justin whitaker
March 1st, 2007, 05:34 PM
Does Ubuntu actually have one?
This question comes out of my recent experience with my USB drives. I use my USB Traveldrive and my Maxtor USB HD for moving files between systems, archiving, etc. And 90% of the time, I can't use them unless I reboot my system.
I have done all of the things that people in the forum have recommended, so I'm not looking for help: it's clear that until the Dev team does something new to the kernel, or I break down and compile it myself, USB is broken.
Now, I have a workaround: take the system down, reboot, and there they are. That is as annoying as anything, because I thought that we passed that sort of crap with Windows 95.
What it seems like, from this users perspective, is that the Devs find a bug fix, or change their security approach, or want to make things easier for themselves for the next upgrade, so they commit a patch, and if no bugs are reported, it gets pushed.
A better way to handle that is, prior to release or patching, certain things should be checked off:
Does X work on a variety of cards and systems?
Do USB peripherals work as they should?
Does sound work properly on a variety of systems?
Does the patch break any commonly installed applications?
I'm sure that the list could be extended quite easily. The point is, each patch or update seems to bring the same problems to the community, and yet, the process keeps repeating itself.
A little quality control would go a long way.
This question comes out of my recent experience with my USB drives. I use my USB Traveldrive and my Maxtor USB HD for moving files between systems, archiving, etc. And 90% of the time, I can't use them unless I reboot my system.
I have done all of the things that people in the forum have recommended, so I'm not looking for help: it's clear that until the Dev team does something new to the kernel, or I break down and compile it myself, USB is broken.
Now, I have a workaround: take the system down, reboot, and there they are. That is as annoying as anything, because I thought that we passed that sort of crap with Windows 95.
What it seems like, from this users perspective, is that the Devs find a bug fix, or change their security approach, or want to make things easier for themselves for the next upgrade, so they commit a patch, and if no bugs are reported, it gets pushed.
A better way to handle that is, prior to release or patching, certain things should be checked off:
Does X work on a variety of cards and systems?
Do USB peripherals work as they should?
Does sound work properly on a variety of systems?
Does the patch break any commonly installed applications?
I'm sure that the list could be extended quite easily. The point is, each patch or update seems to bring the same problems to the community, and yet, the process keeps repeating itself.
A little quality control would go a long way.