Why are ubuntu users to admit its faults?

[Twitch6000]

I have noticed in the past year now,whenever a problem is noticed in ubuntu all the users go oh thats your fault.

Or they say thats the hardwares fault.

Or the classic go back to windows noob...

Why not just admit its faults? Are you scared something bad will happen?

I am not afraid to admit faults of the oses I use. Why are you?

Some links to put out what I am talking about -

1. The sudo timeout problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

2. The Problem With Freezing - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ubuntu+freezing&cts=1266364644379&aq=f&aqi=g7&oq=

For a launchpad link - I have given you a few

3. With each release new bugs that were not there before appear -

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyJackalope/ReleaseNotes

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/810

4. Buggy software by default - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=hardy+comes+with+firefox+beta+5&cts=1266364754934&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

[NoaHall]

I don't know what you're talking about. Ubuntu is clearly the most stable operating system EVER MADE.

[ElSlunko]

I know exactly what you're talking about and it does happen from time to time and sometimes the arguments are valid, sometimes not. But I've seen a lot of people getting their issues resolved lately (more than usual) so I don't think it's a trend or epidemic to worry about.

[ElSlunko]

I might add, there is no perfect OS.

[KiwiNZ]

I have noticed in the past year now,whenever a problem is noticed in ubuntu all the users go oh thats your fault.

Or they say thats the hardwares fault.

Or the classic go back to windows noob...

Why not just admit its faults? Are you scared something bad will happen?

I am not afraid to admit faults of the oses I use. Why are you?

Oh and just to get the ball rolling.

Here is a problem with the sudo 15 min timeout ubuntu uses - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

Oh no you didn't

yeah that does happen , I guess its human nature. But its counter productive. Denying faults hinder resolutions.

[Twitch6000]

I don't know what you're talking about. Ubuntu is clearly the most stable operating system EVER MADE.

Rofl... thanks for the laugh..

@ElSlunko I disagree I have seen it happen over the last week.

Heck people still insist compiz is the greatest thing ever when it is still in beta and still very buggy...

I also notice with each xorg update drivers break... (ATI for instance)

However people just say use the open source drivers they better anyways... That doesn't fix the damn problem!!

[ElSlunko]

Denying faults hinder resolutions.

I love this. I'm gonna have to write it down.

[ElSlunko]

Rofl... thanks for the laugh..

@ElSlunko I disagree I have seen it happen over the last week.

Heck people still insist compiz is the greatest thing ever when it is still in beta and still very buggy...

I also notice with each xorg update drivers break... (ATI for instance)

However people just say use the open source drivers they better anyways... That doesn't fix the damn problem!!

Who are people? Surely someone out there will always be out there making a butt of themselves. You can't just take a couple of bad examples and spread it out over the entire ubuntu universe / community.

I find it insulting since I try to be productive here. Sometimes it is driver related & there is nothing you can do. That's admitting fault. Only problem is when someome makes a fault sound like an excuse.

[Twitch6000]

Who are people? Surely someone out there will always be out there making a butt of themselves. You can't just take a couple of bad examples and spread it out over the entire ubuntu universe / community.

I find it insulting since I try to be productive here. Sometimes it is driver related & there is nothing you can do. That's admitting fault. Only problem is when someome makes a fault sound like an excuse.


Well because it seems each new person that starts using ubuntu continues the fudd they here.

I do know many people that know the faults of ubuntu and admit I find that great.

I still see the majoirty of users not admitting it and blaming it elsewhere.

Now with all that said yes it can be the drivers fault,yes it can be the devs fault.

But in the cases I have already mention the blame goes straight to canicoal... and the xorg people..

[Mahngiel]

For many years now the typical computer user has evolved into the "plug + play, click click click... good" type of user. Now that more and more are turning their backs on the big 2 they are finding out the problems with proprietary software/devices working natively. It's just part of the new revolution.

Expect to see a lot more of it, and more responses like this from uppity linux users:

You should have bought hardware that linux supports

Which is fine in it's gist, but for the typical / possible convert, that's not a justifiable answer.

[Twitch6000]

For many years now the typical computer user has evolved into the "plug + play, click click click... good" type of user. Now that more and more are turning their backs on the big 2 they are finding out the problems with proprietary software/devices working natively. It's just part of the new revolution.

Expect to see a lot more of it, and more responses like this from uppity linux users:


Which is fine in it's gist, but for the typical / possible convert, that's not a justifiable answer.

You see though you bring me to another point.

When people convert users to ubuntu they just leave them hanging or do not tell them about x problem.

For example when I was more of fanatic I installed puppy linux on a friends computer not telling him what he might run into.

Not to much longer he was wondering why WoW wasn't working.

Or why youtube wasn't working.

Right then it popped into my head I messed up.. then reinstalled xp back on his laptop.

That is a prime example of what I see alot...

I wouldn't be so I guess mad if they told whoever the truth behind ubuntu or whatever distro.

Instead of spreading fud...

[KiwiNZ]

Rofl... thanks for the laugh..

@ElSlunko I disagree I have seen it happen over the last week.

Heck people still insist compiz is the greatest thing ever when it is still in beta and still very buggy...

I also notice with each xorg update drivers break... (ATI for instance)

However people just say use the open source drivers they better anyways... That doesn't fix the damn problem!!

I hear folks praise Compiz like its mightier than sliced bread. It is horrible. It is in my opinion the the most Bug ridden App within Linux. It is a classic example of what you are saying .

[ElSlunko]

I guess my fanatic stage was pretty short lived. I'm an ubuntu user on the ubuntu forums and I'm just trying to point out that there ARE some of us that don't have that mentality.

I see a lot of users like yourself that get burned and it's completely understandable why you're so adamant of people "spreading the truth" of Linux. Since you yourself were lead to believe a lie.

[KiwiNZ]

If we cannot look inward and self critique we will never be able to accept critique from an external source. If we are unable to do that , we will fail.

[Twitch6000]

I guess my fanatic stage was pretty short lived. I'm an ubuntu user on the ubuntu forums and I'm just trying to point out that there ARE some of us that don't have that mentality.

You are right there are some who do not think that. However as I have said there are so many more that do think like that.

[Name change]

I hear folks praise Compiz like its mightier than sliced bread. It is horrible. It is in my opinion the the most Bug ridden App within Linux. It is a classic example of what you are saying .
While I haven't tried Compiz in years I hear it's quite nice as a stand alone WM.

A nice mixture of eyecandy and lightweightnesnes (darn I don't know how to spell it right)...
About why are Ubuntu users afraid to admit Ubuntus fauts.
Well some think that bashing OS you use is counter-productive. But I'd say it's more the other way around. If you rant, but constructively (of course) about problems in your OS of choice and you're heard, it's greater possibility that some dev hears this and decides to do something...
That happened in KDE4. In KDE4.0 devs said "no more normal desktop with icons" yet they soon made a special folder view activity just because so many people demanded it back.
And there's more.

[lisati]

How dare anyone criticize our baby? It's perfect! .... pause to storm out in a huff ....

But seriously, I agree that it's part of human nature to try to shift the blame elsewhere.

(Please don't let me get started on what some of my acquaintances with mental health issues call "seclusion", a modern day derivative of the padded room. I've heard too many tales of people I'd normally respect "acting up", and then complaining bitterly that seclusion should be done away with.)

[KiwiNZ]

While I haven't tried Compiz in years I hear it's quite nice as a stand alone WM.

A nice mixture of eyecandy and lightweightnesnes (darn I don't know how to spell it right)...
About why are Ubuntu users afraid to admit Ubuntus fauts.
Well some think that bashing OS you use is counter-productive. But I'd say it's more the other way around. If you rant, but constructively (of course) about problems in your OS of choice and you're heard, it's greater possibility that some dev hears this and decides to do something...
That happened in KDE4. In KDE4.0 devs said "no more normal desktop with icons" yet they soon made a special folder view activity just because so many people demanded it back.
And there's more.

Denying ,bashing ,ranting to me fall under the same counter productive banner. Admitting and reporting of faults fall under the productive banner.

[ElSlunko]

Denying ,bashing ,ranting to me fall under the same counter productive banner. Admitting and reporting of faults fall under the productive banner.

Which is exactly how Linux is suppose to be self-sustaining, amirite?

[mikewhatever]

Well because it seems each new person that starts using ubuntu continues the fudd they here.

I do know many people that know the faults of ubuntu and admit I find that great.

I still see the majoirty of users not admitting it and blaming it elsewhere.

Now with all that said yes it can be the drivers fault,yes it can be the devs fault.

But in the cases I have already mention the blame goes straight to canicoal... and the xorg people..

Do you have a list of all Ubuntu faults? Can you post it here? I don't happen to have an ATI card, and find it hard to admit faults I can't personally verify.

[Name change]

Denying ,bashing ,ranting to me fall under the same counter productive banner. Admitting and reporting of faults fall under the productive banner.
OK, you're right. Wrong choice of words.
Admitting faults and reporting said faults as bugs is the way to go.

[NightwishFan]

I do not play the blame game with anything. If something doesn't work I fix it and say how I did it. If I can't fix it I report it. If what happens is a showstopper, I replace it. I am only partial to the use the best tool. When it comes to computers I have the leisure to say no to proprietary software. Perhaps others do not have the leisure or do not wish to. I respect that as well. Ubuntu is what it is, and I like what it is, thus I use it. If someone else wants to use it I will give it to them. I will not tell them that it is better or will replace what they have. I will explain what it stands for, and let them find out for themselves if they like it, and frankly most people have.

We will get nowhere if we can not respect others. Though it seems to me that some that complain about Ubuntu did not understand what it was when they used it. Any who do not honestly assess its faults are misinformed or perhaps just see it like I do: It works for what they need. Those that see it like that perhaps do not understand why others would have a problem with it.

Personally, I will try to help others, though without the unneeded bias.

[Twitch6000]

Do you have a list of all Ubuntu faults? Can you post it here? I don't happen to have an ATI card, and find it hard to admit faults I can't personally verify.

Well here are the ones that come to mind -

Some are xorgs fault though.

With each update of xorg graphics card drivers break.(xorg fault)

Sudo has a 15 mintue timout causing a major secruity issue.

Many say ubuntu is so secure.. Yet if you look at the offical security mailing list there is about 400 problems right now.

With each upgrade stuff breaks!!! For proof look at the testimones

Thats about it for now give me a bit to think I will add more.

[lykwydchykyn]

Judging by the thousands of bugs submitted to launch pad, I'd say there are plenty of users acknowledging faults in ubuntu. Just because a few fanboys want to argue a negative opinion doesn't mean development will grind to a halt.

[Twitch6000]

Judging by the thousands of bugs submitted to launch pad, I'd say there are plenty of users acknowledging faults in ubuntu. Just because a few fanboys want to argue a negative opinion doesn't mean development will grind to a halt.

True bugs do get reported,but there is a problem with that to.

The devs of canicoal don't fix even half of them.

Look at that hard freeze bug of hardy.. It still hasn't been fixed!!(I also heard it still happens even in the latest)

They are to focused on speeding up boot time... Good grief I rather have a stable system with slow boot up rather then fast boot up unstable system.

You see I am not just ranting about the fan boys,but also ubuntu aswell and the faults of it that it seems most people do not admit.

[arnab_das]

ubuntu is anything but perfect.

yes, ubuntu has loads of faults. some of the ones u have mentioned here. there are hundreds of others.

but here's the thing, hundreds if not thousands of bugs/faults have already been solved as well. lets have faith in the developers. the best we can do is report bugs and provide as much info on the bug as we can. (unless ur a developer, then of course u can do all that urself)

every time i encounter a bug, i make it a point to report it, reporting bugs aint all that difficult since a report bugs option has been added to nearly all ubuntu apps.

if we all resolve to do the same (report bugs to the best of our abilities), i honestly believe ubuntu has the potential of becoming the least buggy OS.

[Twitch6000]

Yes it could become the least buggy if it didn't bring new problems that were not there before with each upgrade...

[Name change]

True bugs do get reported,but there is a problem with that to.

The devs of canicoal don't fix even half of them.

Look at that hard freeze bug of hardy.. It still hasn't been fixed!!(I also heard it still happens even in the latest)

They are to focused on speeding up boot time... Good grief I rather have a stable system with slow boot up rather then fast boot up unstable system.

You see I am not just ranting about the fan boys,but also ubuntu aswell and the faults of it that it seems most people do not admit.
I'd say that mostly because of how Ubuntu is released.
Every new release has to have some shiny new "chew toy" to throw to users.
And polishing it takes precious time from repairing bugs that are supposedly fixed with new versions of software.
But that's not always true. Some bugs that are linked to configuration files remain and haunt user for a long time...
It happened to me, I was playing with KDe4.0 when it came out and I broke it, and even when I reinstalled it and whatnot the thing I brok was still broken. Now I know it was because of settings in .KDE4.

[arnab_das]

Yes it could become the least buggy if it didn't bring new problems that were not there before with each upgrade...

well the other option for u (since ur interested in stability), would be to use an LTS. it doesnt bring in 'new problems', and well, it improves with every update.

[NightwishFan]

I see, never mind. Do what you want. I will not try to help you or advise you then. I wish for you the best.

[Twitch6000]

well the other option for u (since ur interested in stability), would be to use an LTS. it doesnt bring in 'new problems', and well, it improves with every update.

The LTS release is a joke in my eyes.... When compared to truly stable distros. CentOS for instance.

Oh and did I not mention that hard freeze bug?

[23meg]

Oh and did I not mention that hard freeze bug?

No, since you didn't provide a link to a specific, genuine bug on the bug tracker. It would help to be specific about the faults you're trying to raise before blaming others for "not admitting faults".

[arnab_das]

The LTS release is a joke in my eyes.... When compared to truly stable distros. CentOS for instance.

Oh and did I not mention that hard freeze bug?

just curious. how long have u been using/used the last LTS?

i ask this because some of the people i know use 8.04, and as of now, they are really liking it. if i may say so, its pretty stable when compared to other non-linux OSes.

[jrusso2]

There are a number of Ubuntu users on this forum who would say it has no faults.

[Twitch6000]

No, since you didn't provide a link to a specific, genuine bug on the bug tracker. It would help to be specific about the faults you're trying to raise before blaming others for "not admitting faults".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=hard+freeze+ubuntu+8.04&cts=1266361485567&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=832383&highlight=ubuntu+hard+freeze

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1395759&highlight=ubuntu+hard+freeze

Oh and there is a bug in launchpad about it somewhere..

Edit: Oh and here is a topic about it - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=768200&highlight=ubuntu+hard+freeze

Edit 2: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/209830

[jrusso2]

well the other option for u (since ur interested in stability), would be to use an LTS. it doesnt bring in 'new problems', and well, it improves with every update.

LTS just means it supported longer it has nothing to do with how many bugs it has you will see this a lot in April when the LTS comes out with bugs.

[arnab_das]

@Twitch6000

i just want to say something here. it might be a bit off topic.

the other day i was watching an ubuntu development session from the developer's summit. it was a 55 min video and i watched it in its entirety. now the thing is, its very easy for us, users to say, this is wrong, that is wrong, ubuntu sucks, and stuff like that. but frankly, the amount of work each developer does, and the amount of responsibility each one takes, considering the fact that linux/ubuntu developers arent usually the highest paid individuals, is quite phenomenal. here's a confession, i used to complain a LOT! :) seriously, i used to. if u check some of my older threads, i did post some pretty nasty ones. but the thing is, since we cant develop softwares (considering the fact that most users are not developers and also considering that ur not a developer), we really dont have the right to complain much, unless we have actively participated in the development of ubuntu. that can be done by reporting bugs, keeping track of the bug report so that u reply to every question asked to u. and then making sure other users notice it. that can be done by opening a thread here in ubuntuforums and asking users to check the bug and if its found to be a valid one, then reporting it/commenting on it in the launchpad page. that way, no bug will be neglected and the ubuntu devs will know what bugs are affecting users the most, etc.

[Twitch6000]

Ha don't get me started on the devs...

If you ask me canicoal in general does less for linux then anybody else..

Heck ubuntu is just debain with some addons.

The packages are just repackaged debaun unstable packages..

Oh and look at computer janitor... wtf is with that thing..

If you ask me I think it is just a gui for vrms <.< .

Oh and you say they don't neglect bugs explain to me why the hardy bug never got fixed then...

[Name change]

@Twitch6000

i just want to say something here. it might be a bit off topic.

the other day i was watching an ubuntu development session from the developer's summit. it was a 55 min video and i watched it in its entirety. now the thing is, its very easy for us, users to say, this is wrong, that is wrong, ubuntu sucks, and stuff like that. but frankly, the amount of work each developer does, and the amount of responsibility each one takes, considering the fact that linux/ubuntu developers arent usually the highest paid individuals, is quite phenomenal. here's a confession, i used to complain a LOT! :) seriously, i used to. if u check some of my older threads, i did post some pretty nasty ones. but the thing is, since we cant develop softwares (considering the fact that most users are not developers and also considering that ur not a developer), we really dont have the right to complain much, unless we have actively participated in the development of ubuntu. that can be done by reporting bugs, keeping track of the bug report so that u reply to every question asked to u. and then making sure other users notice it. that can be done by opening a thread here in ubuntuforums and asking users to check the bug and if its found to be a valid one, then reporting it/commenting on it in the launchpad page. that way, no bug will be neglected and the ubuntu devs will know what bugs are affecting users the most, etc.
But how come that some other distros have less bugs than Ubuntu with less devs?
Ubuntu dev team does a terrific job on visible level, nice GUI apps, faster boot, Grub2...
But under the hood it's a mess of beta apps (Grub2 come on...) And bugs that plague some and evade the others.
It's easy to say it works for me, but at distro like Ubuntu it should be "it works for everyone, no exeptions".

[Twitch6000]

But how come that some other distros have less bugs than Ubuntu with less devs?
Ubuntu dev team does a terrific job on visible level, nice GUI apps, faster boot, Grub2...
But under the hood it's a mess of beta apps (Grub2 come on...) And bugs that plague some and evade the others.
It's easy to say it works for me, but at distro like Ubuntu it should be "it works for everyone, no exeptions".

Just to add on a bit here. At one point they said that hard freeze bug was do to the kernal,but other distros using the same kernal didn't have the bug..

[23meg]

Oh and there is a bug in launchpad about it somewhere..

You're complaining about what you think is a genuine bug, but you don't even bother to point to the specific bug on the bug tracker. That kind of ambiguity plays to the hands of "denialist" fanboys, and doesn't help you make a good case.

There's a difference between saying "Bug #123456" was reported during the Hardy cycle, is genuine and high-impact, was triaged on time, but still hasn't been fixed", and "There is a bug in launchpad about it somewhere..".

[Twitch6000]

You're complaining about what you think is a genuine bug, but you don't even bother to point to the specific bug on the bug tracker. That kind of ambiguity plays to the hands of "denialist" fanboys, and doesn't help you make a good case.

There's a difference between saying "Bug #123456" was reported during the Hardy cycle, is genuine and high-impact, was triaged on time, but still hasn't been fixed", and "There is a bug in launchpad about it somewhere..".
Well if you look back at my post,you can see I linked to about 5 places that back me up. One does point to launchpad ;).

[KiwiNZ]

I know its old fashioned but when someones takes the time to complain I see it as a gift. Its an opportunity to look at ones self , to evaluate , to examine. They have taken the time to put down how they feel so we should honor that time accept the complaint and take what ever action is deemed appropriate.

[23meg]

Well if you look back at my post,you can see I linked to about 5 places that back me up. One does point to launchpad ;).

Right, I posted before your edit. Comment #343 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/204996/comments/343) on that famous bug sums up the outcome, which is common for bug reports with noisy "comment storms" where there's a high chance of multiple distinct bugs getting mixed up. That happens more often than you might guess, which is why I asked you to be specific; saying "that hard freeze bug" is far from being descriptive.

[michaert]

Why does an OS get upgraded? Because of newer and better things. We must go forward. New things mean new problems, and in a sense, Ubuntu is the most stable OS ever (trust me, I've used them all), and arguments like you mentioned are, most of the time, valid. At the moment, I can't find fault in Ubuntu 9.10, 8.10 or below. 9.04 hit some rough spots, including had many graphics rendering problems (mostly Intel-based) but all were fixed speedily. Thats the magic of Linux. 30,000,000 people working together for one purpose: The best OS ever. :D

[Twitch6000]

I know its old fashioned but when someones takes the time to complain I see it as a gift. Its an opportunity to look at ones self , to evaluate , to examine. They have taken the time to put down how they feel so we should honor that time accept the complaint and take what ever action is deemed appropriate.

I think this quote adds on to what you just said -


Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source Linux operating system.

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

[Twitch6000]

Right, I posted before your edit. Comment #343 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/204996/comments/343) on that famous bug sums up the outcome, which is common for bug reports with noisy "comment storms" where there's a high chance of multiple distinct bugs getting mixed up. That happens more often than you might guess, which is why I asked you to be specific; saying "that hard freeze bug" is far from being descriptive.

Okay but the bug still has not been fixed. It has been reported in 8.10.

They say it is the kernals fault,but again when I tried other distros with the same kernal the bug never happened.
Like I and others have said they (the devs) are not willing to accept its faults.. or atleast fix a problem others have for their distro.

[arnab_das]

again, the thing is, ubuntu is the most popular linux OS releasing LTS. now maybe some bug (if i consider it to be an important one) didnt get noticed, well i dont know why, voices much higher than the current ones should have been raised. eg. i didnt know of this bug (considering its importance) at all, since i never really used 8.10 for a long period of time. maybe because i didnt come to ubuntuforums back then. or maybe because the popular blogs of that time didnt really write much on such a critical issue.

i have some of my grudges as well. eg. ubuntu is going to add gwibber in its next release, but as of now, gwibber is the most buggy software around. i am currently using daily builds to help the devs know of the issues/problems. now i have reported this bug and commented on some other bugs on launchpad as well, but unless it gets pointed out and 'shouted out', :) no one will notice. seems harsh, but its true.

its no use working on that hardy bug now since 10.04 is coming out very soon, but if there's such an issue from now on, we should make it a point so that most users coming to ubuntuforums report it. or at least comment on a report (if it has already been reported). make a sticky post about it in sections most frequented by visitors, so that the bug gets more than say a hundred hits. unless we all pull up our socks, a few active individuals wont help solve a problem.

[Twitch6000]

its no use working on that hardy bug now since 10.04 is coming out very soon

So we should just let it go into another version...

See that is the problem with the releases... They ignore major problems and instead just try to work on more shiny things.

For example they rather speed up ubuntu instead of fixing it..

[23meg]

I know its old fashioned but when someones takes the time to complain I see it as a gift. Its an opportunity to look at ones self , to evaluate , to examine. They have taken the time to put down how they feel so we should honor that time accept the complaint and take what ever action is deemed appropriate.

When people complain, keep complaining, and do nothing towards fixing the things they're complaining about, no matter how insignificant, I don't see it as a gift, but noise. Contrary to how they may believe, it makes fixing the things they're complaining about more difficult and less likely, since all they're doing is create negativity. The follow-up posts by the original poster of this thread look like a good example of that.

When people criticize, on the other hand, I get a sign that they're on some level passionate about what they criticize, because people typically only take time and effort to criticize things they genuinely care about. If on top of their criticism, they lend a hand with correcting what they set out to criticize, that's a gift.

Criticism and complaining are two distinct acts. Tolerating the blurring of the line between the two will not help us maintain and improve the ecosystem of relations that produce Ubuntu and other free software.

[mickie.kext]

I think this quote adds on to what you just said -

Linux sucks and OpenBSD is so perfect.

Please do not quote Theo de Raadt, he is one on most notable Linux and GPL haters. It is almost like quoting boycottnovell.

[23meg]

Like I and others have said they (the devs) are not willing to accept its faults.. or atleast fix a problem others have for their distro.

That's a hasty generalization based on a sample set of one possibly mistreated bug (possibly, since as I said, it's highly likely that multiple bugs are being talked about under one heading, part of which may be fixed/unfixed). You fail to acknowledge the thousands of bugs that get "accepted" by developers and bug triagers in every release cycle, and provide a single bug as evidence that some people "aren't willing to accept faults", so I reserve the right to ask why you do not admit the fault in your reasoning, and in turn, acknowledge the huge volume of "accepting faults" that goes on all the time.

[arnab_das]

So we should just let it go into another version...

See that is the problem with the releases... They ignore major problems and instead just try to work on more shiny things.

For example they rather speed up ubuntu instead of fixing it..

yup +1 major problem.

i think ubuntu's 6 month release cycle is to blame for this. i dont how many of u feel this way, but i think 6 months is just too short a time to let a release die. since essentially, everyone wants to get the latest release, hence a release stays on the desktop for just 6 months. as soon as a new release comes out, ubuntu devs get max 2-3 months to fix bugs, after which, they have to start working for the next release. if ubuntu had release cycles of say 1 year or so, or maybe 2 yrs, then ubuntu would have been a stabler OS altogether. it would have been a lot less exciting, but it would have been a lot more bug free.

i shouldnt cite an example like this, but in the current situation i have to. u see windows (and to some extent osx) to a normal user appears less buggy, as its release cycles are pretty extensive and probably the OS undergoes huge no of bug fixes before coming out to the market. (i'm not talking about security issues etc. but issues normal users doing average computer work face.) whereas when an ubuntu release comes out, it has visible bugs perceived even by a normal user (i experienced this especially with karmic).

this is not a bug. hence i dont know, how i can let the devs know of this. :)

[matthew]

When people complain, keep complaining, and do nothing towards fixing the things they're complaining about, no matter how insignificant, I don't see it as a gift, but noise. Contrary to how they may believe, it makes fixing the things they're complaining about more difficult and less likely, since all they're doing is create negativity. The follow-up posts by the original poster of this thread look like a good example of that.

When people criticize, on the other hand, I get a sign that they're on some level passionate about what they criticize, because people typically only take time and effort to criticize things they genuinely care about. If on top of their criticism, they lend a hand with correcting what they set out to criticize, that's a gift.

Criticism and complaining are two distinct acts. Tolerating the blurring of the line between the two will not help us maintain and improve the ecosystem of relations that produce Ubuntu and other free software.

I agree.

[Twitch6000]

Linux sucks and OpenBSD is so perfect.

Please do not quote Theo de Raadt, he is one on most notable Linux and GPL haters. It is almost like quoting boycottnovell.

Well atleast in that quote he does tell the truth :P.

@ 23meg

Well if you must have more proof looking in the testimonies shows enough of it.

[HappyFeet]

I don't know what you're talking about. Ubuntu is clearly the most stable operating system EVER MADE.

Actually, I agree with this. I'm serious. For me, it is the best, most stable OS I've ever used.

[23meg]

@ 23meg

Well if you must have more proof looking in the testimonies shows enough of it.

Thanks; if I were so naive as to equate anecdotal evidence to proof, I would. Negative testimonials made by people who've had bad experiences, while being completely legitimate accounts of such experiences that we should be at peace with and acknowledge, do not offer proof of specific defects as long as they don't cite and criticize such defects (and 99% of the time they don't), let alone proving that developers / contributors don't accept those defects.

[Twitch6000]

Actually, I agree with this. I'm serious. For me, it is the best, most stable OS I've ever used.

You also seem to like ignoring problems and instead saying prove it.

Yet even canicoal themself show that they have problems with each release. Karmix for sure has more bugs then jaunty.

[KiwiNZ]

When people complain, keep complaining, and do nothing towards fixing the things they're complaining about, no matter how insignificant, I don't see it as a gift, but noise. Contrary to how they may believe, it makes fixing the things they're complaining about more difficult and less likely, since all they're doing is create negativity. The follow-up posts by the original poster of this thread look like a good example of that.

When people criticize, on the other hand, I get a sign that they're on some level passionate about what they criticize, because people typically only take time and effort to criticize things they genuinely care about. If on top of their criticism, they lend a hand with correcting what they set out to criticize, that's a gift.

Criticism and complaining are two distinct acts. Tolerating the blurring of the line between the two will not help us maintain and improve the ecosystem of relations that produce Ubuntu and other free software.

Not everyone who files a complaint is capable of doing something about the complaint. And if Ubuntu or Linux in general is to become more main stream that will be the case more and more.

So by the logic you seam to be following and forgive me if I am wrong , is that if someone is not able to actively assist with bug resolution then they should not complain.

[ibuclaw]

Okay but the bug still has not been fixed. It has been reported in 8.10.

They say it is the kernals fault,but again when I tried other distros with the same kernal the bug never happened.
Like I and others have said they (the devs) are not willing to accept its faults.. or atleast fix a problem others have for their distro.

Not all bugs are trivial (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/code-its-trivial.html), and especially when it comes to kernel bugs, fixing the issue may cause more pains than relief.

Also, just because it has been reported and confirmed by X many users, doesn't mean that the developers have enough information to begin working on it.

Generally, the quality of bug reports has increased as more people use apport and ubuntu-bug commands now. But it always proves useful to follow the Debugging Procedures (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures) too.

Regards

[Twitch6000]

Thanks; if I were so naive as to equate anecdotal evidence to proof, I would. Negative testimonials made by people who've had bad experiences, while being completely legitimate accounts of such experiences that we should be at peace with and acknowledge, do not offer proof of specific defects as long as they don't cite and criticize such defects (and 99% of the time they don't).

Okay you want proof of ubuntu's faults eh?

Well here you go then.

1. The sudo timeout problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

2. The Problem With Freezing - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ubuntu+freezing&cts=1266364644379&aq=f&aqi=g7&oq=

For a launchpad link - I have given you a few

3. With each release new bugs that were not there before appear -

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyJackalope/ReleaseNotes

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/810

4. Buggy software by default - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=hardy+comes+with+firefox+beta+5&cts=1266364754934&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

[Scarfnoogan]

I know I'm probably out of line here, but so far in my brief stint as a Ubuntu user, I'm very happy with it. Sure some things are complicated, but I knew that going into it, I seem to find the answers I need when I need them and if that answer is "there's no fix for that yet" or "use this work-around" then so be it, I'm just happy it wasn't something I did wrong. I do find Ubuntu(Karmic anyway) to be very stable, and bugs or no bugs, I'm glad to be in a "windowless room"



just my 2 cents....Thumbs up devs

Adam

[gymophett]

I understand where you are coming from.
Ubuntu has it faults, I guess.
Ubuntu has never even crashed on me. :???:

[Twitch6000]

Not all bugs are trivial (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/code-its-trivial.html), and especially when it comes to kernel bugs, fixing the issue may cause more pains than relief.

Also, just because it has been reported and confirmed by X many users, doesn't mean that the developers have enough information to begin working on it.

Generally, the quality of bug reports has increased as more people use apport and ubuntu-bug commands now. But it always proves useful to follow the Debugging Procedures (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures) too.

Regards
So they just disregard the bug and fix the boot up speed?(yeah I know I said that enough lol)

I find it funny that ubuntu has bugs that others do not using the same darn xorg and kernal. It seems other distro makers fix bugs in their distro when ubuntu just says it is someone elses fault. Which I can admit sometimes it is,but they can still fix it for their distro and release the fix upstream...

I mean why not give back for a change...

[fewt]

That's a hasty generalization based on a sample set of one possibly mistreated bug (possibly, since as I said, it's highly likely that multiple bugs are being talked about under one heading, part of which may be fixed/unfixed). You fail to acknowledge the thousands of bugs that get "accepted" by developers and bug triagers in every release cycle, and provide a single bug as evidence that some people "aren't willing to accept faults", so I reserve the right to ask why you do not admit the fault in your reasoning, and in turn, acknowledge the huge volume of "accepting faults" that goes on all the time.

Meh, this argument is so very easily defeated.

For example:

337199 - Reported in Jaunty Alpha 5

"it appears this patch is already in Karmic. Marking this Fix Released."

Do note that it's still busted in Jaunty (which by the way is still "supported").

[arnab_das]

I know I'm probably out of line here, but so far in my brief stint as a Ubuntu user, I'm very happy with it. Sure some things are complicated, but I knew that going into it, I seem to find the answers I need when I need them and if that answer is "there's no fix for that yet" or "use this work-around" then so be it, I'm just happy it wasn't something I did wrong. I do find Ubuntu(Karmic anyway) to be very stable, and bugs or no bugs, I'm glad to be in a "windowless room"



just my 2 cents....Thumbs up devs

Adam


thats cool. i do think karmic as of now is quite stable. at least compared to what it used to be when it came out. and yea, i'm also quite happy using it.

btw, not everything about windows is BAD and not everything about linux/ubuntu is GOOD. there are lots of areas in windows from where linux should learn if it wants to become the common man's OS. :)

[matthew]

Ubuntu has bugs. All software has bugs. Ubuntu developers work very hard and try very hard to prevent and/or fix everything they can, just like most software developers. The only software that doesn't have bugs is that which is yet to be written.

There. You have an admission.

EDIT: Honestly, I think there is something else bugging you.

[fewt]

Thanks; if I were so naive as to equate anecdotal evidence to proof, I would. Negative testimonials made by people who've had bad experiences, while being completely legitimate accounts of such experiences that we should be at peace with and acknowledge, do not offer proof of specific defects as long as they don't cite and criticize such defects (and 99% of the time they don't), let alone proving that developers / contributors don't accept those defects.

orly? http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1400523

[Twitch6000]

Ofcourse all software has bugs,but for the most part atleast the bugs are shown in the betas and fixed by the final.

Ubuntu though basically makes the users bug testers and have to deal with them until the next release..

That is a problem in my eyes.

[23meg]

Not everyone who files a complaint is capable of doing something about the complaint. And if Ubuntu or Linux in general is to become more main stream that will be the case more and more.

So by the logic you seam to be following and forgive me if I am wrong , is that if someone is not able to actively assist with bug resolution then they should not complain.

I don't take filing a well written bug report with enough debugging information to assess the defect as "complaining"; I take it as a contribution in itself, as a concrete, actionable variant of written technical criticism. Filing or contributing information to such a report is actively assisting with the resolution of a possible bug, by definition. It has nothing to do with complaining.

People can, and will, complain about whatever they see fit. I just want to make it known that "armchair critique", that is, constant complaint without involvement, has never produced good results in free software, while criticism, mutual understanding and shared intentions between the criticizer and the criticized, coupled with good old fashioned sharing of labor, have. In this thread, I see the former, not the latter.

[fewt]

Actually, I agree with this. I'm serious. For me, it is the best, most stable OS I've ever used.

As is Windows 7 for me. Yes, that's right I put Ubuntu where it belongs in ~/.local/share/Trash. First Windows desktop for me in so many years I can't even remember.

[KiwiNZ]

Those who know me know I never give up fighting

So its the same here. the day we say Ubuntu is perfect is the day we have lost.

[matthew]

Ofcourse all software has bugs,but for the most part atleast the bugs are shown in the betas and fixed by the final.

Ubuntu though basically makes the users bug testers and have to deal with them until the next release..

That is a problem in my eyes.

I think with that big of a problem, the choice should really be to find something that you approve of more and that works for you. No hard feelings.

The current tack won't help, but it will create some hard feelings, not so much toward Ubuntu or Canonical, though. Your experience is obviously real, but it is not universal. Same with your perspective and perception of how things are done.

[faPmasteRslaM]

Linux's biggest problem for me is x.org. It's buggy, and the open drivers are poor and feature barren.

[arnab_das]

Ubuntu has bugs. All software has bugs. Ubuntu developers work very hard and try very hard to prevent and/or fix everything they can, just like most software developers. The only software that doesn't have bugs is that which is yet to be written.

i couldnt agree with you more.

i have very basic knowledge of programming, but i did learn GWBASIC back in school, and if i may say so, learnt it quite well (okay dont start laughing :D). hence i do understand how a program works, etc.

every program has bugs, and fixing bugs is the worst and the most irritating part of programming mainly coz its a thankless job. there will always be bugs, no program can be 100% bug free. a program is mostly bug free only when users/developers have contributed in every possible extent.

[matthew]

the day we say <anything> is perfect is the day we have lost.

I edited that slightly, but only to generalize your specific comment to a larger population. Oh, and I agree.

[Regenweald]

I have noticed in the past year now,whenever a problem is noticed in ubuntu all the users go oh thats your fault.

Or they say thats the hardwares fault.

Or the classic go back to windows noob...

Why not just admit its faults? Are you scared something bad will happen?

I am not afraid to admit faults of the oses I use. Why are you?

Oh and just to get the ball rolling.

Here is a problem with the sudo 15 min timeout ubuntu uses - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

I think you are confused and your post actually clears that problem up. If you post a problem and a *user* replies that it's your fault, that is of absolutely no consequence. They really really like Ubuntu, they want to defend it. Whatever. If you get that response from a dev, that is another situation entirely. All Os'es and software in general has bugs. Programmers fix them. If you post in a forum you get opinions, if you post in a bug tracking system you get results. Pick which works for you.

[Chronon]

Not everyone who files a complaint is capable of doing something about the complaint. And if Ubuntu or Linux in general is to become more main stream that will be the case more and more.

So by the logic you seam to be following and forgive me if I am wrong , is that if someone is not able to actively assist with bug resolution then they should not complain.

I suppose that 23meg should speak for himself/herself but my perspective is that a bug report is itself a positive contribution because it provides information to people who can do something about a problem. Complaining on a forum serves no identifiable purpose (to me) other than to alleviate frustration for the poster.

[fewt]

if you post in a bug tracking system you get results


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That was the finest comedy right there!

:popcorn:

[arnab_das]

I think you are confused and your post actually clears that problem up. If you post a problem and a *user* replies that it's your fault, that is of absolutely no consequence. They really really like Ubuntu, they want to defend it. Whatever. If you get that response from a dev, that is another situation entirely. All Os'es and software in general has bugs. Programmers fix them. If you post in a forum you get opinions, if you post in a bug tracking system you get results. Pick which works for you.

absolutely. i was itching to say this for sometime now, but i was worried it would be taken in the wrong sense.

point is, if one thinks there is a bug, one should report and discuss it in launchpad rather than here. :) no hard feelings, anyone.

[ibuclaw]

Ofcourse all software has bugs,but for the most part atleast the bugs are shown in the betas and fixed by the final.

Ubuntu though basically makes the users bug testers and have to deal with them until the next release..

That is a problem in my eyes.

But doesn't that apply too all software - across *any* platform or architechture?

You find a bug in application X - be it proprietary or open source software, you still have to deal with that bug until the next release.

The difference with open source, of course, is that anyone with interest and the right know-how can figure out and fix their own issues, then submit patches upstream. That interest and know-how becoming smaller and smaller as more non-developers start to use Linux.

[Zoot7]

I'm of the opinion Ubuntu tends to breed a lot more fanboyisum and conflict than pretty much every other distro. The fact that it's marketed as a replacement to Windows (Bug #1), many people tend to swallow that, get on well with it and firmly hold an opinion that it's superior to everything else.
However there are those that again believe the "hype" about it give it a shot and have a terrible experience with it and thus feel let down and then have the need to express these opinions which go in direct conflict with those that hold it firmly above everything else in their minds.

For example just look at the Testominals forum here, it's full of threads of people trying Ubuntu not liking it for whatever reason and it invariably stirs up conflict. The best chain of responses being:
A - X doesn't work, and I have Y problems with whatever
B - Well it works for me

If you look at the forums dedicated to pretty much every other distro there's hardly any threads that pan out this way. That's not to say they're non-existant, just that the following of other distros tend to be a lot more pragmatic as a whole. TBH I think with the whole attitude of install Ubuntu instead of Windows and See the Light that's prevelent Ubuntu brings a lot of this conflict upon itself.

My 0.02, take it or leave it. :tongue:

[fewt]

Not everyone who files a complaint is capable of doing something about the complaint. And if Ubuntu or Linux in general is to become more main stream that will be the case more and more.

So by the logic you seam to be following and forgive me if I am wrong , is that if someone is not able to actively assist with bug resolution then they should not complain.

Hey, it wasn't just me!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8809816&postcount=65

[ViperChief]

Oh no you didn't

yeah that does happen , I guess its human nature. But its counter productive. Denying faults hinder resolutions.


I've been using Linux for a long time. One thing that has irritated me is that it's not making progress as fast as it should be.

Based on what I've seen is that the #1 reason is because many Linux users and devs refuse to recognize the problems. If they would admit there were problems and identified them, then I think Linux would make leaps and bounds. It's not just an Ubuntu problem, it's a Linux-wide problem.

I wish I could program and help, but, alas, my programming skills amount to "Hello, World." People shouldn't feel bad that Linux isn't 100% ready. It takes time Look at Windows. Lots of problems throughout the years. But, Windows users and devs have no problem talking about the bugs in it and these bugs end up getting fixed (7 has been a good release, but there are still things that really irritate me and need to be fixed....hopefully MS will fix them in the next release).

The problems in Linux will not get fixed until people admit the faults. Stop being ostriches. Maybe, in a few years, I'll be able to use Linux full time like I've been wanting to for the past 10 years.


Side note to devs: Forget about new features, for now. Please, concentrate on bugs and get them wiped out. Eye-candy doesn't matter when there are genuine bugs. Oh, and eye-candy isn't worth anything if the graphics drivers suck (I'm looking at you, Intel graphics devs!).

[23meg]

Okay you want proof of ubuntu's faults eh?

No, I have enough such proof in the form of thousands of well written, informative bug reports in the bug tracker, a small part of which I happened to triage. Defects are inherent to every active software project; I'm not so naive as to deny that Ubuntu is magically an exception.

It's just that I'd rather people who made bold claims of lack or shortage of quality didn't resort to sweeping generalizations, were specific about their claims and offered a feasible route to amending the subject of those claims along with their critique. Since that's not realistic to expect of most people at this point in the growth of Ubuntu, I just make my reservations with their critique, which I'm entitled to, known, in the slim hope that it may make a small part of future critique slightly more useful.

[Chronon]

absolutely. i was itching to say this for sometime now, but i was worried it would be taken in the wrong sense.

point is, if one thinks there is a bug, one should report and discuss it in launchpad rather than here. :) no hard feelings, anyone.

There are legitimate reasons to post about possible bugs on a forum. It is useful to help determine whether the behavior is observed for most other users or just a subset (with specific hardware, for example). It is useful to verify to yourself that you aren't misunderstanding how the software is supposed to be used. It is useful to share workarounds until such time as the bug is actually fixed.

[Twitch6000]

But doesn't that apply too all software - across *any* platform or architechture?

You find a bug in application X - be it proprietary or open source software, you still have to deal with that bug until the next release.


True very true no arguing there. However I do tend to find more bugs in a "final" version of open source software more then I do with closed source. That is just me though.

[KiwiNZ]

I've been using Linux for a long time. One thing that has irritated me is that it's not making progress as fast as it should be.

Based on what I've seen is that the #1 reason is because many Linux users and devs refuse to recognize the problems. If they would admit there were problems and identified them, then I think Linux would make leaps and bounds. It's not just an Ubuntu problem, it's a Linux-wide problem.

I wish I could program and help, but, alas, my programming skills amount to "Hello, World." People shouldn't feel bad that Linux isn't 100% ready. It takes time Look at Windows. Lots of problems throughout the years. But, Windows users and devs have no problem talking about the bugs in it and these bugs end up getting fixed (7 has been a good release, but there are still things that really irritate me and need to be fixed....hopefully MS will fix them in the next release).

The problems in Linux will not get fixed until people admit the faults. Stop being ostriches. Maybe, in a few years, I'll be able to use Linux full time like I've been wanting to for the past 10 years.


Side note to devs: Forget about new features, for now. Please, concentrate on bugs and get them wiped out. Eye-candy doesn't matter when there are genuine bugs. Oh, and eye-candy isn't worth anything if the graphics drivers suck (I'm looking at you, Intel graphics devs!).

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.

[ViperChief]

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.

I keep hoping Ubuntu will do that. The 6 month cycle never made sense to me. I just don't feel that it's enough time, especially when trying to market it as a stable distro and especially when marketing to new Linux users.

[Twitch6000]

No, I have enough such proof in the form of thousands of well written, informative bug reports in the bug tracker, a small part of which I happened to triage. Defects are inherent to every active software project; I'm not so naive as to deny that Ubuntu is magically an exception.

It's just that I'd rather people who made bold claims of lack or shortage of quality didn't resort to sweeping generalizations, were specific about their claims and offered a feasible route to amending the subject of those claims along with their critique. Since that's not realistic to expect of most people at this point in the growth of Ubuntu, I just make my reservations with their critique, which I'm entitled to, known, in the slim hope that it may make a small part of future critique slightly more useful.

I might be mis understanding here so excuse me for that.

Are you saying you are arguing because I did not show much proof to begin with? If so I can agree and I will edit my first post as I see that myself.

[jrusso2]

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.

Wow for an administrator to say that its amazing. Nice going.

[matthew]

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.


I keep hoping Ubuntu will do that. The 6 month cycle never made sense to me. I just don't feel that it's enough time, especially when trying to market it as a stable distro and especially when marketing to new Linux users.

I can see why that would be desirable, but there is already an excellent distribution that does this: Debian.

Mark S., Canonical, and the Ubuntu community have a clearly stated objective to consistently try to push desktop development in the Linux world into new areas, with new flashy stuff and shiny things. It's certainly not for everyone and can occasionally frustrate. At the same time, that has been the stated goal since 2004 and the days of NoNameYet.

[fewt]

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.

"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."

- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/404626/comments/40

[Shibblet]

I think the more prominent question would be "Why do Windows users think that all of Ubuntu's problems come from the OS?"

Answer: "Because Windows has driver support."

Windows has it's fair share of issues too, but most of those issues are solved by downloading drivers.

Ubuntu's biggest problem is lack of driver support. So, is it Ubuntu's fault? Or is it hardware manufacturers fault? That's a catch 22.

I will say this in defense of Ubuntu, and Linux in general. When there is hardware that is not supported, or has lost support, someone in the community finds a way to keep it supported. That's more than I can say for Windows.

Is Ubuntu flawless? Of course not.
Is Windows flawless? Nope, clearly not.

Aisyu once said that it's ridiculous to expect any OS to work flawlessly right out of the box. And that's true. Pre-installed on your computer though, is a different story, because someone took the time to put on the right drivers.

Grab copy of XP, Vista, 7, whichever you please. Load it up on your PC, and don't load any video, sound, chipset, or peripheral drivers AT ALL, just the OS. I'll bet you that Ubuntu has more functionality.

[fewt]

I can see why that would be desirable, but there is already an excellent distribution that does this: Debian.

Mark S., Canonical, and the Ubuntu community have a clearly stated objective to consistently try to push desktop development in the Linux world into new areas, with new flashy stuff and shiny things. It's certainly not for everyone and can occasionally frustrate. At the same time, that has been the stated goal since 2004 and the days of NoNameYet.

That doesn't make them right.

s/community/Debian re-packaging team/i

[matthew]

That doesn't make them right.

s/community/Debian re-packaging team/i

No, it doesn't. For people who disagree with their strategy, it would be far better to be a part of a different community. The strategy has been clearly stated from the beginning and isn't going to change.

[fewt]

Grab copy of XP, Vista, 7, whichever you please. Load it up on your PC, and don't load any video, sound, chipset, or peripheral drivers AT ALL, just the OS. I'll bet you that Ubuntu has more functionality.

Umm, you've been out of the loop for a while. I used to think this was true. Windows 7 detected EVERYTHING I had.

It works 1000x better than Karmic on the same hardware.

No issues, not a single one. Even hardware that didn't work anymore with Linux (one of my external hard drives) worked OOTB.

Sorry, I'm no Windows guy but this argument is false.

[KiwiNZ]

I have believed for a while that if we are to seriously attract the OEMs and the Corporates we need to move to a 12 or 24 month release cycle.

My professional experience tells me this is a major hindrance to uptake.

[23meg]

I agree.

To that end , I believe we should at least skip one 6 month release to allow the Devs time to work on the current bugs. Or better still drop the six month release cycle to twelve months permanently.

Skipping a release isn't feasible as long as you have written and contractual dedication to delivering predictable releases, and your workforce is infinitely smaller than that of the upstreams that provide the software that constitutes your distribution, making a one-go attempt at reducing the number of bugs in your particular branch of the free software universe immediately reversible. And a longer release cycle doesn't automatically give you more time to fix bugs (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8227729&postcount=27).

Statements in favor of radical changes to the release schedule need extensive technical substantiation (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5068722&postcount=10).

[fewt]

No, it doesn't. For people who disagree with their strategy, it would be far better to be a part of a different community. The strategy has been clearly stated from the beginning and isn't going to change.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding. RedHat, CentOS, and Oracle seem to have had much success.

So because this community is broken, rather than fix it, we should go get a new community.

Nice.

[matthew]

Umm, you've been out of the loop for a while. I used to think this was true. Windows 7 detected EVERYTHING I had.

It works 1000x better than Karmic on the same hardware.

No issues, not a single one. Even hardware that didn't work anymore with Linux (one of my external hard drives) worked OOTB.

Sorry, I'm no Windows guy but this argument is false.

I've actually heard a lot of good things about Windows 7.

[ViperChief]

I can see why that would be desirable, but there is already an excellent distribution that does this: Debian.

Mark S., Canonical, and the Ubuntu community have a clearly stated objective to consistently try to push desktop development in the Linux world into new areas, with new flashy stuff and shiny things. It's certainly not for everyone and can occasionally frustrate. At the same time, that has been the stated goal since 2004 and the days of NoNameYet.


I can understand wanting to push it into new areas but the new areas aren't very beneficial if the old areas are still having issues. If you want to go that way and really go all out, then change the target market (don't market it as stable and maybe pull back on calling it a newbie-friendly distro).

Or, as KiwiNZ said, skip one cycle...get the old bugs all fixed up, especially the major ones. I just don't think new flashiness matters if old stuff doesn't work or if the drivers don't work.

[matthew]

No, it doesn't. For people who disagree with their strategy, it would be far better to be a part of a different community. The strategy has been clearly stated from the beginning and isn't going to change.


The proof is in the proverbial pudding. RedHat, CentOS, and Oracle seem to have had much success.

So because this community is broken, rather than fix it, we should go get a new community.

Nice.

That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said. My statement was simply that the community was organized from the outset with a specific goal in mind and with the knowledge that at times that goal would cause some instability as the Linux desktop was being pushed in new ways. Trying to change the entire reason for the creation of the community is a fool's errand. That was my point, not the rather rude sounding, "If you don't like it, leave" idea that could have been understood.

[ViperChief]

I've actually heard a lot of good things about Windows 7.


Join the Dark Side....we have cookies. :D

Now, if Microsoft would rewrite the stupid updater to stop rebooting on its own......

[Chronon]

Umm, you've been out of the loop for a while. I used to think this was true. Windows 7 detected EVERYTHING I had.

It works 1000x better than Karmic on the same hardware.

No issues, not a single one. Even hardware that didn't work anymore with Linux (one of my external hard drives) worked OOTB.

Sorry, I'm no Windows guy but this argument is false.

You are trying to make a general argument based on a personal anecdote. This is fallacious.

[23meg]

Are you saying you are arguing because I did not show much proof to begin with? If so I can agree and I will edit my first post as I see that myself.

I'm not arguing with you, after reading the few follow-up posts you made. But it's true that I take issue with people not substantiating their complaints, and going on to make broad generalizations from them. It's not specific to you.

[Twitch6000]

I think the more prominent question would be "Why do Windows users think that all of Ubuntu's problems come from the OS?"

Answer: "Because Windows has driver support."

Windows has it's fair share of issues too, but most of those issues are solved by downloading drivers.

Ubuntu's biggest problem is lack of driver support. So, is it Ubuntu's fault? Or is it hardware manufacturers fault? That's a catch 22.

I will say this in defense of Ubuntu, and Linux in general. When there is hardware that is not supported, or has lost support, someone in the community finds a way to keep it supported. That's more than I can say for Windows.

Is Ubuntu flawless? Of course not.
Is Windows flawless? Nope, clearly not.

Aisyu once said that it's ridiculous to expect any OS to work flawlessly right out of the box. And that's true. Pre-installed on your computer though, is a different story, because someone took the time to put on the right drivers.

Grab copy of XP, Vista, 7, whichever you please. Load it up on your PC, and don't load any video, sound, chipset, or peripheral drivers AT ALL, just the OS. I'll bet you that Ubuntu has more functionality.

Why in the heck do you think I am a windows user? I mean I do and again I can also admit its problems... (I dual boot opensuse and windows xp)

Oh and uhmm Windows 7 out of the box supports most of my hardware and when I use windows update the rest of the drivers get installed...

[Twitch6000]

I have believed for a while that if we are to seriously attract the OEMs and the Corporates we need to move to a 12 or 24 month release cycle.

My professional experience tells me this is a major hindrance to uptake.

I would love if that happened. Opensuse has a 8 month release schedule,but if they changed to 12 month I would be in love..

[thatguruguy]

Ofcourse all software has bugs,but for the most part atleast the bugs are shown in the betas and fixed by the final.

Ubuntu though basically makes the users bug testers and have to deal with them until the next release..

That is a problem in my eyes.

Seriously?

I get that you don't like ubuntu or its users. I also recognize that ubuntu has its flaws. And I'm no fan of linux zealots, nor any kind of zealots.

However, here is a list of bugs fixed by service pack 1 for Windows XP (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324720/), and a list of bugs fixed in SP2 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113). I'm not going to go to the trouble of searching out more. It should be noted that windows is installed on more desktops than any other OS, and that hardware is marketed to be specifically compatible with Windows. And nobody does more beta testing than Microsoft.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying, "Microsoft does it, so it must be OK if ubuntu does it." Rather, I'm pointing out that making the blanket claim that ubuntu is unique among all OSes in having bugs when launched is unjustifiable. If you have something other than your own personal opinion to back up what you're saying, I'd be happy to look at it.

Although I tend to believe that this thread is not an attempt to get any kind of answers, but is an attempt to troll. The fact that you pointed out that you created this thread on another forum tends to bolster that belief.

[KiwiNZ]

That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said. My statement was simply that the community was organized from the outset with a specific goal in mind and with the knowledge that at times that goal would cause some instability as the Linux desktop was being pushed in new ways. Trying to change the entire reason for the creation of the community is a fool's errand. That was my point, not the rather rude sounding, "If you don't like it, leave" idea that could have been understood.

A successful organisation changes with the environment. It moves , it adapts. If it doesn't it is doomed to failure.
Its only constant should be change. But not change for change sake. But change for good.

[arnab_das]

this thread should be made sticky. lots of useful info in this thread. also, users might want to discuss these issues at length.

thats of course my opinion.

[HappyFeet]

Karmix for sure has more bugs then jaunty.

Show me empirical data to support this.

[Twitch6000]

Seriously?

I get that you don't like ubuntu or its users. I also recognize that ubuntu has its flaws. And I'm no fan of linux zealots, nor any kind of zealots.

However, here is a list of bugs fixed by service pack 1 for Windows XP (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324720/), and a list of bugs fixed in SP2 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113). I'm not going to go to the trouble of searching out more. It should be noted that windows is installed on more desktops than any other OS, and that hardware is marketed to be specifically compatible with Windows. And nobody does more beta testing than Microsoft.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying, "Microsoft does it, so it must be OK if ubuntu does it." Rather, I'm pointing out that making the blanket claim that ubuntu is unique among all OSes in having bugs when launched is unjustifiable. If you have something other than your own personal opinion to back up what you're saying, I'd be happy to look at it.

Although I tend to believe that this thread is not an attempt to get any kind of answers, but is an attempt to troll. The fact that you pointed out that you created this thread on another forum tends to bolster that belief.
Oh good god I am a troll throw me in the locker :O.

Wow it seems anyone wanting to know why x problem is in ubuntu they get classed as a troll... How freaking welcoming!!

Oh and I do know windows has bugs,but guess what you don't have to wait for another version to come out for the bugs to get fixed.

Thats why they have special packs... Like you showed :).

[Twitch6000]

Show me empirical data to support this.

Lol that is an easy one -

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904

Compare for yourself.

[Tristam Green]

this thread should be made sticky. lots of useful info in this thread. also, users might want to discuss these issues at length.

thats of course my opinion.

I agree, but the topic title needs to either be fixed to its intended state, or changed entirely.

Personally, I think it's a twofold reasoning (answering the OP).

1) Just as in grubby's thread, "everyone wants to think theirs is best".

2) Although Linux has a lot more users than it used to, and Ubuntu in particular is to thank for that, I am of the firm belief that a lot of Linux users, particularly new ones, apply an elitist stature to themselves, probably as a way to say "look at me, I'm bucking The Man". In today's age, everyone is a nonconformist.

[mickie.kext]

"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."

- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/404626/comments/40
So? What is wrong with that? If they delayed release because that single bug, you (or someone else) would now be complaining for not keeping up with planed schedule.


Well atleast in that quote he does tell the truth :P.

No he don't. He is just bashing competition. For one, he do not have experience with working on big projects such as Linux kernel or with ones who get lots of exposure like Ubuntu. If OpenBSD grows to size of Ubuntu, you will see Theo bailing on it and saying that is crap... wait, he already did that! He did that to NetBSD when it was catching momentum back in early 90es.

He is also known to be politically incorrect, even Wikipedia article on him says that. I would rather trust BN than Theo de Raadt if I had to trust one of that two.

PS: Here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

[fewt]

You are trying to make a general argument based on a personal anecdote. This is fallacious.

True, however I simply followed the implication of the poster. In my experience Karmic was garbage on this computer where Win 7 wasn't. The same is true on many others made up of various components.

Does that make it better for you?

[Shibblet]

Umm, you've been out of the loop for a while. I used to think this was true. Windows 7 detected EVERYTHING I had.
Really? Been playing any 3D games without drivers?


It works 1000x better than Karmic on the same hardware.
1000x? I wonder what your basis of comparison is? ;)


No issues, not a single one. Even hardware that didn't work anymore with Linux (one of my external hard drives) worked OOTB.
I'm not disagreeing that you may have a perfectly functional computer with 7. However this is not so in most cases. Even my computer needs Nvidia Drivers, and network card drivers with Windows 7.


Sorry, I'm no Windows guy but this argument is false.
That's a pretty bold statement. Your computer might be fine OOTB with 7, but mine isn't. And I'd venture to say a majority of computers (depending on the hardware) wouldn't be either.

[Twitch6000]

So? What is wrong with that? If they delayed release because that single bug, you (or someone else) would now be complaining for not keeping up with planed schedule.



No he don't. He is just bashing competition. For one, he do not have experience with working on big projects such as Linux kernel or with ones who get lots of exposure like Ubuntu. If OpenBSD grows to size of Ubuntu, you will see Theo bailing on it and saying that is crap... wait, we already seen that! He did that to NetBSD when it was catching momentum back in early 90es.

He is also known to be politically incorrect, even Wikipedia article on him says that. I would rather trust BN than Theo de Raadt if I had to trust one of that two.

PS: Here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
Okay I undertstand your hate or dislike for him,but he still is right. Users do not look at linux and go hey lets fix this. Instead they just add to it. Want proof look in this very thread.

Or look at the plans from canicoal lets speed up boot time instead of fixing bugs that have been in ubuntu forever..

[Chronon]

Oh good god I am a troll throw me in the locker :O.

Wow it seems anyone wanting to know why x problem is in ubuntu they get classed as a troll... How freaking welcoming!!

Oh and I do know windows has bugs,but guess what you don't have to wait for another version to come out for the bugs to get fixed.

Thats why they have special packs... Like you showed :).

Uh. I'm not sure why you're making a big fuss about MS service packs. You might have to wait years for the next one (about 4 years between XP's SP2 and SP3). As well, bug fix revisions of the kernel get rolled out within a given release in Ubuntu, so I'm not sure exactly what the point is here.

[fewt]

So? What is wrong with that? If they delayed release because that single bug, you (or someone else) would now be complaining for not keeping up with planed schedule.


What's wrong with that? EVERYTHING! Sure, imply that I would be complaining that it was late. You know for a fact because you are about to post your evidence.

Lets see it.

[Twitch6000]

Uh. I'm not sure why you're making a big fuss about MS service packs. You might have to wait years for the next one (about 4 years between XP's SP2 and SP3). As well, bug fix revisions of the kernel get rolled out within a given release in Ubuntu, so I'm not sure exactly what the point is here.

Meh it was just an example that atleast bugs do get fixed in a single release instead of you having to wait for another version.

Not to mention that with new versions of ubuntu, it has even more bugs then the last version.

[arnab_das]

instead of bashing/counter commenting on each other's posts, can we get a broader perspective of this debate?

in other words, what is the plan of action? ubuntu has faults, but how do we go about fixing it, from a user's perspective. since most of us are not devs here.

[Shibblet]

Why in the heck do you think I am a windows user? I mean I do and again I can also admit its problems... (I dual boot opensuse and windows xp)
This was intended as no direct implication. "Windows Users" was used a general term.


Oh and uhmm Windows 7 out of the box supports most of my hardware and when I use windows update the rest of the drivers get installed...
Updating means it isn't "out of the box." It means you added drivers. Ubuntu does this too.

Out of the box (OOTB) means. Boot, install, work.

[fewt]

However this is not so in most cases. Even my computer needs Nvidia Drivers, and network card drivers with Windows 7.

Ok, lets see your proof of "most cases". Nvidia drivers worked out of the box for me on my AM2 system.

[ibuclaw]

I have believed for a while that if we are to seriously attract the OEMs and the Corporates we need to move to a 12 or 24 month release cycle.

My professional experience tells me this is a major hindrance to uptake.

I somewhat disagree, but agree at the same time.

In my experience, 6 months works rather nicely in a corporate environment. Saying that though, I deal with trivial client software upgrades/releases, not entire system upgrades. If I were to move onto the latter, I would have to agree with you, a 12-24 month cycle for system components (kernel, libc, hal, X, dbus), and server software (apache, ssh, vnc) would be more desirable.

[Twitch6000]

This was intended as no direct implication. "Windows Users" was used a general term.


Updating means it isn't "out of the box." It means you added drivers. Ubuntu does this too.

Out of the box (OOTB) means. Boot, install, work.

Well it does boot install and work. I do have to go and download my nvidia drivers for 3d though. Atleast I can get online through wireless out of the box though... unlike ubuntu the last time I used it.

[mickie.kext]

Okay I undertstand your hate or dislike for him,but he still is right. Users do not look at linux and go hey lets fix this. Instead they just add to it. Want proof look in this very thread.

Or look at the plans from canicoal lets speed up boot time instead of fixing bugs that have been in ubuntu forever..

I have no reason to hate him, just bringing him to discussion is ridiculous. And he is not right.


Also this discussion is ridiculous because is based on "UBUNTU HAS BUGZ SO NEEDZ TO DIE!!!111" type of arguments.

[fewt]

I have no reason to hate him, just bringing him to discussion is ridiculous. And he is not right.


Also this discussion is ridiculous because is based on "UBUNTU HAS BUGZ SO NEEDZ TO DIE!!!111" type of arguments.

Prove that he isn't right. I know of more bugs than I have fingers that impact (and in cases kernel panic) the computer I am typing this on now.

So, prove him right.

This discussion is NOT ridiculous, what is ridiculous is that you can't put your !!OMGUBUNTU!! <3 aside for 5 seconds, you solely came to this thread to bash the people with problems.

[Shibblet]

Ok, lets see your proof of "most cases". Nvidia drivers worked out of the box for me on my AM2 system.

Geezus... really? I'm talking about loading the OS right off the disc. No drivers, only what the OS has to offer...

OUT OF THE BOX!

And yes, in some cases you will get complete functionality, but not the best performance. But you can't expect it to work that way. Especially if you custom build a system.

My point here is, anyone who first loads Windows, secondly loads their device drivers. It's part of the "load up the OS game." Ubuntu (Linux) is no different.

[Twitch6000]

I have no reason to hate him, just bringing him to discussion is ridiculous. And he is not right.


Also this discussion is ridiculous because is based on "UBUNTU HAS BUGZ SO NEEDZ TO DIE!!!111" type of arguments.

Why is it ridiculous. Why not talk about the issues on ubuntu. Heck we could all get together and get into canicoals had and tell them we want a stable system..

I rather admit a systems fault and let it be known so it can get fixed.

[23meg]

I have believed for a while that if we are to seriously attract the OEMs and the Corporates we need to move to a 12 or 24 month release cycle.

My professional experience tells me this is a major hindrance to uptake.

We do have a 24-month release cycle, which is the long term support cycle (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS). We effectively have two release cycles superimposed: a 6-month one and a 2-year one.

[thatguruguy]

Oh good god I am a troll throw me in the locker :O.

Wow it seems anyone wanting to know why x problem is in ubuntu they get classed as a troll... How freaking welcoming!!

Oh and I do know windows has bugs,but guess what you don't have to wait for another version to come out for the bugs to get fixed.

Thats why they have special packs... Like you showed :).

I didn't say that you're a troll because you're pointing out issues. I think you're trolling in this particular thread because you announced on a different board that you were starting this particular thread in an effort, essentially, to get people from the other site to follow your lead into this particular thread.

And you missed my point about the bugs. You had stated:

Ofcourse all software has bugs,but for the most part atleast the bugs are shown in the betas and fixed by the final.

Ubuntu though basically makes the users bug testers and have to deal with them until the next release..

It appeared, at least to me, that you were arguing that essentially all other software manufacturers other than ubuntu deal with bugs in the beta stage, and the final products released are as close to bug-free as possible. I was pointing out that your premise is incorrect.

[Twitch6000]

I didn't say that you're a troll because you're pointing out issues. I think you're trolling in this particular thread because you announced on a different board that you were starting this particular thread in an effort, essentially, to get people from the other site to follow your lead into this particular thread.

And you missed my point about the bugs. You had stated:


It appeared, at least to me, that you were arguing that essentially all other software manufacturers other than ubuntu deal with bugs in the beta stage, and the final products released are as close to bug-free as possible. I was pointing out that your premise is incorrect.
Why not let others know? I am not a wizard of all knowledge. So maybe if I am wrong somewhere I can get corrected by a more knowledgable user...

And for the bug thing if you look at my post later I got corrected :O.

[Chronon]

Meh it was just an example that atleast bugs do get fixed in a single release instead of you having to wait for another version.

Not to mention that with new versions of ubuntu, it has even more bugs then the last version.

Would you care to provide your metric for measuring "more bugs"? How are you counting this, exactly?

[Twitch6000]

Would you care to provide your metric for measuring "more bugs"? How are you counting this, exactly?
Wow must I post a link to the release notes again...

Just look at the ubuntu release notes it isn't hard..

[Shibblet]

Here's a question that was never asked...

What are the faults to which you are referring?

[arnab_das]

i really dont see the point of this debate if we are going to go back to the same zero position again.

what can WE do? any plans? anything at all? mere discussions will only lengthen the thread without serving any purpose. it will die a slow death and ubuntu will be as it is.

[Twitch6000]

Here's a question that was never asked...

What are the faults to which you are referring?

Look at the first post I linked to a few problems and mentioned others.

[Twitch6000]

i really dont see the point of this debate if we are going to go back to the same zero position again.

what can WE do? any plans? anything at all? mere discussions will only lengthen the thread without serving any purpose. it will die a slow death and ubuntu will be as it is.

Good question what can a normal user do. Well we could post bug reports,but they will probably get fixed in a different version and not the one you need it fixed in.

We could make a petition,but those never work.

Maybe we could show the problems of ubuntu to canicoal themself and see if they even give a crap. It works for the windows users for example windows 7.

[Yes]

I know this is kinda off topic at this point, but I wanted to take a stab at the original question...

My theory as to why a number of Ubuntu users don't admit Ubuntu's faults is that they're very new to the Linux (or for that matter, the "non Windows") world. They're very excited and yet rather ignorant to the full picture and so they make ill-informed statements and deny the faults of Ubuntu. It seems like a lot of Ubuntu users do this because Ubuntu is one of the standard "intro to Linux" distros, so a lot of users will move on to other distros after a while in Ubuntu. Thus the userbase always seems to be full of these new users excited and zealous and ignorant of faults.

Anyway, that's my theory.

[fewt]

My point here is, anyone who first loads Windows, secondly loads their device drivers. It's part of the "load up the OS game." Uhttp://ubuntuforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8837881buntu (Linux) is no different.

Umm, not me. I installed 7, connected to WIFI when it rebooted. I installed a few apps, played some Hulu. I suspended, then resumed. I loaded up some games, played them and they worked.

When I loaded Karmic I:

- Patched the kernel (eeepc-laptop bug that caused kernel panics)
- Applied the PCIEHP force (kernel hotplug bug)
- Loaded WIFI drivers (to correct WIFI dropping issue)

I can go on, that's just the first 20 minutes of use. Then I had terrible opengl performance, couldn't watch Hulu, my software stopped working because of a devkit bug (/etc/pm scripts not triggering).

Guess what, W7 just worked.

I'm sorry, I know it makes you want to scream, but it worked.

It's no different than the "ZOMGITWORKSFORME" posts here all the time. That's two machines now, it just worked. Karmic didn't.

On my AM2 box I had to kill gnome-screensaver every day because it stopped accepting my password. control-alt-f1, log in, killall gnome-screensaver.

Sorry, this is not and will never be a consumer OS until they fix real problems and stop working on SHINY.

You can scream at me now if it'll make you feel better.

Remember, I'm a deeper Linux guy than you. ;)

Oh, and when I went to the display properties I was greeted with the NVidia control panel. I didn't install that by the way, Windows 7 did.

[matthew]

A successful organisation changes with the environment. It moves , it adapts. If it doesn't it is doomed to failure.
Its only constant should be change. But not change for change sake. But change for good.That depends also on whether the change being sought is a change in the core principle(s) of the organization. In those cases, where the core value(s) are found faulty, the best decision is to dissolve and either start over or let others do the job.


We do have a 24-month release cycle, which is the long term support cycle (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS). We effectively have two release cycles superimposed: a 6-month one and a 2-year one.
The LTS is better for server environments and the corporate environments described/desired by Kiwi. The regular releases keep the momentum going. At least that is the plan. Whether or not that works is certainly open for discussion.

[mickie.kext]

Prove that he isn't right. I know of more bugs than I have fingers that impact (and in cases kernel panic) the computer I am typing this on now.

So, prove him right.

This discussion is NOT ridiculous, what is ridiculous is that you can't put your !!OMGUBUNTU!! <3 aside for 5 seconds, you solely came to this thread to bash the people with problems.

He basically said: "it is crap, you should not use it". How you prove that wrong? It is a rant. Rant can not be proved wrong because it does not try to be right. It can only be ignored.

And I do not see people with problems here. You should post in help area of forum if you had problem. I do not even understand your post entirely.

[fewt]

We do have a 24-month release cycle, which is the long term support cycle (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS). We effectively have two release cycles superimposed: a 6-month one and a 2-year one.

You have an LTS that released with Beta software (Firefox). You have a new LTS on its way that's releasing with more brand new code.

This isn't LTS, it's unstable + extra stuff.

[Chronon]

Why is it ridiculous. Why not talk about the issues on ubuntu. Heck we could all get together and get into canicoals had and tell them we want a stable system..

I rather admit a systems fault and let it be known so it can get fixed.

I am only interested in talking about bugs for certain, specific reasons:
a) to figure out if it is indeed a bug
b) to figure out if somebody knows a workaround
c) to figure out if it has been formally reported (so I can report it or check the bug report for myself)
d) to help others figure out the same

To let it be known you must file a bug report. Forums are not where you interact with developers. Bug trackers are where you submit information that you wish to be known. Merely complaining about bugs (especially some undefined set of bugs) here just seems like a bizarre form of emotional therapy to me. It doesn't have anything to do with "let[ting] it be known so it can get fixed".

[thatguruguy]

I can't speak for others, but I certainly acknowledge that ubuntu isn't perfect. Nor do I expect it to be. I will, however, address the hardware compatibility issue.

Back when apples were made based upon the powerpc architecture, it would have been silly to suggest that every piece of hardware or software that worked on a mac should work on a pc, or vice-versa. However, people expect that anything that works on a windows box should automatically work on a linux box. I suspect (at least in the case of "newbies") that this is because of a basic lack of understanding about the fact that hardware doesn't work in a vacuum; it requires software in the form of drivers to function. Not all hardware that is available for windows boxes (which, nowadays, is most hardware) has linux drivers. If the particular piece of hardware requires closed-source drivers and they haven't released any for linux, the answer is to buy different hardware.

There isn't any magic there. Blaming the OS doesn't solve anything. If you want your hardware to work with a particular OS, you need to get hardware that has the right drivers for that OS. It's not a cop-out, it's the only answer that makes sense.

[arnab_das]

I am only interested in talking about bugs for certain, specific reasons:
a) to figure out if it is indeed a bug
b) to figure out if somebody knows a workaround
c) to figure out if it has been formally reported (so I can report it or check the bug report for myself)
d) to help others figure out the same

To let it be known you must file a bug report. Forums are not where you interact with developers. Bug trackers are where you submit information that you wish to be known. Merely complaining about bugs (especially some undefined set of bugs) here just seems like a bizarre form of emotional therapy to me. It doesn't have anything to do with "let[ting] it be known so it can get fixed".

kindly suggest a solution out of this deadlock before this thread gets nasty. i think we all agree that ubuntu needs some changes. what can now we as users do?

[Twitch6000]

You have an LTS that released with Beta software (Firefox). You have a new LTS on its way that's releasing with more brand new code.

This isn't LTS, it's unstable + extra stuff.

Couldn't have said it better myself. (not kidding)

[fewt]

I do not even understand your post entirely.

No, I didn't think you would.

[Yes]

Also, why are you so insistent on pointing out Ubuntu's faults and getting them fixed? If you don't like it or you find it doesn't work, there are other distros and OSs out there. Just don't use Ubuntu, when enough users leave perhaps Canocial will get the message and change course.

[Twitch6000]

I am only interested in talking about bugs for certain, specific reasons:
a) to figure out if it is indeed a bug
b) to figure out if somebody knows a workaround
c) to figure out if it has been formally reported (so I can report it or check the bug report for myself)
d) to help others figure out the same

To let it be known you must file a bug report. Forums are not where you interact with developers. Bug trackers are where you submit information that you wish to be known. Merely complaining about bugs (especially some undefined set of bugs) here just seems like a bizarre form of emotional therapy to me. It doesn't have anything to do with "let[ting] it be known so it can get fixed".

Well as noted people have submitted bug reports,but they get ignored..

Look at the first post for an example.

[Mahngiel]

For many years now the typical computer user has evolved into the "plug + play, click click click... good" type of user. Now that more and more are turning their backs on the big 2 they are finding out the problems with proprietary software/devices working natively. It's just part of the

Originally Posted by too many people
You should have bought hardware that linux supports

Which is fine in it's gist, but for the typical / possible convert, that's not a justifiable answer.



Reference previous quotation for next quotation.


AMD, Broadcom and ALSA, the three things that don't work well under Linux due to the mfgr's and not the Linux community, and you choose to use all three and complain when there is ample evidence that it is hard to use.

[Twitch6000]

Also, why are you so insistent on pointing out Ubuntu's faults and getting them fixed? If you don't like it or you find it doesn't work, there are other distros and OSs out there. Just don't use Ubuntu, when enough users leave perhaps Canocial will get the message and change course.

Well I find I do it because it is calimed the most used distro that just works. Or it is claimed to be the most stable os.

Or it doesn't have malware.

See I hate liars or just misimformed people. So I try my best to atleast show the truth. Now if they accept it is on them.

[mickie.kext]

No, I didn't think you would.
So, what are you trying to say? You just want to flame, is that it?

[jrusso2]

I can't speak for others, but I certainly acknowledge that ubuntu isn't perfect. Nor do I expect it to be. I will, however, address the hardware compatibility issue.

Back when apples were made based upon the powerpc architecture, it would have been silly to suggest that every piece of hardware or software that worked on a mac should work on a pc, or vice-versa. However, people expect that anything that works on a windows box should automatically work on a linux box. I suspect (at least in the case of "newbies") that this is because of a basic lack of understanding about the fact that hardware doesn't work in a vacuum; it requires software in the form of drivers to function. Not all hardware that is available for windows boxes (which, nowadays, is most hardware) has linux drivers. If the particular piece of hardware requires closed-source drivers and they haven't released any for linux, the answer is to buy different hardware.

There isn't any magic there. Blaming the OS doesn't solve anything. If you want your hardware to work with a particular OS, you need to get hardware that has the right drivers for that OS. It's not a cop-out, it's the only answer that makes sense.

A windows box and a PC are the same thing. A power PC has a different processor architecture.

Linux was designed to work on a PC.

[fewt]

So, what are you trying to say? You just want to flame, is that it?

Nope, that's not what I was trying to say at all.

[Twitch6000]

Just to lossen people up and calm people down...

Here is a funny quote of Linus Torvalds -


Software is like sex; it's better when it's free.

* Attributed to Torvalds at 1996 FSF conference, video showing this phrase in one of Torvalds papers (time code: 48.44)

[Chronon]

Well as noted people have submitted bug reports,but they get ignored..

Look at the first post for an example.

So what? I don't understand what difference that makes? Finite resources necessitate triage. That's a simple fact. I don't think the existence of a few ignored bug reports is cause for alarm.

I have seen several cases, in this thread, of people using anecdotes to support general arguments. While I accept the anecdotes, I also accept the fallacy of trying to build general arguments from them.

[Frak]

There are a number of Ubuntu users on this forum who would say it has no faults.
90% +

I mean, just sayin, ya know?

[thatguruguy]

A windows box and a PC are the same thing. A power PC has a different processor architecture.

Linux was designed to work on a PC.

The physical architecture is the same. However, I wouldn't expect windows drivers to work on a PC running linux. For that matter, despite the fact that OSX now runs on a intel/AMD architecture, I wouldn't expect OSX device drivers to run in windows, or vice-versa.

[Yes]

Well I find I do it because it is calimed the most used distro that just works. Or it is claimed to be the most stable os.

Or it doesn't have malware.

See I hate liars or just misimformed people. So I try my best to atleast show the truth. Now if they accept it is on them.

So you created this thread with the hope of informing people to the faults of Ubuntu, so they wouldn't claim that it was the best thing since sliced bread?

[Shibblet]

Umm, not me. I installed 7, connected to WIFI when it rebooted. I installed a few apps, played some Hulu. I suspended, then resumed. I loaded up some games, played them and they worked.

So, what you're telling me is that you loaded Windows 7 from a "Windows 7" Disc? Or was it the manufacturer supplied disc that came with your AM2? I hope you see where I am going with this...

By the way, Hulu (Flash) doesn't work in IE8 without having Flash player installed first.

[Scarfnoogan]

so they wouldn't claim that it was the best thing since sliced bread?

I say it depends on what kind of bread

[Twitch6000]

So what? I don't understand what difference that makes? Finite resources necessitate triage. That's a simple fact. I don't think the existence of a few ignored bug reports is cause for alarm.

I have seen several cases, in this thread, of people using anecdotes to support general arguments. While I accept the anecdotes, I also accept the fallacy of trying to build general arguments from them.

Just a few ignored bugs... hahahahah There are so many that get ignored that is my problem...

Heck people grouch all the time when windows doesn't fix something right away.

Yet if ubuntu does it you go oh big deal...

[jrusso2]

The physical architecture is the same. However, I wouldn't expect windows drivers to work on a PC running linux. For that matter, despite the fact that OSX now runs on a intel/AMD architecture, I wouldn't expect OSX device drivers to run in windows, or vice-versa.

There is no hardware made for Linux, just some windows hardware that works with Linux.

[thatguruguy]

I say it depends on what kind of bread

I'm not a big fan of rye bread.


There, I said it.

[Yes]

I say it depends on what kind of bread

Well of course, I don't think anyone would dare claim it's better than a nice slice of Jewish rye.

e: For clarification, Jewish rye is very different from normal rye. I admit, normal rye isn't all that great.

[fewt]

Reference previous quotation for next quotation.

If Linux had a stable driver interface (IE *ONLY* changed from 2.4 to 2.6 and then 2.8) vendors would come.

Microsoft nailed this one with Windows 95, all we get is an article on why it's a stupid idea to have a stable ABI that vendors could target.

Sorry, the kernel driver team has this one dead wrong.

[Twitch6000]

So you created this thread with the hope of informing people to the faults of Ubuntu, so they wouldn't claim that it was the best thing since sliced bread?

Well sorta to put it simply I am trying to raise awareness while also discussing the matter. I also would like an answer to the question.. Why are ubuntu users afraid to admit its faults.

Some users do as you can see in the thread,but others... well you get it lol.

[Chronon]

Just a few ignored bugs... hahahahah There are so many that get ignored that is my problem...

Heck people grouch all the time when windows doesn't fix something right away.

Yet if ubuntu does it you go oh big deal...

You seem to only want to speak in generalizations. I think I am done here.

[fewt]

The physical architecture is the same. However, I wouldn't expect windows drivers to work on a PC running linux. For that matter, despite the fact that OSX now runs on a intel/AMD architecture, I wouldn't expect OSX device drivers to run in windows, or vice-versa.

Well, we know how to do that right? I mean, someone reverse engineered NDIS drivers, and wrote a kernel interface.

It WORKS and it works WELL, yet it's frowned upon.

So, it's not that you shouldn't expect them to work (because it's possible), it's that you shouldn't expect them to be made to work (because it's unlikely anyone will do it).

[thatguruguy]

There is no hardware made for Linux, just some windows hardware that works with Linux.

No, there's some hardware that has windows drivers that also has linux drivers. And some hardware that has OSX drivers that also has windows drivers. And some hardware that has all three.

If you want hardware that works on your linux box, you buy hardware that has good linux drivers. When I recently bought a new printer, I took the fact that Lexmark has crappy (or non-existent) linux support and the fact that HP has pretty good linux support into consideration. It's part of making an informed decision on my hardware purchase.

[Twitch6000]

There is no hardware made for Linux, just some windows hardware that works with Linux.
I wouldn't say that there are some that says right on the box -

Supported OS's - Windows,Mac,And Linux.

So you can't say no hardware is made for linux :P.

[thatguruguy]

Well of course, I don't think anyone would dare claim it's better than a nice slice of Jewish rye.

e: For clarification, Jewish rye is very different from normal rye. I admit, normal rye isn't all that great.

We should probably stop this discussion right here before it erupts into a flame war.

[Frak]

If Linux had a stable driver interface (IE *ONLY* changed from 2.4 to 2.6 and then 2.8) vendors would come.

Microsoft nailed this one with Windows 95, all we get is an article on why it's a stupid idea to have a stable ABI that vendors could target.

Sorry, the kernel driver team has this one dead wrong.
I agree with this post.

Also, is your best friend.

[fewt]

So, what you're telling me is that you loaded Windows 7 from a "Windows 7" Disc? Or was it the manufacturer supplied disc that came with your AM2? I hope you see where I am going with this...

By the way, Hulu (Flash) doesn't work in IE8 without having Flash player installed first.

I'm not an idiot. Yes, I used retail media. Yes, I know that IE8 doesn't come with flash, but when you go to a website that uses it, it's installed.

Have you installed 7? I'm pretty sure you haven't.

[matthew]

You have an LTS that released with Beta software (Firefox). You have a new LTS on its way that's releasing with more brand new code.

This isn't LTS, it's unstable + extra stuff.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of LTS. It stands for "long term support" not "extra stable." The idea is that software is chosen for how well they think they will be able to support it during the life cycle of the release, not for the most stable option at that moment. However, the development cycle for the LTS release is less focused on new functionality and more focused on stability.

The specific instance you chose was the result of the realization that the then-stable version of Firefox would have been well past End of Life before the end of the LTS support cycle, so a loudly discussed and contested decision was finally made and consensus reached to ship a version of Firefox the developers knew they would be supported by Mozilla during the entire lifecycle of the Ubuntu LTS release. Why? To make sure developer time was spent on dealing with issues other than figuring out how to support security for a release no longer supported by upstream developers.

Does that make sense? These decisions don't come from nowhere nor without thought. While reasonable people may disagree with them, I don't think it is reasonable to presume there is a lack of consideration brought to bear.

This all goes back to the core value of the Ubuntu project: to push the development of the Linux desktop. Other distros already do a fabulous job focusing on stability and have for some time (Debian and Slackware come to mind immediately). If the core values of end users are different, that is okay, they are already covered by existing projects. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a project focused on pushing the envelope to follow their model any more than I think everyone should follow Ubuntu's model.

[Yes]

Well sorta to put it simply I am trying to raise awareness while also discussing the matter. I also would like an answer to the question.. Why are ubuntu users afraid to admit its faults.

Some users do as you can see in the thread,but others... well you get it lol.

I don't think they're "afraid" to, I think a lot of denying the faults results from a combination of simple ignorance, excitement for a newfound OS, and zealotry.

As new Ubuntu users become more well read and experienced in the tech/OS world they tend to wise up, get over their initial excitement, and acknowledge the faults in the OS that they use.

Unfortunately as with anything a small number of users remain zealots, and you've just got to learn to ignore them.

[aysiu]

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of LTS. It stands for "long term support" not "extra stable." A lot of people seem to make this mistake. I correct the misconception as much as I can.

[Twitch6000]

I don't think they're "afraid" to, I think a lot of denying the faults results from a combination of simple ignorance, excitement for a newfound OS, and zealotry.

As new Ubuntu users become more well read and experienced in the tech/OS world they tend to wise up, get over their initial excitement, and acknowledge the faults in the OS that they use.

Unfortunately as with anything a small number of users remain zealots, and you've just got to learn to ignore them.

Well I could ignore them if it was but a few,but it seems there are so many it bugs me and also makes linux look bad.

Same for mac zealots and windows zealots and wtfever zealots.

[fewt]

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of LTS. It stands for "long term support" not "extra stable." The idea is that software is chosen for how well they think they will be able to support it during the life cycle of the release, not for the most stable option at that moment. However, the development cycle for the LTS release is less focused on new functionality and more focused on stability.

The specific instance you chose was the result of the realization that the then-stable version of Firefox would have been well past End of Life before the end of the LTS support cycle, so a loudly discussed and contested decision was finally made and consensus reached to ship a version of Firefox the developers knew they would be supported by Mozilla during the entire lifecycle of the Ubuntu LTS release. Why? To make sure developer time was spent on dealing with issues other than figuring out how to support security for a release no longer supported by upstream developers.

Does that make sense? These decisions don't come from nowhere nor without thought. While reasonable people may disagree with them, I don't think it is reasonable to presume there is a lack of consideration brought to bear.

This all goes back to the core value of the Ubuntu project: to push the development of the Linux desktop. Other distros already do a fabulous job focusing on stability and have for some time (Debian and Slackware come to mind immediately). If the core values of end users are different, that is okay, they are already covered by existing projects. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a project focused on pushing the envelope to follow their model any more than I think everyone should follow Ubuntu's model.

Oh, it isn't a misunderstanding (I know that it means long term support rather than long term "stable"). It is a constant that is used every time someone indicates that Ubuntu is unstable (just use LTS). I completely understand the reasoning behind using the beta of firefox in 8.04, I probably would have approached it differently (managed dependent packages better, and released it with the older stable version). It would have been trivial to eliminate the requirement to dist-upgrade (for new dependency installation) with smarter packaging.

I think Ubuntu misses the mark on Linux for desktop users because users want computers that work. Users that are expected to file bug reports, patch kernels, install software from PPAs, etc aren't consumers. Consumers expected to do these things will just restore from their Windows media and call it a day.

;)

[matthew]

Well I could ignore them if it was but a few,but it seems there are so many it bugs me and also makes linux look bad.

Same for mac zealots and windows zealots and wtfever zealots.

What about the "I'm calling them out" zealots? Ignoring them would also be better, but none of us seem to be able to do so... ;)

[Twitch6000]

What about the "I'm calling them out" zealots? Ignoring them would also be better, but none of us seem to be able to do so... ;)

Its hard to ignore such a large persistant force ;).

[Frak]

What about the "I'm calling them out" zealots? Ignoring them would also be better, but none of us seem to be able to do so... ;)
Yes, I also like chocolate cake.

[matthew]

Oh, it isn't a misunderstanding. It is a constant that is used every time someone indicates that Ubuntu is unstable (just use LTS).
Note, please, that none of the developers nor community leaders ever say this anywhere.

EDIT by addition: I had a PM requesting clarification of this statement. This is how I responded.

I meant developers (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers) or leaders in the community, such as the members of the Community Council (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/council) or the Technical Board (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/techboard).


I completely understand the reasoning behind using the beta of firefox in 8.04, I probably would have approached it differently (managed dependent packages better, and released it with the older stable version). It would have been trivial to eliminate the requirement to dist-upgrade (for new dependency installation) with smarter packaging.

I think Ubuntu misses the mark on Linux for desktop users because users want computers that work. Users that are expected to file bug reports, patch kernels, install software from PPAs, etc aren't consumers. Consumers expected to do these things will just restore from their Windows media and call it a day.

;)

As I said, there are excellent distributions that do precisely this and are highly recommended for people who value this perspective. That is one of the beautiful things about Free/Open Source Software: choice. (Well, that and the cross-pollenization that happens between the various projects...and...you get the idea.)

[thatguruguy]

By the way, I want to get back (momentarily) to the powerpc/PC distinction. I'm sure that some of you remember when USB was first coming out, and the emphasis placed on the "Universal" part of the "Universal Serial Bus" specifications. The hope was, iirc, to create a set of specifications wherein a device hooked up to a USB port would "just work", regardless of whether the USB port was on a windows box, a powerpc mac, or any other conceivable platform that could integrate USB ports. While we've seen it work to some degree (flash memory sticks being the best example), we've got a long way to go to make that really work.

Perhaps if USB ever really lives up to its intended promise, it would solve some of the hardware compatibility issues.

[NightwishFan]

Why is this thread still going, what is the debate?!?

Ubuntu users wont admit its faults? Here is a whole thread full of posters who did so.

Open Source has bugs? There is your answer, go with closed source problem solved.

This thread was a page or two long last time I posted, in which I offered help and advice. You are not looking for help or advice you are looking for conflict. Are you happy? Here is some conflict for you. You are distracting these people from helping other Ubuntu users who may really need guidance.

[23meg]

You have an LTS that released with Beta software (Firefox).

Rehashing that old non-argument demonstrates a weak grasp of Ubuntu development and QA procedures. I've refuted it in various contexts before, so I'll just link to previous posts:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4923823&postcount=402
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4931495&postcount=417
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8165484&postcount=15


You have a new LTS on its way that's releasing with more brand new code.

That a release includes any brand new code at all (which is hardly a surprise) doesn't disqualify it from being "stable", especially when you don't point to specific areas of potential problems / regressions that may be caused by specific bits of brand new code, which would be better done in the relevant mailing list and an effort to help, if you had such intentions.

It's also worth mentioning that the Lucid cycle has seen some changes (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS) to the release schedule and policies in an effort to provide a more "stable" final release.

[fewt]

Note, please, that none of the developers nor community leaders ever say this anywhere.

Fair enough, but they also don't do enough to counter it when it's said (and spread) by others.

[Shibblet]

Fair enough, but they also don't do enough to counter it when it's said (and spread) by others.

That would be feeding the rumor.

[Frak]

That would be feeding the rumor.
Conversely, wouldn't not doing anything prove the truth of it?

[matthew]

Fair enough, but they also don't do enough to counter it when it's said (and spread) by others.

And take valuable time away from development? Then they would have the constant accusation of "they spend their time on silly arguments instead of trying to do their jobs," right?

[23meg]

Fair enough, but they also don't do enough to counter it when it's said (and spread) by others.

Feel free to help by countering that misunderstanding when you see it yourself.

[fewt]

Rehashing that old non-argument demonstrates a weak grasp of Ubuntu development and QA procedures. I've refuted it in various contexts before.


No, you posted links to other Canonical employee opinions on the subject, that hardly refutes anything. I don't have a weak grasp I know full well how much the development process sucks.




That a release includes any brand new code at all (which is hardly a surprise) doesn't disqualify it from being "stable", especially when you don't point to specific areas of potential problems / regressions that may be caused by specific bits of brand new code, which would be better done in the relevant mailing list and an effort to help, if you had such intentions.


True, including brand new code doesn't automagically mean unstable. When you release code like computer janitor though which when it rolls off your tongue you think "oh, PC cleanup, cool" until it deletes your VirtualBox deb because it wasn't in sources.list.

When you release Ubuntu ONE and have to immediately patch it to prevent data loss though.

That's not stable, that's silly.



It's also worth mentioning that the Lucid cycle has seen some changes (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS) to the release schedule and policies in an effort to provide a more "stable" final release.

We'll see. ;)

[fewt]

And take valuable time away from development? Then they would have the constant accusation of "they spend their time on silly arguments instead of trying to do their jobs," right?

I'm sorry, bad implication. I meant to imply you the forum staff. ;)

[matthew]

I'm sorry, bad implication. I meant to imply you the forum staff. ;)

Meh, I had the day off. ;)

[23meg]

No, you posted links to other Canonical employee opinions on the subject, that hardly refutes anything.

No, I posted links to my own past statements on the subject, which are backed by data that can be cross-verified with the Mozilla release plans, and I'm not a Canonical employee.


I don't have a weak grasp I know full well how much the development process sucks.

I'm refusing to read the rest of your post after this sentence, and am adding you to my ignore list, since my time is better spent on doing actual work than on engaging in fruitless discussions with people who insist on resorting to hearsay, generalizations and attacks when confronted with factual arguments. Goodbye.

[dmizer]

Admission is a two way street.

Admitting faults, and admitting strengths. It is just as much a problem for Ubuntu when people do nothing but complain and say nothing about the benefits as it is when people do nothing but sing praises and deny faults.

Denying faults is admitedly a problem, but it's just as much of a problem when people bash Ubuntu and refuse to admit that sometimes it is indeed the hardware's fault, and sometimes it is indeed the user's fault, and sometimes it's a simple matter of the user doesn't understand how Linux works.

In this thread I see far too many posts on both sides of this fence. Both people who refuse to admit that Ubuntu has faults, and people who refuse to see that Ubuntu has things going for it. I also see that people who post balanced views of the situation, and people who have a healthy outlook on problems and solutions are being ignored.

I am closing this thread because it seems to be nothing but a rant. Rants do nothing to help the development of Ubuntu and only serve to damage the community.

Thank you all for participating.