On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 21:19 +1000, Dave Hall wrote: > On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:35 +1000, Null Ack wrote: > > Daniel with respect, I did not mean to present that the solution to > > improving the quality of GNU/Linux is for centralised control.
trim > > I dont see proper release management stifling any freedoms in FOSS > > projects. It just means having a proper quality standard before bits > > are declared stable and ready for production. I greatly enjoy Ubuntu, > > over all other distro's Ive tried (Arch, OpenSuse, Fedora) but I am > > certainly not the only person Ive seen sharing their views that > > arbitary time based releases arent condusive to good software. > > I have been watching this thread, and many like it over the years. Yes > it would be nice if the quality of GNU/Linux distros improved, but I > don't demand that. > > Lets take a look at the situation. You are getting a complete operating > system for free (as in liberty and beer). It comes with a warranty - > see clause 15 of the GPL [1]. Vendors (including canonical/ubuntu) > honour the warranty offered by upstream. > For those playing at home that refers to GPL3. Its clause 11 in GPL2 (which Linux and a huge chunk of the free software world are using). > This is the free software movement at work. No one makes you use the > code we produce (yes I am a FOSS developer). No one can make us fix our > bugs. This is the risk you take when you use our code. I don't lose > any sleep if someone does or doesn't use my code. If someone demands > that I fix a bug or else <random_threat>, I mentally put it to the > bottom of the pile. I suspect unless you have a good SLA with your proprietary software vendor you get the same treatment :) > > For the flip side, lets look at a proprietary development model. I have > picked the easiet one - Windows. Windows 98 didn't support USB mass > storage and support for it was never included, last I checked you > couldn't install onto a SATA drive without a _boot floppy_ and looks I assume you were refering to Win9x/NT5.x? > unlikely to ever be fixed. It took until SP2 for XP to come anywhere > close to getting half decent security. Many vendors took months to get > their drivers right for Vista. The list of fundamental flaws with > various versions of Windows is extensive. This is a product shipped by > the biggest software company on the planet. > > I must say that Dapper was the highlight for me in terms of stable > desktop releases. I have found that recently the rush to include the I'm willing to bet the extra 2 months had a good deal to do with it. (Personally, i found Dapper to be the last of the rock solid ubuntu releases). > latest and greatest while still hitting a target date isn't the best > approach. I hope that the next LTS release is more an attempt to polish It does allow you to go LOOKATUSBLING!, which seems to be "where its at" for promoting desktops atm. > Cheers > > Dave > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > [2] http://preview.tinyurl.com/dnqgs > > kk > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
