Do you really want developers to be on this list was (Re: Very bad status of hardware (especially wifi) support in ubuntu, due to the too many accumulated regressions)

Sarah Hobbs hobbsee at
Thu Nov 13 09:36:48 UTC 2008

Apologies for breaking threading, i'm not subscribed to this list
anymore, as the S/N ratio was too low.  However, this part is
interesting.  Please CC me on any responses to this mail.

Vincenzo writes:

"2) Another bug affected me at random (WIFI), and there was nothing I
could do about that, and it happened to me other times with other intel
cards. I've not been clear perhaps, but the problem is that I was used
to have my network card functioning, and one day it just left me without
connection - after I moved abroad for one month, not after I upgraded.
This is because intel's drivers mostly suck, there is no simpler
explanation. They have tons of bugs and corner cases (I can support this
by pointing at the number and gravity of LP bugs for them). I want to be
able to rely and let others rely on ubuntu so we need to know what works
and what not.

3) There are plenty of other hardware regressions by which I am affected
and I feel like these should be a bit more acknowledged by developers.
Because I can't be the only one."

What I'd like to raise - how does one write such a database, when there
is no clear-cut answer on whether this card, with this driver, works?

Take the intel 3945 card, for example.  Vincenzo says it doesn't work
for him, under various modes.  Various users on the forums have also
mentioned that their systems don't work with these cards.

However, other users on the forums, mailing lists, and a whole lot of
the developers, including myself, have this card, and see that it works
for them.  I personally haven't seen this break since I upgraded to
gutsy back at the UDS in Sevilla, 2007 (ie, pre-alpha 1), and I use WPA,
which seems to be one of the areas of complaint, otherwise without problems.

The bugs that affect everyone with a particular chipset are often
acknowledged, particularly in the release notes.  Maybe it would be nice
to acknowledge that some people have problems with this card- but that's
only some people.  You'd be telling a whole lot of other people that
their cards may not work, when they actually work just fine.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that at least one person has a problems with
*every* card in Ubuntu.  Does it really make sense to acknowledge them
all?  How does one generalise that, in a paragraph or two, and it still
be useful?

Arguably, it would help if the relevant (i presume kernel) developers
had access to some of these faulting cards - the ones that do break
where people can reproduce it on site seem to get fixed quite quickly.
But it's very hard to debug something where you don't have access (and
it's quite hard to buy hardware to try to fix it, if only a smallish
percentage of cards actually exhibit this buggy behaviour!)


Just my 2c.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list