7 ms·

How did they ship this? It's clearly an unfinished release.

by duaneb 13y ago

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Better to stick to their bi-annual schedule, even if it means shipping a usable but not-quite-polished release, then polishing it in subsequent months. The previous versions, from 12.04 to 13.10, are more than adequate for anyone who can't risk upgrading to what is effectively a beta or release candidate.
- Mchl 13y ago
  From LTS I'd expect something more than not-quite-polished. Maybe polished-a-bit or slightly-polished.
- otterley 13y ago
  Customer: "It doesn't work!" Project manager: "But hey, we shipped on time!"
  - vetinari 13y ago
    I'm sure that the vendor will gladly return the money paid for it.
    - waps 13y ago
      You mean after the project manager has switched projects and management has voted itself a bonus ? Absolutely.
  - wyclif 13y ago
    The argument for rolling release in a nutshell.
    - otterley 13y ago
      I prefer the "we bottle no wine before its time" model. It's one of the many reasons I prefer EL distributions to Ubuntu.
      - notatoad 13y ago
        14.04 is an LTS version of ubuntu though.
        otterley 13y ago
        ... which unfortunately means you're stuck with whatever's broken.
        arjie 13y ago
        Not necessarily. It can be fixed in point releases. This has happened before.
        otterley 13y ago
        I've only seen bug fixes in LTS releases, not changes in functionality that would address significant issues (at least under 10.04 and 12.04). Any significant change would be in a point release (e.g. 14.10) which is not LTS - so you can't have your cake and eat it too under this model.
        notatoad 13y ago
        Sorry, i misunderstood your comment - i read "EL distributions of ubuntu" and thought you were using EL to mean LTS.
  - derefr 13y ago
    The majority of 14.04 installations will actually occur after 14.10+ comes out, from corporations currently sitting on 12.04, who will take a few months to evaluate 14.04, and then, finally, upgrade to it. It will be stable by the time they do this. Because these corporations behave this way, it excludes them from the set of people Canonical has to worry about pleasing at release. So LTS releases, right on release, are actually allowed to be less stable than non-LTS releases. Because the majority of their useful lifetime, when anyone that matters is actually running them, will be spent stable.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      That is pretty fucked up. The point of declaring a release, rather than just shipping nightlies, is to let people know when it's ready. Having a dog's breakfast of a major release (which 12.04 certainly was out of the gate) substantially decreases my trust in Canonical.
      - derefr 13y ago
        Think of it like this--if they waited to ship the release until it was stable enough for corporations to use... then corporations would still take four months to evaluate it, so they'd only start using it was it was four months more stable than necessary. It's a bit like cooking a steak: if you wait for it to look medium-done in the pan, it'll actually be well-done by the time it hits the plate, because it'll keep cooking in its own hot juices after you take it off. You need to take it off when it looks medium-rare, if you want to serve it medium.
        wpietri 13y ago
        It's absurd. Late adopters wait because they'd like somebody else to flush out the early bugs. If this is actually Canonical's plans, that 14.04.1 is the first release expected to be stable, then if I were a late adopter, I'd just wait for 14.04.2. The let's-trick-people-into-adopting-something bit is basically an attitude of customer contempt. It's assuming that the release knows the customer's business better than the customer does. Whether it's right or wrong, it's a dick move, and acts to decrease trust.
- duaneb 13y ago
  Their bi-annual schedule is why Ubuntu has a reputation for releasing buggy, user-unfriendly software.
- justin66 13y ago
  > Better to stick to their bi-annual schedule, even if it means shipping a usable but not-quite-polished release, then polishing it in subsequent months. Better for whom? Not for the people who take the LTS moniker seriously, I think.

How did they ship this? It's clearly an unfinished release.

by duaneb 13y ago

How did they ship this? It's clearly an unfinished release.

Better to stick to their bi-annual schedule, even if it means shipping a usable but not-quite-polished release, then polishing it in subsequent months. The previous versions, from 12.04 to 13.10, are more than adequate for anyone who can't risk upgrading to what is effectively a beta or release candidate.

Mchl 13y ago
From LTS I'd expect something more than not-quite-polished. Maybe polished-a-bit or slightly-polished.
otterley 13y ago
Customer: "It doesn't work!" Project manager: "But hey, we shipped on time!"
- vetinari 13y ago
  I'm sure that the vendor will gladly return the money paid for it.
  - waps 13y ago
    You mean after the project manager has switched projects and management has voted itself a bonus ? Absolutely.
- wyclif 13y ago
  The argument for rolling release in a nutshell.
  - otterley 13y ago
    I prefer the "we bottle no wine before its time" model. It's one of the many reasons I prefer EL distributions to Ubuntu.
    - notatoad 13y ago
      14.04 is an LTS version of ubuntu though.
      - otterley 13y ago
        ... which unfortunately means you're stuck with whatever's broken.
        arjie 13y ago
        Not necessarily. It can be fixed in point releases. This has happened before.
        otterley 13y ago
        I've only seen bug fixes in LTS releases, not changes in functionality that would address significant issues (at least under 10.04 and 12.04). Any significant change would be in a point release (e.g. 14.10) which is not LTS - so you can't have your cake and eat it too under this model.
        notatoad 13y ago
        Sorry, i misunderstood your comment - i read "EL distributions of ubuntu" and thought you were using EL to mean LTS.
- derefr 13y ago
  The majority of 14.04 installations will actually occur after 14.10+ comes out, from corporations currently sitting on 12.04, who will take a few months to evaluate 14.04, and then, finally, upgrade to it. It will be stable by the time they do this. Because these corporations behave this way, it excludes them from the set of people Canonical has to worry about pleasing at release. So LTS releases, right on release, are actually allowed to be less stable than non-LTS releases. Because the majority of their useful lifetime, when anyone that matters is actually running them, will be spent stable.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    That is pretty fucked up. The point of declaring a release, rather than just shipping nightlies, is to let people know when it's ready. Having a dog's breakfast of a major release (which 12.04 certainly was out of the gate) substantially decreases my trust in Canonical.
    - derefr 13y ago
      Think of it like this--if they waited to ship the release until it was stable enough for corporations to use... then corporations would still take four months to evaluate it, so they'd only start using it was it was four months more stable than necessary. It's a bit like cooking a steak: if you wait for it to look medium-done in the pan, it'll actually be well-done by the time it hits the plate, because it'll keep cooking in its own hot juices after you take it off. You need to take it off when it looks medium-rare, if you want to serve it medium.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        It's absurd. Late adopters wait because they'd like somebody else to flush out the early bugs. If this is actually Canonical's plans, that 14.04.1 is the first release expected to be stable, then if I were a late adopter, I'd just wait for 14.04.2. The let's-trick-people-into-adopting-something bit is basically an attitude of customer contempt. It's assuming that the release knows the customer's business better than the customer does. Whether it's right or wrong, it's a dick move, and acts to decrease trust.
duaneb 13y ago
Their bi-annual schedule is why Ubuntu has a reputation for releasing buggy, user-unfriendly software.
justin66 13y ago
> Better to stick to their bi-annual schedule, even if it means shipping a usable but not-quite-polished release, then polishing it in subsequent months. Better for whom? Not for the people who take the LTS moniker seriously, I think.