On Bugs and Linux Quality

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 21:19 +1000, Dave Hall wrote:
> 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.

trim
 
> > 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.
> 

For those playing at home that refers to GPL3. Its clause 11 in GPL2
(which Linux and a huge chunk of the free software world are using).

> 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.

I suspect unless you have a good SLA with your proprietary software
vendor you get the same treatment :)

> 
> 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

I assume you were refering to Win9x/NT5.x?

> 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.

> 
> 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

I'm willing to bet the extra 2 months had a good deal to do with it.
(Personally, i found Dapper to be the last of the rock solid ubuntu
releases).

> 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

It does allow you to go LOOKATUSBLING!, which seems to be "where its at"
for promoting desktops atm.
> Cheers
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> [2] http://preview.tinyurl.com/dnqgs
> 
> 

kk

> 
-- 
Karl Goetz <karl at kgoetz.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-au/attachments/20080626/5685e1ac/attachment.pgp