On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:35 +1000, Null Ack wrote: > Daniel with respect, I did not mean to present that the solution to > improving the quality of GNU/Linux is for centralised control. > > However, people are in control of aspects of Linux - such as release > decisions about key sub systems, or release decisions as it relates to > Distros. These decision makers have the power to conform, or not to > conform as some unfortunately choose, to decades old principles to do > with what consitutes an alpha, beta or production release. > > Clearly, there are allot of problems when parties who are in control > declare a release as stable when its not. With the kernel, I gave the > example where Andrew Morton shared with us that he often see's > regression bugs go without fixes, he see's developers ignore bug > reports. There is other examples too in other key sub systems of just > about any Linux distro. Take for example, all the problems with X > releases and how most recently a new release of X was made with a > blocker bug and other serious bugs. > > If more focus and discipline was put into what constitutes a > production release I think that would be a very good direction to > take. Who cares if there is more release candidates for kernels or > more betas for X, if its not ready its not ready. Some bugs can be > tricky for a developer to replicate and resolve. Its human nature not > to see the severity the same way with an issue if it's not happening > on your machine. > > I dont see proper release management stifling any freedoms in FOSS > projects. It just means having a proper quality standard before bits > are declared stable and ready for production. I greatly enjoy Ubuntu, > over all other distro's Ive tried (Arch, OpenSuse, Fedora) but I am > certainly not the only person Ive seen sharing their views that > arbitary time based releases arent condusive to good software.
I have been watching this thread, and many like it over the years. Yes it would be nice if the quality of GNU/Linux distros improved, but I don't demand that. Lets take a look at the situation. You are getting a complete operating system for free (as in liberty and beer). It comes with a warranty - see clause 15 of the GPL [1]. Vendors (including canonical/ubuntu) honour the warranty offered by upstream. Now lets look at the upstream projects. They or usually run by informal groupings of people. Even with all the corporate resources thrown at Linux (as in the real Linux - the kernel), it is down to Linus and the advice of his lieutenants as to what is in and what is out of a release. No one is able to make a volunteer fix a bug. The goes for if Ubuntu/Canonical pushes a patch upstream to kernel and it is included in a release but later turns out to be broken, there is nothing which compels anyone, let alone makes Ubuntu fix it. This is the free software movement at work. No one makes you use the code we produce (yes I am a FOSS developer). No one can make us fix our bugs. This is the risk you take when you use our code. I don't lose any sleep if someone does or doesn't use my code. If someone demands that I fix a bug or else <random_threat>, I mentally put it to the bottom of the pile. For the flip side, lets look at a proprietary development model. I have picked the easiet one - Windows. Windows 98 didn't support USB mass storage and support for it was never included, last I checked you couldn't install onto a SATA drive without a _boot floppy_ and looks unlikely to ever be fixed. It took until SP2 for XP to come anywhere close to getting half decent security. Many vendors took months to get their drivers right for Vista. The list of fundamental flaws with various versions of Windows is extensive. This is a product shipped by the biggest software company on the planet. My experiences with the official support channels for Windows, as a legitimate, paying customer have been extremely disappointing. If you are disappointed with the quality of the product warranty offered in clause 11 of the EULA (XP SP2 [2]), which I think you will have very little chance of seeing it honoured as there are too many loopholes for MS to use to get out of it. I currently have 2 virtual machines running Windows (one Vista and one XP), they are both legitimate copies. I am currently running about 30 different GNU/Linux (physical and virtual) servers, and my laptop only runs Hardy. I have given up on running Windows for anything serious. When I need bullet proof servers, I run Debian stable and I double check the specs before paying for new kit. When I need "pretty good" servers I check if Ubuntu LTS or Debian stable are a better fit for the task. On the desktop desktop I generally run ubuntu alphas (which I don't advocate to others), for others they get LTS or current stable ubuntu depending on their needs. Do I get annoyed/frustrated with GNU/Linux, yes. Do I complain - yes via bug reports and my blog. Do I threaten people to get things fixed, no. I have found Ubuntu alphas more stable than any pre SP1 versions of Windows. I full support the Debian approach of only backporting the security fix, nothing more. This is what keeps things stable. The latest feature X or Y is rarely needed in server environments. Also when preparing releases you need some time to freeze and stabalize. I don't want a new nVidia driver being dropped in 2 weeks before release just because a new card is out which might be used by 50 people. I want a well polished professional server/desktop environment. I must say that Dapper was the highlight for me in terms of stable desktop releases. I have found that recently the rush to include the latest and greatest while still hitting a target date isn't the best approach. I hope that the next LTS release is more an attempt to polish the previous release rather than add a stack of new stuff. At the same time, I actively choose to not participate in the development of Ubuntu, so I am in no position to criticise the decisions that have been made by those putting in the work. I can comment and hope that someone takes the feedback on board. I think the ubuntu team have done a great job of moving the GNU/Linux desktop experience up a couple of notches since 2004 before warty was released. I wish them all the best and hope that they continue their great work. Finally, some words of advice from someone who has been doing this stuff for a while, but no where near as along as many others. If you find a problem in a FOSS project, try to find a way of fixing it, rather than telling someone else they have to do it for you - they didn't install it on your PC for you, you did, it was your choice. The fix might just be a matter of filing an excellent bug report, or it might involve getting your hands dirty it just depends on the problem and the project. Cheers Dave [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2] http://preview.tinyurl.com/dnqgs -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
