Hello Folks,<br><br> After getting yet another phone call from one of the many average, everyday users I know using Ubuntu about how after downloading and installing yet another mammoth load of updates on her Ubuntu machine, running a stable, supported release, her computer crashed with the following scary message, I've decided to write this e-mail.<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Aborted because of invalid compressed format (err=2)<br></blockquote><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
Kernel Panic: SYNCING VFS, unable to mount root fs on unknown-block.<br clear="all"></blockquote><br>The #1 complaint about Ubuntu that I hear time and time again from both joe blow end users and business/enterprise users is that updates to stable releases *break* stable releases. However, the impression I gather of the developer mentality is that we want to increase our bandwidth and ability, via changes to policy and/or processes, to make SRUs quicker and fastar. Instead, I believe we should be focusing on how to improve the quality of these updates and reduce the number of regressions and breakages occurring in stable releases.<br>
<br>For example, "Oh, we'll fix that in -updates" is the wrong attitude IMHO. "The stable serie usually has fixes worth having and not too many
unstable changes (though the stable SVN code usually doesn't get lot of
testing)" is the wrong attitude IMHO. "I'll just rely on someone else to test my changes properly and thoroughly" is the wrong attitude IMHO!<br><br>I think its rather sad when I hear comments like the following:<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">dude, update breakage is why I jump to the devel release as soon as I can. <br></blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div>It really sucks when you can't stick with a release for more than a few months before it's kinda unusable.<br>
Specially with LTS releases, 3 years? heck no </div></blockquote><div><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Updates are the most infuriating part about using Ubuntu. I'd disable them but even -security breaks my computer sometimes because they base off of the packages in -updates which means I get non-security updates I don't want! </blockquote>
<div><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Oh look, time to download the usual barrage of 20-60 updates I get with Ubutu each week. I wonder if its going to break my computer this week. </blockquote>
<div> </div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Ubuntu updates is like Russian roulette.<br></blockquote></div></div><br>Updates breaking stable releases is a serious issue. I think we need to re-evaluate stable release updates and the numerous exceptions/breaks that have been granted to packages (or groups of packages) such as gnome.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br><br>-- <br>Cody A.W. Somerville<br>Software Systems Release Engineer<br>Custom Engineering Solutions Group<br>Canonical OEM Services<br>Cell: 506-449-5899<br>Email: <a href="mailto:cody.somerville@canonical.com">cody.somerville@canonical.com</a><br>