4 ms·
To be fair, the Ubuntu quality assurance process seems somewhat shoddy. On stable releases, I've seen 2 rather serious issues with minor updates. In one update
by orib 18y ago
To be fair, the Ubuntu quality assurance process seems somewhat shoddy. On stable releases, I've seen 2 rather serious issues with minor updates.
In one update, Ubuntu pretty much broke the PCI detection code in X, so that X always thought that there were no cards. Luckily, it was only a matter of waiting several hours for a fix, and updating from a text console.
In another update, the Canadian english localization completely broke KDE, making it segfault on startup. Again, wait a day or two and update from a text console.
Right now I'm on vanilla Debian (unstable branch) and I find that it has had less critical breakage than Ubuntu's mainline branch. I'm not sure how Ubuntu should update their QA process, though.
- davidw 18y agoSure, there are some issues with it - I think a 6 month release cycle is difficult. I tend to wait a few weeks before grabbing Ubuntu updates for that reason. But Ted's attitude is lame - open source software doesn't really need poisonous people like that.
- orib 18y agoYep, Ted is a bad writer with very few points to make, so he fills in the gaps with anger and poison. Some people can pull off the angry rant in a a worthwhile way. He can't, and I generally despise his writing. As far as Ubuntu's update process, these updates were small point updates in the middle of the release cycle, which is why they were so disturbing; it seems that Debian's "constantly up-to-date" system works better for me, at least so far.