Releasing with a known broken kernel

[Brian McKee]

On 14/08/06, Alexander Skwar <listen at alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
> Adam Conrad <adconrad at ubuntu.com>:
>
> > Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >>
> >> Kernel -25 is more stable.
> >
> > ... and also has security issues.
>
> Yes, known. But -25 works.


It's just a numbers game right?
Security hole for all users vs. Doesn't work at all for some subset of users

If won't boot = 100 and security hole = 1
Because it's an obscure unlikely to be a problem security hole
  (((I'm guessing here, I don't know the details of the security issue!)))

multiply the numbers out and see which side wins....

Since I have no idea how big a percentage of the Ubuntu user base has
the problem
hardware, I can't tell you if they made the right decision, and until
somebody can put
hard numbers to this, we are all blowing smoke on this thread I think.

OTOH, a big notice for affected users in the release notes could have
been in order I suppose.