password for your account and root privs is not exactly state of the art security.If somebody has gotten this far, you're screwed anyway. (Okay, that's a cheap argument, but I think this has been dispelled. Yes, Ubuntu isn't built as a 100% top-notch secure operating system. It makes some sacrifices for user friendliness).

Arup
November 12th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Gnome theme extras brings in clearlook dark theme which is among the most functional of dark themes around as it allows you to work with non dark theme friendly apps like OO and others and yet manages to look nice and dark.

I have installed and deployed Karmic in over sixty machines by now, different hardware configurations and different vintage. Some include cutting edge like dual quads to basic dual core AMD and P-IV and even a P-III 1GHz, all went quite well, few tweaks needed for some of the machine, nothing serious. Just because it didn't work out for some don't make it the norm. Same case goes for Windows 7, some updatees and installs are going through hell, that won't stop MS or its fans from buying that OS as majority is having a smooth upgrade with it.

wilee-nilee
November 12th, 2009, 09:40 AM
No kidding... Huh... After 11 yrs of Linux you'd think I'd know that by now (sarcastically).

This isn't my first post to the forum... I used to be an Ubuntu/Kubuntu user, but left. I have no idea why my posts aren't registered, but my account was still active. I only logged in - didn't create an account.

FWIW, this sentiment actually does exist out there and it's based a lot in truth and a lot in assumption, because Canonnical financials aren't made public as to what they spend on actual upstream development, etc.. Ubuntu isn't a bad Linux, it just isn't the second coming of some messiah, or anything, despite the fanboyism. However, Linux Mint fixes most of the annoyances in Ubuntu and looks good doing it. Personally, I use Mandriva these days. It's so much easier to use and maintain, and it spends plenty on upstream development and actually innovating, particularly considering it's size.
For something insightful, please read:
http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/

Hmm it looks as though my opinion is shared by others. I think the key word in this quote is "assumption". I find your having to formalize your argument with your fluffed experience suspicious. Opinions based on assumptions are counterproductive to your own understanding and any concrete data.

A opinion from a former Mandriva employee who starts his argument qualifying that this experiences has nothing to do with his opinions is a bit of he protests to much; true objectivity is a myth.

hellmet
November 12th, 2009, 09:47 AM
It seems like Ubuntu is the new baby that is born and gets all the attention. All along, the siblings are mad and constantly murmuring about how much people like it and just point out it's flaws. I can't help but notice that within the Linux circle Ubuntu gets so many haters. Like the old expression goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies"???? I keep hearing a lot of crap like....I like Ubuntu, but I use Arch, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, OpenSuse, Mint.....so on and so forth. "Die-hard" Linuxers get so infuriated when the mainstream looks at Ubuntu as THE Linux. I applaud Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical for their vision and mission. UBUNTU is my distro choice and my LINUX!!!
Exactly. And they come back secretively to Ubuntu once they figure out that their 'favorite' geeky OS is not as user friendly as they had imagined. Hail Ubuntu!

Arup
November 12th, 2009, 09:52 AM
The fact that all of them linger around in the Ubuntu forum with signatures claiming other distros speaks for itself. Gotta be real lonely at them places for sure.

sittingpenguin
November 12th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Congrats, but my clean Karmic installation crashed or froze at least 500 times before I figured out a way to keep it running on my hardware.

If it's a hardware support problem, chances are that it would be just the same with other distributions, the drivers in the linux kernel are the same for all.

But ubuntu gets much more attention and is run by many more people, with consequent higher likelihood to get criticism and run into problem hardware, a price Mr. Shuttleworth is probably willing to pay in change of success. I surely would.

ttry72
November 12th, 2009, 11:04 AM
Well, I see one problem with Ubuntu. The supported time period is very short, long term support (LTS) should be more than 3 years.

hoppipolla
November 12th, 2009, 11:50 AM
IMO Lucid will be the stable one man, Karmic seems to be taking the OSs technology and branding/design up a notch before then. Its not perfect but its perfectly passable and comparable to previous releases as far as I can tell (I for one have had no issues), and it will pave the way for hopefully an excellent LTS :)

ruel24
November 12th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Folks, please don't assume that other distros are bug free. They aren't. There are simply two camps in Linux: Timed release and rolling release. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages, and both have their share of bugs. Mandriva 2010 just shipped and is a jaw dropper. However, it shipped with a couple of show-stopper bugs, too. It happens. You always wish they'd have done a couple more weeks of testing, but that doesn't always cure it. Rolling releases also have there share of bugs that creep in. I do believe they're overall more stable, but that doesn't prevent things from happening. At PCLinuxOS, on rare occassions, upgrades have caused major headaches for people. It's just a reality of complex software design.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 04:37 PM
There are simply two camps in Linux: Timed release and rolling release.

Well, technically there is more to it than that, but your ultimate point stands and I agree with it. But some distros (like Debian) are "release when the bugs are fixed". Even this fails to guarantee bug-free operation, though.

We just have to be realistic that stability is not free, it comes when software has had the time and use to mature. Some distros cater to stable; I used to use some. I got bored. I wanted shiny. Call it a personal flaw.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 04:37 PM
It's just a reality of complex software design.

No, it is just a reality of inadequate testing.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 05:01 PM
If it's a hardware support problem, chances are that it would be just the same with other distributions, the drivers in the linux kernel are the same for all.

But ubuntu gets much more attention and is run by many more people, with consequent higher likelihood to get criticism and run into problem hardware, a price Mr. Shuttleworth is probably willing to pay in change of success. I surely would.

It is a kernel issue, but if Karmic were released when it were ready all those CDs could ship with a working kernel instead of a broken one (and the new one that works was already at RC6 when Karmic dropped).

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 05:05 PM
It is a kernel issue, but if Karmic were released when it were ready all those CDs could ship with a working kernel instead of a broken one (and the new one that works was already at RC6 when Karmic dropped).

"No, it doesn't work that way. An "exception" here would set back the
release by a whole week, due to the time involved in integrating kernel
changes and validating the resulting images. We aren't going to do that for
a single piece of hardware that's supported on a best effort basis - this is
entirely suitable for fixing in a post-release update."

- 404626 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-release-notes/+bug/404626)

tuahaa
November 12th, 2009, 05:08 PM
double post =/ sorry

tuahaa
November 12th, 2009, 05:11 PM
A lot of people love shiny (I do =P), but you have a point. I reckon the Ubuntu developers need to polish the stability (although I haven't had many problems after 9.10 when I fully updated it) before they go for shine.

I also agree with 1roxtar. If ubutnu didn't exist, I assume a lot of us (including me and the people I 'converted') wouldn't be using Ubuntu. Without Ubuntu, I don't believe that Linux can find its way to the average PC

shuttleworthwannabe
November 12th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Is this not why we have LTS releases? they focus on stability. But I feel the shiny part is a necessary component, but not sufficient to make a ditro 'likeable'.

My 2 trillion ZimDollars...

Wim Sturkenboom
November 12th, 2009, 05:20 PM
We just have to be realistic that stability is not free, it comes when software has had the time and use to mature.Are you serious? How is it in that case possible that things that work in an older release all at a sudden don't work in a newer one? It was working great, matured even further and therefore should be working perfectly now.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 05:21 PM
"No, it doesn't work that way. An "exception" here would set back the
release by a whole week, due to the time involved in integrating kernel
changes and validating the resulting images. We aren't going to do that for
a single piece of hardware that's supported on a best effort basis - this is
entirely suitable for fixing in a post-release update."

- 404626 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-release-notes/+bug/404626)

It might set the release back by a week. Or a month. Or even more. But the devs should have enough flexibility to decide to do that when it's really necessary, and I don't think that they do now. In this case the shipped kernel is a major mess with severe regressions on a lot of hardware, and that seems like a whole lot of unnecessary pain for the users and "bad karma" for Ubuntu.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 05:25 PM
Are you serious? How is it in that case possible that things that work in an older release all at a sudden don't work in a newer one? It was working great, matured even further and therefore should be working perfectly now.

That might be easier to explain if you gave a concrete example. Are you saying I'm wrong and that stability doesn't require code to be used, or that bugs don't take time to resolve?

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 05:29 PM
In this case the shipped kernel is a major mess with severe regressions on a lot of hardware, and that seems like a whole lot of unnecessary pain for the users and "bad karma" for Ubuntu.

I completely agree.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 05:42 PM
It might set the release back by a week. Or a month. Or even more. But the devs should have enough flexibility to decide to do that when it's really necessary, and I don't think that they do now. In this case the shipped kernel is a major mess with severe regressions on a lot of hardware, and that seems like a whole lot of unnecessary pain for the users and "bad karma" for Ubuntu.

I am starting to wonder if you have even installed Karmic. It is only having problems with a small group of people.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 05:48 PM
I am starting to wonder if you have even installed Karmic. It is only having problems with a small group of people.

Uh huh. And you know that because...? Maybe if you refuse to believe me about the kernel problems, you might take Linus' word for it?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/377

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 05:49 PM
It might set the release back by a week. Or a month. Or even more. But the devs should have enough flexibility to decide to do that when it's really necessary, and I don't think that they do now. In this case the shipped kernel is a major mess with severe regressions on a lot of hardware, and that seems like a whole lot of unnecessary pain for the users and "bad karma" for Ubuntu.

So where does the line get drawn? Debian stable has a "release when ready" (specifically, when all release-critical bugs are resolved) policy. Last time it took seven months from the code freeze to release. Are you willing to wait an extra seven months for the next Ubuntu?

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 05:52 PM
So where does the line get drawn? Debian stable has a "release when ready" (specifically, when all release-critical bugs are resolved) policy. Last time it took seven months from the code freeze to release. Are you willing to wait an extra seven months for the next Ubuntu?

Yes.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 05:56 PM
Uh huh. And you know that because...? Maybe if you refuse to believe me about the kernel problems, you might take Linus' word for it?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/377

If you take a closer look at the beginning of his blog, you will see he is talking about the kernel for Lucid, not Karmic.

Karmic 2.6.31
Lucid 2.6.32

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 05:58 PM
So where does the line get drawn? Debian stable has a "release when ready" (specifically, when all release-critical bugs are resolved) policy. Last time it took seven months from the code freeze to release. Are you willing to wait an extra seven months for the next Ubuntu?

I might be. But I think that the Ubuntu devs should make the call. It just seems foolish to be a slave to an artificial timetable, and especially one that seems overly ambitious to me. We all know that even with the best planning "stuff happens" over the course of many projects. Having time to fix what's really broken before releasing a final product to the public just seems like common sense to me.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 05:59 PM
If you take a closer look at the beginning of his blog, you will see he is talking about the kernel for Lucid, not Karmic.

Karmic 2.6.31
Lucid 2.6.32

And in that Lucid kernel there are fixes for bugs that are present in the Karmic kernel, such as the ext4 file corruption bug and suspend/resume support regressions.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 06:00 PM
If you take a closer look at the beginning of his blog, you will see he is talking about the kernel for Lucid, not Karmic.

Karmic 2.6.31
Lucid 2.6.32

If you take a look at MY blog you'll see lots of issues and bug reports including a screenshot of a now "unstable" system that worked perfectly well with 6.04-9.04 (and again stable now that 9.10 is GONE from it).

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Yes.

In that case, you might want to either (a) stick to LTS releases, or (b) move to Debian stable. They will give you what you're looking for.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 06:06 PM
And in that Lucid kernel there are fixes for bugs that are present in the Karmic kernel, such as the ext4 file corruption bug and suspend/resume support regressions.

I must say I am sorry to hear some small amount of people are having problems with EXT4. I have never had any problems with that nor the suspend function.

Karmic only had one little flaw for me, but I don't feel the need to cry about it. I fixed it and it is good.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:06 PM
In that case, you might want to either (a) stick to LTS releases, or (b) move to Debian stable. They will give you what you're looking for.

Is anyone "looking for" a release that breaks their system only because it had to be released at the six-month mark, or are some people just defending it because they like Ubuntu and feel loyal to it?

I like Ubuntu and feel loyal to it, which is why I'm speaking my mind when I think there's something really wrong with the current release cycle and it's hurting Ubuntu.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 06:11 PM
If you take a look at MY blog you'll see lots of issues and bug reports including a screenshot of a now "unstable" system that worked perfectly well with 6.04-9.04 (and again stable now that 9.10 is GONE from it).

There is a big difference between a complaint from the guy who made Linux and a random guy that is having problems with his system. I hope you submitted bug reports.

Too many people are on here complaining that Ubuntu wasn't ready, yet how many of you ran the system during testing to get your special case systems the attention they needed before release?

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 06:13 PM
In that case, you might want to either (a) stick to LTS releases, or (b) move to Debian stable. They will give you what you're looking for.

Some of these people want something to complain about. If everything works, they'll be sad.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 06:17 PM
Is anyone "looking for" a release that breaks their system only because it had to be released at the six-month mark, or are some people just defending it because they like Ubuntu and feel loyal to it?

I like Ubuntu and feel loyal to it, which is why I'm speaking my mind when I think there's something really wrong with the current release cycle and it's hurting Ubuntu.

I do not feel loyal to Ubuntu. I have used other distros before it, and I would consider using other distros if they better met my needs.

I switched from MEPIS to Ubuntu a couple years ago despite the fact that MEPIS was (and I would guess still is) more stable than Ubuntu, because I wanted something with more frequent releases and newer code.

Your "breaks their system" comment is unnecessarily cynical.

I am not anti-stability. I am just pointing out the downside of stability. Although I feel like a broken record saying it, there are distros out there that cater to stability and code maturity. They're good distros. But the price is that the code is old.

So many people right now are toeing the "stability before features" line, but they won't accept that it means old code.

Let me put it to you this way: If Ubuntu did what people are suggesting, and didn't release "until it's ready", then what (apart from some cosmetic things) would be the difference between it and Debian Stable? I can't think of much...

So what I'm saying is, you want this -- well, it exists! Go experience its pros and cons and then see what you think is best for Ubuntu.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:21 PM
There is a big difference between a complaint from the guy who made Linux and a random guy that is having problems with his system.
Translation: Most users are stupid; The Church of Linus will decide whether your complaint is legitimate or a result of your own ignorance.


Too many people are on here complaining that Ubuntu wasn't ready, yet how many of you ran the system during testing to get your special case systems the attention they needed before release?
Translation: The user is to blame when Ubuntu puts out a problematic product due to a rushed and inflexible schedule.


Some of these people want something to complain about. If everything works, they'll be sad.
Translation: Shut up, whiners!

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:25 PM
So many people right now are toeing the "stability before features" line, but they won't accept that it means old code.
I agree with you that there is a trade-off, and also that I personally would be frustrated by the software in say Debian Stable. But it's also not a black and white issue, not either you get Lenny or you get Karmic. Ubuntu could be a BIT more flexible in its release schedule and still strive to put out frequent cutting-edge releases, don't you think?

I think that the devs should decide, and if they decide that it's ready then that's fine. But I'd like for them to have the flexibility to ask for more time if necessary. I think that they might have done that with Karmic, but I'm not a dev so I don't really know.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Translation: Most users are stupid; The Church of Linus will decide whether your complaint is legitimate or a result of your own ignorance.

First of all, I am no Zealot. Everyone here seems to have a complaint about Ubuntu not working on their Windows machine, yet they don't want to take part in the testing process?


Translation: The user is to blame when Ubuntu puts out a problematic product due to a rushed and inflexible schedule.

Again, if you own a non-Windows machine, would you still be having these problems?


Translation: Shut up, whiners!

You said it, not me.

Hyporeal
November 12th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Is anyone "looking for" a release that breaks their system only because it had to be released at the six-month mark, or are some people just defending it because they like Ubuntu and feel loyal to it?

You keep repeating this claim, but you have never cited any evidence for it. I see no correlation between the release cycle and regressions that make it into kernel releases. I have no reason to believe that changing the release cycle will positively affect the quality of the Linux kernels in Ubuntu, or of Ubuntu in general. There are real advantages to Ubuntu's six month cycle, and I wouldn't want to lose those advantages on a whim.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 06:48 PM
You keep repeating this claim, but you have never cited any evidence for it. I see no correlation between the release cycle and regressions that make it into kernel releases. I have no reason to believe that changing the release cycle will positively affect the quality of the Linux kernels in Ubuntu, or of Ubuntu in general. There are real advantages to Ubuntu's six month cycle, and I wouldn't want to lose those advantages on a whim.

I agree. I have found that Debian Squeeze and Karmic have had the same little problems, Conky didn't work and Brasero didn't work. Really big show stoppers. (being sarcastic)

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:52 PM
You keep repeating this claim, but you have never cited any evidence for it. I see no correlation between the release cycle and regressions that make it into kernel releases. I have no reason to believe that changing the release cycle will positively affect the quality of the Linux kernels in Ubuntu, or of Ubuntu in general. There are real advantages to Ubuntu's six month cycle, and I wouldn't want to lose those advantages on a whim.

AFAIK, most kernels are good, and improvements on previous versions. This one seems to have been very problematic, and the next one (2.6.32) resolves some very critical issues that it has (see my post above). So I'm not saying that this is an issue specific to the kernel, just that in this case that's an example of a serious problems that could've been resolved by waiting a little bit longer until the release was really solid. The next time it might be some major Grub bug or who knows what. I'm not saying that the release should be perfect, since of course that's impossible, just that there should be enough flexibility in the process to allow the schedule to slip when the final release will be greatly improved as a result.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 06:52 PM
I agree with you that there is a trade-off, and also that I personally would be frustrated by the software in say Debian Stable. But it's also not a black and white issue, not either you get Lenny or you get Karmic. Ubuntu could be a BIT more flexible in its release schedule and still strive to put out frequent cutting-edge releases, don't you think?

It seems reasonable to me --they did it for dapper, but then I've never stood in the shoes of the release manager.

But "a bit of flexibility" is not what I'm hearing from the OP and others. To quote the OP:


Stable first, shiny second.

That's an overriding ethos that gets you Debian Stable.


I think that the devs should decide, and if they decide that it's ready then that's fine. But I'd like for them to have the flexibility to ask for more time if necessary. I think that they might have done that with Karmic, but I'm not a dev so I don't really know.

Is there an outcry in the Ubuntu dev community for more flexibility? Do Ubuntu devs want this? Were there devs pushing for a delayed Karmic release? So far most of the complaints I've heard are from frustrated users dealing with regressions or upgrade bugs.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:57 PM
First of all, I am no Zealot. Everyone here seems to have a complaint about Ubuntu not working on their Windows machine, yet they don't want to take part in the testing process?
Who says people who are complaining don't participate in testing? Are you gonna say that to Fewt? I beta test on most releases and contribute to bug reports.

You are dismissing people's complaints out-of-hand and saying they must be to blame if they have problems, which to me is not the way to improve Ubuntu for "Human Beings".


Again, if you own a non-Windows machine, would you still be having these problems?
A "non-Windows machine"? I have a very common Lenovo laptop that's less than a year old. Are you saying that I shouldn't expect Ubuntu to run on it?


You said it, not me.
I just translated so that it would be more clear what you were really saying.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 06:58 PM
Is there an outcry in the Ubuntu dev community for more flexibility? Do Ubuntu devs want this? Were there devs pushing for a delayed Karmic release? So far most of the complaints I've heard are from frustrated users dealing with regressions or upgrade bugs.

That I don't know and I think it would be interesting to find out.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Who says people who are complaining don't participate in testing? Are you gonna say that to Fewt? I beta test on most releases and contribute to bug reports.

You are dismissing people's complaints out-of-hand and saying they must be to blame if they have problems, which to me is not the way to improve Ubuntu for "Human Beings".


A "non-Windows machine"? I have a very common Lenovo laptop that's less than a year old. Are you saying that I shouldn't expect Ubuntu to run on it?


I just translated so that it would be more clear what you were really saying.

You are putting Ubuntu on an IBM computer made for Windows. Luckily, I did the same thing and it worked for me.

It sounds to me that you want Ubuntu to be Debian, but you don't want Debian.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 07:36 PM
You are putting Ubuntu on an IBM computer made for Windows. Luckily, I did the same thing and it worked for me.
So according to you Ubuntu should only work on computers made by Canonical for Ubuntu? Sounds like you want Ubuntu to be OSX to me. There's no disputing that Karmic should run on my hardware (Jaunty did), so you may as well stop trying.

It sounds to me that you want Ubuntu to be Debian, but you don't want Debian.

I think I've been clear about what I'd suggest, but Fewt says what I've been thinking better than I have and with a lot more specifics, so read his letter to Mr. Shuttleworth (http://www.fewt.com/2009/10/dear-mr-shuttleworth-canonical-and.html) instead.

mivo
November 12th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Too many people are on here complaining that Ubuntu wasn't ready, yet how many of you ran the system during testing to get your special case systems the attention they needed before release?

Yes, many of those who had issues, especially in regard to connectivity, did file bug reports. Many of them are still open. Did you bother looking at Launchpad before making this statement? The broken USB modem issue was reported before release and flagged as "medium importance". A critial issue, but if it had been marked that way, it might have delayed the release of 9.10.

Keeping the 6-months schedule is more important than releasing a stable, polished version. That is what has gotten Ubuntu into this situation. A consolidation release is needed. One that only addresses bugs and issues, and does not add more.

NJC
November 12th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Wonder if Mark reads the forums?
He would need an extra 3 lives to have time to read these forums.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Yes, many of those who had issues, especially in regard to connectivity, did file bug reports. Many of them are still open. Did you bother looking at Launchpad before making this statement? The broken USB modem issue was reported before release and flagged as "medium importance". A critial issue, but if it had been marked that way, it might have delayed the release of 9.10.

Keeping the 6-months schedule is more important than releasing a stable, polished version. That is what has gotten Ubuntu into this situation. A consolidation release is needed. One that only addresses bugs and issues, and does not add more.

To me USB modems are special cases. There are too many brands with different drivers. If it is expected of me to look at launchpad before making statements, I would think it would definitely be expected for those looking to upgrade Ubuntu to do the same to make sure their system is compatible before upgrading their production system or be ready to break out the UTP cable.

Edit: I tried out Karmic while ot was Beta and when it released and I still couldn't burn CDs, I went back to Jaunty after filing a bug report.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 07:45 PM
In that case, you might want to either (a) stick to LTS releases, or (b) move to Debian stable. They will give you what you're looking for.

LTS doesn't include drivers for new hardware due to the age of the kernel, so it's effectively useless for anything newer than the hardware available at time of release.

In some cases there are third parties that create or update modules for support, but Canonical has historically not given a crap about it themselves.

Don't preach LTS to me.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 07:47 PM
There is a big difference between a complaint from the guy who made Linux and a random guy that is having problems with his system. I hope you submitted bug reports.

Too many people are on here complaining that Ubuntu wasn't ready, yet how many of you ran the system during testing to get your special case systems the attention they needed before release?

I guess you didn't bother to click EITHER link in my sig. I'm not surprised, keep preaching though.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 07:48 PM
First of all, I am no Zealot. Everyone here seems to have a complaint about Ubuntu not working on their Windows machine, yet they don't want to take part in the testing process?


Do you know what it means to assume? Many of us tested and tested, and found bug after bug. You conveniently ignore that fact though.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 07:51 PM
You are putting Ubuntu on an IBM computer made for Windows. Luckily, I did the same thing and it worked for me.

It sounds to me that you want Ubuntu to be Debian, but you don't want Debian.

More excuses.

The computer I took the screenshot on was an IBM model that was made for and sold with Linux. I would bet the OPs model is on that list too.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day. (http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-48NT8D&sitestyle=lenovo)

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 07:57 PM
I guess you didn't bother to click EITHER link in my sig. I'm not surprised, keep preaching though.

I did a screenshot of the first link to show how informative it was. As for the second one, when a blog starts out as a flame, I immediately close it.

Edit: I actually took time to read your blog anyway, if I were to see that a system, such as a Thinkpad, were sold with Karmic, then there would be reason to complain. But even then I would blame Lenovo for not testing the OS before selling a system with Karmic on it.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 08:00 PM
As for the second one, when a blog starts out as a flame, I immediately close it.

READ: You can't be proven wrong so you aren't going to read it because it may do so.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 08:05 PM
READ: You can't be proven wrong so you aren't going to read it because it may do so.

You lost me with the WinKarmic ME flame.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 08:06 PM
...when a blog starts out as a flame, I immediately close it.
Unless, of course, it's a flame that you agree with...

Here's someone who's invested a whole lot of time and energy making Ubuntu work on netbooks (I'm running Eeebuntu on my Eee PC right now, and it's by far the best Ubuntu-based OS for it), but you won't even read his well-founded and -documented criticisms because to you it's a "flame"? Closed parachutes lead to rude awakenings, my friend.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 08:06 PM
You lost me with the WinKarmic ME flame.

The truth hurts. It's not a flame if it isn't inaccurate.

Deal with it.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 08:11 PM
Unless, of course, it's a flame that you agree with...

Here's someone who's invested a whole lot of time and energy making Ubuntu work on netbooks (I'm running Eeebuntu on my Eee PC right now, and it's by far the best Ubuntu-based OS for it), but you won't even read his well-founded and -documented criticisms because to you it's a "flame"? Closed parachutes lead to rude awakenings, my friend.

I read the rest of it and I agree, to an extent. If it didn't start out with an effed up comparison, I might have been tempted to read it all the first time.

And like I have said, if a producer is selling an OS on a machine that doesn't work, then shouldn't we be mad at the producer for selling it without testing it?

I have a Lenovo with Ubuntu on it. It came with XP, but I wrote over that. It works fine.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 08:13 PM
The truth hurts. It's not a flame if it isn't inaccurate.

Deal with it.

To me it is inaccurate, because I like the way Karic looks, feels, and runs.

The reason I truely disagree with the analogy, is that Windows ME was a quick release for MS to make money and they made a failure. Every time Ubuntu makes a release, people make these same complaints thinking that it will make a difference with Mr. Shuttleworth. Maybe it will one day, but I doubt it.

Edit: The day the release schedule does change, if and when it does, I will support it. I am not that hard to get along with. Ubuntu is given to me for free and I, therefore, am happy with it.

youbuntu
November 12th, 2009, 08:15 PM
I'm going to keep this brief, because I'm tired, and maybe, just maybe, it'll get across to the 'big guy'.

Dear Mark Shuttleworth,

I just want to let you know, I see the bigger picture. This open letter did not come from frustrations of 'OMG! my app isn't working!" I know Karmic is just a point release, not an LTS or anything. And that's not the 'point' anyway. (I haven't installed it, I'm fine with Jaunty, thanks.) My problem is that you seem to be ignoring a few things in your passion to move forward with Ubuntu as a technology, and I'm only going to mention the broad, important part, as your time is valuable.

First off, lets 'tighten the code' before moving on. Why add new software technology when we haven't even gotten the old stuff working properly? Learn from the giant that fell before you - consumers will go for stable before they ever go for 'shiny'.

Windows 2000 may be old roadkill now with the launch of the stable and shiny Windows 7, but it used to be the industry standby, before XP, and even into the aftermath of Windows Vista.

Stable first, shiny second.

The second and last point I want to make is one that everyone in the community has felt at some time, but it's normal, as confrontations are inevitable. It can be helped, though- we seem to missing something, a sort of 'oneness' or 'completeness' to Ubuntu as a whole.
Sure, Karmic's new splash(es) are pretty neat, (But I think all UI designers across the free world suddenly cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silenced, if you know what I mean.) but there's no fluidity. Why do we have a clean, retro apple-esqe (forgive me) start, and then it humming bright orange and black modern freak out. Pick one, or streamline it somehow. (my personal opinion: take out the first altogether - you barely see it anyway.) Please, please, listen to the brilliant UI designers of the contributing artwork team. They've got some amazing stuff, and it looks like you forgot you had them.

All in all, practice makes perfect, learn from mistakes, and listen to users. Microsnot took a long time to learn and use that last one, but apparently, they* got the memo. It's your turn, Mark.

* except for their advertising committee. The ads are ridiculous.

Yep, the Orange (?!) and brown UI is fugly - inconsistent and looks like it was a weekend project for a kid at college. NEEDS to look a LOT better.

lethalfang
November 12th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Your oft repeated mantra doesn't bear scrutiny.

Oh yes, it has.
That's the reason consumers have dumped Vista en mass and have taken refuge with the 10-year old but much more stable WinXP.
Maybe 1% of computer users have the appetite to fix things everyday. That's call beat-testers.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 08:18 PM
And like I have said, if a producer is selling an OS on a machine that doesn't work, then shouldn't we be mad at the producer for selling it without testing it?

I don't understand your point. Lenovo should have tested their hardware on Karmic, even though Karmic wasn't due out for another ten months or so when I bought this laptop? Jaunty (mostly) worked on this hardware, as do other distros I've tried.

You keep trying to pass the buck here, and I'm not sure why. Personally I think that the root cause of most of my personal problems had to do with the kernel version, which is obviously upstream from Ubuntu. But the question in my mind is whether Ubuntu would be better served by a more flexible release schedule that allows them to deal with things like that better.

Other issues have different causes, and some of them do seem to indicate a lack of focus on fundamental stability by the Ubuntu devs (or perhaps not enough time to focus on this).

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 08:26 PM
LTS doesn't include drivers for new hardware due to the age of the kernel, so it's effectively useless for anything newer than the hardware available at time of release.

In some cases there are third parties that create or update modules for support, but Canonical has historically not given a crap about it themselves.

Don't preach LTS to me.

I am not "preaching LTS". Maybe you should calm down and try to understand the point I'm making.

You said you'd be willing to wait as much as seven additional months for stability. In other words, don't release until the bugs are fixed.

If that's the case, we have Debian Stable, do we not? If you freeze software versions, then don't release until every RC bug is fixed -- even if it takes most of a year -- then the software you release (including the kernel and drivers) is going to be old.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 08:26 PM
I don't understand your point. Lenovo should have tested their hardware on Karmic, even though Karmic wasn't due out for another ten months or so when I bought this laptop? Jaunty (mostly) worked on this hardware, as do other distros I've tried.

You keep trying to pass the buck here, and I'm not sure why. Personally I think that the root cause of most of my personal problems had to do with the kernel version, which is obviously upstream from Ubuntu. But the question in my mind is whether Ubuntu would be better served by a more flexible release schedule that allows them to deal with things like that better.

Other issues have different causes, and some of them do seem to indicate a lack of focus on fundamental stability by the Ubuntu devs (or perhaps not enough time to focus on this).

My point is, If Lenovo sold it to you with Jaunty, then it should have been tested with Jaunty. When you upgrade beyond that, you are on your own. If they sold it with Karmic, then you would be able to expect it to work with it.

If Ubuntu decides to start taking 9 months or 12 months per release cycle I will support it, but then there will be a whole new group complaining they came to Ubuntu for the 6 month cycle. You can't please everyone.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 08:31 PM
I am not "preaching LTS". Maybe you should calm down and try to understand the point I'm making.

You said you'd be willing to wait as much as seven additional months for stability. In other words, don't release until the bugs are fixed.

If that's the case, we have Debian Stable, do we not? If you freeze software versions, then don't release until every RC bug is fixed -- even if it takes most of a year -- then the software you release (including the kernel and drivers) is going to be old.

The problem is that you haven't made your point. You can't use an LTS or even debian stable if your hardware isn't supported.

The LTS would be great if there was a better hardware support model in the kernel, but there isn't which is yet another reason a 6 month release cycle w/ stable snapshots as LTS can never work.

michaelzap
November 12th, 2009, 08:36 PM
My point is, If Lenovo sold it to you with Jaunty, then it should have been tested with Jaunty. When you upgrade beyond that, you are on your own. If they sold it with Karmic, then you would be able to expect it to work with it.

Ubuntu should work on most hardware if they want people to use it (and they clearly do), so this is a red herring.


If Ubuntu decides to start taking 9 months or 12 months per release cycle I will support it, but then there will be a whole new group complaining they came to Ubuntu for the 6 month cycle. You can't please everyone.

I could see a longer release cycle helping, although I think a more flexible one would be better at resolving these issues. I don't claim to have a magic bullet to fix the problem, but I do think that there's a problem and I hope they will try to fix it. I want Ubuntu to succeed.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 08:37 PM
The problem is that you haven't made your point. You can't use an LTS or even debian stable if your hardware isn't supported.

The LTS would be great if there was a better hardware support model in the kernel, but there isn't which is yet another reason a 6 month release cycle w/ stable snapshots as LTS can never work.

I think you are trying not to see his point. If they get a kernel now and build on it for a year, then when it releases a new hardware technology comes out that is not supported by that year old kernel. You will have the same problem. Or do you expect them to keep changing the kernel as they build, which would mean they would have to keep changing the software as they redo the kernel.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I think you are trying not to see his point. If they get a kernel now and build on it for a year, then when it releases a new hardware technology comes out that is not supported by that year old kernel. You will have the same problem. Or do you expect them to keep changing the kernel as they build, which would mean they would have to keep changing the software as they redo the kernel.

Thank you. I was getting tired of repeating myself.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I think you are trying not to see his point. If they get a kernel now and build on it for a year, then when it releases a new hardware technology comes out that is not supported by that year old kernel. You will have the same problem. Or do you expect them to keep changing the kernel as they build, which would mean they would have to keep changing the software as they redo the kernel.

Why build on a snapshot of a kernel rather than working upstream and staying close to the newest kernel at all times?

The problem is that they get a kernel and they let it stagnate between releases.

Things don't get patched, and new systems are never supported by old releases. This effectively pushes everyone to the newest release all the time.

Look at RedHat's model for a much better method of LTS.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Why build on a snapshot of a kernel rather than working upstream and staying close to the newest kernel at all times?

The problem is that they get a kernel and they let it stagnate between releases.

Things don't get patched, and new systems are never supported by old releases. This effectively pushes everyone to the newest release all the time.

Look at RedHat's model for a much better method of LTS.

Kind of off subject, but RedHat almost caused me to be stuck with Windows. They were the first site I found when searching for Linux and I seen their prices. I got to class a few days later and asked a classmate how he could afford his Linux on his income and he told me to use google for my search engine next time. I went home and googled Linux and found the free side of Linux.

Fedora looks nice. I am happy with Ubuntu and hope that if they make changes, though I personally don't think they need to, then I hope the changes are for the better. My system is old and I don't run Bluetooth, WiFi, or my TVs off of it, so I don't need the high tech support. I prefer my wired network. If I do step up my income and then my lifestyle to meet it, then I would like to have that support.

lykwydchykyn
November 12th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Why build on a snapshot of a kernel rather than working upstream and staying close to the newest kernel at all times?

The problem is that they get a kernel and they let it stagnate between releases.

So... what you want is a rolling-release kernel, but everything else should be release-when-its-ready?

How will this help avoid kernel regressions?


Things don't get patched, and new systems are never supported by old releases. This effectively pushes everyone to the newest release all the time.

Depending on what you mean by "patched", that's relatively true. Keep in mind as of 8.04, LTS releases also get point releases with rolled up security and bugfix backports.

I think the quandry with LTS support is, what do you backport? Just the kernel? Major user applications? Apps generally considered to be at a particularly buggy release?




Look at RedHat's model for a much better method of LTS.

I have no doubt that redhat has the LTS thing down solid. They ought to by now.

I'd love to see LTS support in Ubuntu improve in various ways.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 09:23 PM
So... what you want is a rolling-release kernel, but everything else should be release-when-its-ready?


Sure, it's possible to have your cake and eat it too. One of the first things I do is roll up the kernel after an Ubuntu release because they rarely get it right themselves.

Rolling with the mainline kernel doesn't mean it has to be bleeding edge mind you. RedHat backports patches drivers etc often in their kernel even in their free fedora release which would also be fine.

It could be as easy as: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.31.6/

QIII
November 12th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Ayeee!

OK. Here's the deal...

If you don't like something, say it to the developers or to Mark himself while the test versions ARE FREELY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO TEST. Don't complain after the fact.

Test the Alphas all the way through the RC. Let them know what you find. They don't know about your problems until you tell them. If you go to your local donut shop after they have cleaned up the frying vats for the evening, don't expect to get your special order donuts.

Canonical has about 200 permanent employees and a global web of developers and MOTUs who often work for peanuts and scraps of bread -- if that.

Canonical doesn't have the resources that more commercial distributors have to throw everything down on the table and try to break everything against the rocks of every possible hardware setup every single user may have.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using another distro. That is the empowerment of choice. If it works for you, use it. That is the point. Linux comes in many flavors. Even spinach ice cream with chunks of sweet pickles if that suits your fancy.

Use a rolling release distro. Use a slow release distro. Ubuntu is what it is. It splits the difference.

RiceMonster
November 12th, 2009, 09:31 PM
Kind of off subject, but RedHat almost caused me to be stuck with Windows. They were the first site I found when searching for Linux and I seen their prices. I got to class a few days later and asked a classmate how he could afford his Linux on his income and he told me to use google for my search engine next time. I went home and googled Linux and found the free side of Linux.

What's your point? RHEL is not for home users.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 09:47 PM
What's your point? RHEL is not for home users.

Did you read the whole statement before asking that?

RiceMonster
November 12th, 2009, 09:52 PM
Did you read the whole sentence before asking that?

Yes. I don't see what your point was with that... or was there one at all?

SomeGuyDude
November 12th, 2009, 09:53 PM
People will always go for shiny before functional.

To wit: the iPhone is the worst PHONE ever made, but it had neat toys and looked pretty, so it sold like mad.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 09:59 PM
Yes. I don't see what your point was with that... or was there one at all?

Yes there was, but I guess it was beyond your comprehension. At the time of the search, I knew nothing about Linux. I ran a search for Linux and ended up at RedHat's paid site. I did not know there were free versions. A classmate told me to use google for the search engine. I used it and found the rest of the distros.

If you knew nothing of servers and did your first search and found yourself at MS's Server 2008R2 that is priced at $3999, wouldn't that be a wee bit discouraging?

I hope that makes you feel that your are above me, because you are.

mivo
November 12th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Canonical has about 200 permanent employees and a global web of developers and MOTUs who often work for peanuts and scraps of bread -- if that.

Many other distros have no paid developers and have more stable and polished releases.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Many other distros have no paid developers and have more stable and polished releases.

In your opinion.

Enjoy.

fewt
November 12th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Many other distros have no paid developers and have more stable and polished releases.

++

mivo
November 12th, 2009, 11:00 PM
In your opinion.

In my experience.

running_rabbit07
November 12th, 2009, 11:20 PM
In my experience.

Then why are you here? To help or to flame? I have tried a few other distros and was displeased with their GUI and or workmanship. Ubuntu is completely stable on my machine and looks great.

mivo
November 12th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Then why are you here? To help or to flame?

Voicing criticism isn't "flaming". Pointing out problems is more likely to lead to progress and improvement than covering up issues and pretending there are no troubles. The latter is what you are doing. You are not helping Ubuntu by denying there are issues and blaming the users for "not testing", when Launchpad proves you wrong. But you didn't even look.

If I didn't give a damn, I'd not be here. Unlike you, I didn't start using Ubuntu just this year.

But if it offers comfort you, of my three computers that used to run Ubuntu, only one is left using the distro. One was switched back to Windows (W7 now), the other has been running Arch for eighteen months. The third one, a laptop, runs Ubuntu still. I haven't given up hope that Canonical gets their act together.

michaelzap
November 13th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Voicing criticism isn't "flaming". Pointing out problems is more likely to lead to progress and improvement than covering up issues and pretending there are no troubles. The latter is what you are doing. You are not helping Ubuntu by denying there are issues and blaming the users for "not testing", when Launchpad proves you wrong. But you didn't even look.

+1!

Boy have I been repeating variations on that theme until I'm blue in the face lately...

ensign.dan
November 13th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Good evening, Mark. Everything's running smoothly...
Just don't fed up if Linux community give you a rough time that's the way life is:cool:

Noo 2 Ubuntoo
November 13th, 2009, 12:43 AM
Many other distros have no paid developers and have more stable and polished releases.

Which distros are those? This is not a question implying criticism. I am just curious as I am new to the Linux world.

QIII
November 13th, 2009, 01:05 AM
Many other distros have no paid developers and have more stable and polished releases.

For instance ... ?

SomeGuyDude
November 13th, 2009, 01:10 AM
I really don't want to make this a thread about other distros, but as far as I know Arch has no paid devs and it's a very polished and stable system. Whether you think it's more or less so than Ubuntu is up for debate and I do NOT want to open that can of worms, just saying that's a possible example.

Arup
November 13th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Of course, they are more polished and sophisticated and yet, at distrowatch Ubuntu stays on top. Everyone I know trying on Linux for first time mentions Ubuntu. Quite a few famous distros including Mint base themselves on Ubuntu, after all its the shoddy inferior quality of Ubuntu makes it attractive to all of them and us I presume. ;)

Fact is that I have tried out Arch, I rate sidux way better personally, I initially started my Linux adventures with SuSE, purchased their DVD set in fact. I also tried out Fedora and Mandriva and Sabayon as well, ultimately I went back to Ubuntu. Every now and then I delve into other distros but Ubuntu remains a permanent feature in my list, guess I am a stickler for shoddy unpolished things.

michaelzap
November 13th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Of course, they are more polished and sophisticated and yet, at distrowatch Ubuntu stays on top. Everyone I know trying on Linux for first time mentions Ubuntu. Quite a few famous distros including Mint base themselves on Ubuntu, after all its the shoddy inferior quality of Ubuntu makes it attractive to all of them and us I presume. ;)

I don't think the point of this thread is to debate whether "Ubuntu sux!" or "Ubuntu rulez!" It's whether or not Ubuntu could be better if there were some changes in the way that it's developed.

Arup
November 13th, 2009, 01:20 AM
I don't think the point of this thread is to debate whether "Ubuntu sux!" or "Ubuntu rulez!" It's whether or not Ubuntu could be better if there were some changes in the way that it's developed.

Everything can be improved, not just Ubuntu, point is in any situation, there are compromises, priorities and decisions to be made, I am sure team Ubuntu is doing it right as I don't see its acceptance or popularity go down in any way.

Noo 2 Ubuntoo
November 13th, 2009, 01:20 AM
Thanks for replies guys, off to bed now (it's 12:20am over here) I'll have a look at those distros tomorrow. Hope I hven't caused this thread to go off subject.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 01:23 AM
your oft repeated mantra doesn't bear scrutiny.

-1


whether or not it bears scrutiny the author makes a very good point. I agree with the statement.

+1

running_rabbit07
November 13th, 2009, 02:51 AM
Voicing criticism isn't "flaming". Pointing out problems is more likely to lead to progress and improvement than covering up issues and pretending there are no troubles. The latter is what you are doing. You are not helping Ubuntu by denying there are issues and blaming the users for "not testing", when Launchpad proves you wrong. But you didn't even look.

If I didn't give a damn, I'd not be here. Unlike you, I didn't start using Ubuntu just this year.

And that has what to do with the conversation? I may be newer, but I have learned a lot. Don't judge me for being one of the noobs that doesn't know anything. I have been breaking my system time and again just to learn how to fix it. And most of the fixes I have done, have been on my own.


But if it offers comfort you, of my three computers that used to run Ubuntu, only one is left using the distro. One was switched back to Windows (W7 now), the other has been running Arch for eighteen months. The third one, a laptop, runs Ubuntu still. I haven't given up hope that Canonical gets their act together.

Use what you like. Apperently you like having an OS that you have to build from the ground up. I don't. I prefer the stability of Ubuntu.

The only vibe I am getting from you is that you are here to say every distro is better than Ubuntu because your's has a rolling release.

As I have stated above, Ubuntu fits my needs.

If they make a change to their release cycle, I'll be happy for you. Then after the schedule is changed, the other half of the Ubuntu people will cry they came here for the 6 month cycle so now they are leaving.

mivo
November 13th, 2009, 03:15 AM
The only vibe I am getting from you is that you are here to say every distro is better than Ubuntu because your's has a rolling release.

I have not recommended any distros in this thread, because this is about Ubuntu and the issues that it suffers from. And improvement. I use two distros, one of them being Ubuntu.

The vibe I get from you is that you are new to Linux and really haven't tried many distros, so maybe you are not an apologist with the aura of a zealot, but genuinely can't compare. That doesn't explain why you refuse to read a blog that addresses the matter and is written by someone who actually knows Ubuntu better than either of us, but nevermind, I don't really want to join you in the sandbox. This thread is about improving Ubuntu, making it better and reduce the number of bugs.


If they make a change to their release cycle, I'll be happy for you.

I am not suggesting that Ubuntu becomes a rolling release distro. With the current Q&A, that would be a disaster. What I am suggesting is to focus more on fixing bugs rather than always adding new features, which then introduce more bugs. To me, it seems like a downward spiral. Above all, I advocate a consolidation release. Bug fixes and correction of long-standing issues instead of new features. Strengthening the foundation and the base instead of adding new floors to the tower that is getting taller and taller.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 03:27 AM
The vibe I get from you is that you are new to Linux and really haven't tried many distros, so maybe you are not an apologist with the aura of a zealot, but genuinely can't compare.

I also get that vibe. I also get the vibe that many people want to defend Ubuntu without thinking about whether the suggestion presented is valid.

running_rabbit07
November 13th, 2009, 03:39 AM
I have not recommended any distros in this thread, because this is about Ubuntu and the issues that it suffers from. And improvement. I use two distros, one of them being Ubuntu.

The vibe I get from you is that you are new to Linux and really haven't tried many distros, so maybe you are not an apologist with the aura of a zealot, but genuinely can't compare. That doesn't explain why you refuse to read a blog that addresses the matter and is written by someone who actually knows Ubuntu better than either of us, but nevermind, I don't really want to join you in the sandbox. This thread is about improving Ubuntu, making it better and reduce the number of bugs.

If you reread the post way up the list where I said I didn't like the way the blog started, I did in fact read the blog and agree with most of it. I didn't agree the comparison of Ubuntu Karmic to Windows ME. I have installed Karmic on a few machines without problems.

I have tried Debian, Fedora, and Arch. Ubuntu is Debian with golden trim. I don't like Fedora 12's Add/Remove, I added about 40 programs that never showed up in the menus for me to use.(Not complaining or asking for a fix, just stating my experience with it.) I tried Arch once and when it would not install in a VBox I figured it wasn't for me. I went to Mandriva's site to download the OS and I ended up with their registration form, so I closed it.



I am not suggesting that Ubuntu becomes a rolling release distro. With the current Q&A, that would be a disaster. What I am suggesting is to focus more on fixing bugs rather than always adding new features, which then introduce more bugs. To me, it seems like a downward spiral. Above all, I advocate a consolidation release. Bug fixes and correction of long-standing issues instead of new features. Strengthening the foundation and the base instead of adding new floors to the tower that is getting taller and taller.

running_rabbit07
November 13th, 2009, 03:44 AM
I also get that vibe. I also get the vibe that many people want to defend Ubuntu without thinking about whether the suggestion presented is valid.

If I had read one post to which you weren't dogging Ubuntu nor it's users, then you might get a positive reaction out of me.

wulfgang
November 13th, 2009, 03:47 AM
I agree. They should not have two released every year. One is fine enough.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 03:54 AM
If I had read one post to which you weren't dogging Ubuntu nor it's users, then you might get a positive reaction out of me.

Germany.

It's the best mix of strict but free government I've seen. Go look at all the War memorials and whatnot. Incredibly interesting country.

EDIT
Switzerland is also a very nice country to visit. I recommend it entirely.

There.

hoppipolla
November 13th, 2009, 03:59 AM
There.

wow that's the first one I've seen in AGES...

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 04:00 AM
wow that's the first one I've seen in AGES...

I don't come here to troll, I come for the conversation and sport.

hoppipolla
November 13th, 2009, 04:02 AM
I don't come here to troll, I come for the conversation and sport.

But if you love Windows 7 so much why not just go on their forums?


... I considered signing up there too because I thought it would be funny :D

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 04:05 AM
But if you love Windows 7 so much why not just go on their forums?

I'm on the MSDN forums just FYI.



... I considered signing up there too because I thought it would be funny :D

Because they ban Linux Proclaimers on-site?

overdrank
November 13th, 2009, 04:05 AM
This thread has drifted off topic again. Thread closed.