[Fwd: Re: Two rather negative articles about Ubuntu]

[Mario Vukelic]

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 20:45 +0200, Myriam Rita Schweingruber wrote:
> alking about Carla Schroeder (the author of the article) as a person
> 'not having a clue' is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? She has
> written _the_ Linux Cookbook edited by O'Reilly.
> 
> I definitely think that there must be a bug ...

Ooops, sorry for that, that was too harsh then. I should have checked. 

What she wrote looked not very knowledgeable to me, but on second looks
she might merely give incomplete information. E,g, she says that "this
last upgrade installed a 2.6.15 kernel". How can this be, when Dapper
released with 2.6.15.6? If this is true she must have used Dapper way
before the Flight CDs. It might be a typo, but how much trust shall we
place in the rest then?

I thought about what made me possibly wrongly assume she had no clue,
and it was mostly this sentence. 
"The upgrade inexplicably removed a lot of applications" is something my
dad could say. Wouldn't the author of the Cookbook know how to find out
the reason? It's obviously a dependency issue. If she had said, "it
tried to remove these apps, and this is why" instead of _letting _it
_happen and then being disappointed, it would have looked different to
me.

It might be a bug (though we will probably never know because she didn't
bother to check), but funny also how she has to fix something _every
_day (sounds very much like running unstable Ubuntu compared to Debian
sid). Why would Dapper since release fixing every day when there has ben
scarcely an update within a month?
I have upgraded the same install since warty and it has run very very
well (and I stuck to Ubuntu explicitly because I liked it's practically
maintenance-free when run well) 

So I don't know, I haven't read the Cookbook and therefore can talk only
about what I read there. I have to trust you when you say she wrights
better otherwise. I have read her bio linked from the o'reilly site and
it's impossible to judge from the info in it.