So in essence Scott, due to what you've highlighted as a lack of testing input during the pre production lifecycle phases, your suggesting that end users should endure the brunt of testing? As Ubuntu needs to move forward rapidly, being cutting edge and cant be so highly concerned with the risk of regressions?
Yes, pulse audio was implemented. Yes, it was a disaster and even the upstream developer head more or less said so about Ubuntu's implementation. It was half baked. So too is Compiz, with all its incompatibilities with things like 3d OpenGL, that Ubuntu decided to enable by default even though we all know that key architectural items are missing like GEM. Lots of new users clambered onto the look at my cool wobbly windows Linux stuff then were disheartened when they realised that it didnt work properly, and that there is many other visible bugs in the Ubuntu desktop experience. A bug in NM I reported way back in the alpha still isnt fixed, that for my user experience, is a nuisance. Cruft remover was poorly tested and entered production in a problematic state. I could go on, but I wont. If Ubuntu and Canonical are truly serious about quality, clearly the professionals amongst us who sport big cowboy spurs with a good ol wild western release philosophy need to be tamed. Otherwise, we might as well all join Fedora. Thats not the Ubuntu I want to be involved in. I want to contribute towards a robust system that provides a quality desktop user experience. I'd like to reinforce Andrew Morton's comments when he expressed an observation that too many kernel developers focus on new features without resolving existing problems. We are far better off focusing on improving the testing phases than dumping it on end users. We will only alienate new users and limit the strategic growth of Ubuntu if we go all cowboy. Regards Nullack -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
