Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 30th Mar 2012 20:33 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Two years ago, Linux guru Caitlyn Martin argued that "Ubuntu is a Poor Standard Bearer for Linux" due to reliability issues. She said that "Other distributions have problematic releases but other major distributions do not have significant problems in nearly every release. Ubuntu does." In her follow-up piece "How Canonical Can Do Ubuntu Right: It Isn't a Technical Problem," she explained how "...the problem I am describing is probably rooted in policy or business decisions that have been made..." and she offered specific ideas on how Canoncial could address the situation. Are these criticisms valid today? Does Ubuntu offer good reliability? Does it deserve its mindshare as the representative of PC Linux?
Thread beginning with comment 512571
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re:
by kurkosdr on Sat 31st Mar 2012 12:12 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

(answer to the article's question): Yes, it is .

-Releases that break stuff like wifi or sound every six months, even if the computer is Ubuntu-certified? Check. (i never understood why they certify laptops that don't have all-open source drivers anyway, given Linux's unstable ABI)

-Having two versions at the time (the current and the LTS) that both get promoted as ready for public consumption, confusing users and developers? Check.

-Breaking binary (and sometimes source) compatibility with existing apps every six months, like when they bundled PulseAudio and broke compatibility even with open source apps like VLC? Check. (it's binary compatibility breakages that make proprietary vendors like Pinnacle and Adobe not wanting to touch Ubuntu and friends with a 10 foot pole)

Find a distro that doesn't have any of the problems above, and feel the entire internet patting you on the back.

PS: Yes i know Windows breaks back compat sometimes (driver and apps), but it does it every six years, not every six months. And yes I know there is the LTS, but the LTS breaks back compat too, and the majority people go for the latest and greatest (current) antway. And even in the case of LTS, backwards compatibility breakages every 2 years are still unacceptable.

Edited 2012-03-31 12:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Re:
by allanregistos on Mon 2nd Apr 2012 06:06 in reply to "Re:"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

(answer to the article's question): Yes, it is .

-Releases that break stuff like wifi or sound every six months, even if the computer is Ubuntu-certified? Check. (i never understood why they certify laptops that don't have all-open source drivers anyway, given Linux's unstable ABI)


Opps, stop right there, have you gone to LKML to complain for that unstable ABI?
I hope you do before barking this type of ignorance in the public.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Re:
by allanregistos on Mon 2nd Apr 2012 07:29 in reply to "RE: Re:"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"(answer to the article's question): Yes, it is .

-Releases that break stuff like wifi or sound every six months, even if the computer is Ubuntu-certified? Check. (i never understood why they certify laptops that don't have all-open source drivers anyway, given Linux's unstable ABI)


Opps, stop right there, have you gone to LKML to complain for that unstable ABI?
I hope you do before barking this type of ignorance in the public.
"
My apology... Just ignore this comment.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Re:
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Apr 2012 17:42 in reply to "RE: Re:"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Seriously shutup about this unstable ABI being okay.

It is bullshit. Every code change you make can introduce bugs ... so chopping and changing the Interface (btw interfaces aren't supposed to just randomly change) will introduce bugs and it shows.

An Interface is supposed to obscure what is happening behind it ... this is like OOP programming 101.

Reply Parent Score: 2