On Bugs and Linux Quality

[Daniel Mons]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Null Ack wrote:
| Linux needs to have less scatterbrain behaviour where half done things

I'll snip the post there, as that line contains the wording I am
interested in discussing.

One thing I find very common of people migrating to Linux is that they
treat "Linux" as a single entity, or single product.  Almost as if it
were a corporate being, ala Microsoft, Oracle, etc.

"Linux", as the name is used en mass, is not a single being.  It is a
collection of literally tens of thousands of programs, all working
together.  Indeed, no two Linux distros are alike, simply because the
people providing them choose different collections of software to forge
together to offer.

I make no apologies for saying this, but "Linux" will never be "less
scatterbrain" as you put it.  The distributed nature of the coding
processes that go into Linux may well be at times one of its weaknesses,
but on the whole it is also its single greatest asset.

As someone who is obviously new to "Linux", what you need to understand
is that the "Linux" community understand the distributed, evolving
nature of software far better than the slower moving proprietary world.
~ In software, the concept of "the perfect release" is simply impossible
to achieve - software is a process, not an object, and something that
moves and flows with the needs of its users over time.  To consider it a
single release, or one-off product is the wrong way to approach it.

Yes, there are tens of thousands of bugs in "Ubuntu".  Again, you need
to realise that this encompasses code written by tens of thousands of
human beings, from thousands of different companies, all working
together to release their code in a common pool for anyone to take from.
~ Unlike a lot of proprietary software that has a vested financial
interest in proclaiming how perfect it is on release (and then proceding
to release dozens of service packs and fixes anyway), "Linux" makes no
such claims.  Complete transparency and full discolsure is the name of
the game.

And what you also need to realise is that "Linux" is no better or worse
than proprietary counterparts.  I can assure you, Microsoft have just as
many bugs across their entire suite of software.  The difference is you
as the end user don't get to see their internal bug trackers.  To their
marketing departments and shareholders, admitting fault like that would
be financial suicide.  But just because it's not out there for all to
see, doesn't make it any less real.

Linux's distributed nature can be frustrating to people new to it.  But
again, you need to understand that despite the shortcomings of the
approach, it is the single biggest reason why Linux is alive and
thriving today.  I work in professional IT (as a Linux sysadmin and
systems architect), and time and time again hear the same cry from
people with little exposure to Linux: "They just need to stop making
dozens of distros and all work together to make one killer distro", or
"they need to stop making 5 different word processors and just make one
killer app".  What's obvious about this is that the people saying it are
grossly unaware of who "they" are, and how many people that encompasses.
~ More to the point, what constitutes "the perfect app"?  By whose
definition are we quantifying perfection?

"Linux" is a massive collection of small programs that each focus on
doing one thing well.  A Linux distro is one
individual's/group's/company's idea of which of these programs should be
tied together to make an operating system.  By virtue of the fact that
there are so many large-scale distros doing so well in the market
(RedHat, SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu are generally the "big 4" that people
talk about, with other popular ones like Fedora, CentOS, Gnetoo and
others close behind).  In a perfectly free market, if something is not
good enough it will disappear through obscurity and lack of interest.
So again, by virtue of all of these distros existing and being popular,
it means that they all have users who find them interesting and usable
for a whole gamut of reasons, personal and professional.

I understand your frustration.  You have used the product, found a bug,
and found that it was not fixed in a manner you considered timely.  As
an end-user, that is frustrating.  Speaking from the point of view of a
sysadmin who deals with literally thousands of machines on a daily
basis, I can tell you that this is not limited to the Linux world by any
means.  I personally find even more frustration when I'm forced to admin
proprietary software at great financial expense, and find the support no
better or more satisfying despite the enormous financial outlay.

I'm not trying to downplay your frustrations, but in my 11 years of free
software use, I've consistently found it faster to respond to known bugs
from both an acknowledgement point of view and a fix-delivery point of
view.  Additionally, I find it easier to get support for free software
from a wide array of channels.  Proprietary software comes with a more
direct line of support, but frequently that support is slower to
respond, and more likely to blame the end user or make justifications
and excuses for the errors than actually putting in the time/money to
fix them.

At the end of the day there is no perfect software, regardless of it's
license or manufacturer.  But it needs to be said that the idea of
"centralising Linux" is not the answer for it.  Linux's virtues all come
from it's incredible breadth and depth of developers, supporters and
users.  Narrow that field down to one centralised stream, and you'll end
up with a product that suits fewer people and ultimately delivers less.
~ More to the point, no-one will ever narrow it down, nor could they.
Remember that it is free software.  The moment you try to control it,
someone will fork your product and offer an alternative version. That's
the beauty of it.  :)

- -Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIXfK8eFJDv0P9Qb8RAvtWAKCFvmmPIiF3IRvwN6niafy9SuQVxwCfVxBJ
lYaSKkRWU5MmWWP7Gomw3lg=
=5TA7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----