back to Ubuntu 8.04

[Michael Hipp]

Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Michael Hipp <Michael at hipp.com> wrote:
>> Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>> In my experience, Ubuntu's focus has
>>> never been quality.  They push out the shiniest object possible, in an
>>> effort to attract Windows users, and if they happen to get some
>>> quality from upstream Debian, so be it.
>> I doubt there's any real data to establish this (remembering that the plural
>> of anecdote is not data). In my experience I install it, run it, and it
>> works. It doesn't particularly have any more or less issues than any other
>> distro I've ever tried.
> 
> I have lots of data.  At $DAYJOB, I install Ubuntu via kickstart
> _hundreds_ of times every month, and then run stress tests.  I do the
> same with OpenSUSE, Fedora & RHEL.  Ubuntu, by far, fails in the
> following areas more frequently than the others (often by an order of
> magnitude):
> 0) kickstart support 100% broken in 8.10.  Bug filed over 2 months
> ago, and remains unfixed to this day.  All requests for a rough
> estimate on when it might be fixed have been completely ignored (and
> I'm not the only person complaining in that Launchpad bug).  Best as
> we can guess is that there is no intent to fix it for 8.10, and it
> might be fixed for 9.04.
> 1) Installer failures.  At random, the OS installer fails to find its
> own packages, and just crashes/dies.  It somehow manages to munge the
> MBR before this, rendering the system unbootable without manual
> intervention.  None of this behavior has ever happened with SUSE or
> Redhat products.
> 2) kernel panics/Oops.  As I mentioned above, I run the same exact
> stress tests on all the distros, using the same exact hardware.
> Ubuntu manages to experience kernel panics/Oops much more often than
> the others.  And there's rarely any clear pattern.  I've seen them all
> over the place, from filesystems, to device drivers, to memory mgmt to
> IO schedulers.  SuSE & Fedora come in second, with RHEL a very very
> distant third (as in just about never).
> 3) random package bugs.  The gcc shipping in 8.10 has a severe flaw,
> against which a Launchpad bug has been opened since well before 8.10
> was released, and remains unfixed to this day.  Fedora10 &
> OpenSUSE-11.1 both ship the same 'version' of gcc, yet both of them
> managed to patch their gcc packages prior to release to fix this flaw.
>  Ubuntu just shipped the brokeness and has ignored numerous complaints
> about it.  There have been many other buggy packages, but this gcc
> issue is yet the latest.

Interesting stuff. Do you mind if I share it with some Ubuntu-ers that might 
be interested? Is your install and stress test duplicatable (sp?) and would 
you share it in sufficient detail to allow others to attempt to duplicate your 
results? Otherwise, it's still just anecdotes rather than science and doesn't 
count.

I'll keep your name out of it for now, if you'd prefer.

 > So contrary to popular opinion, I'm not just making this stuff up
 > based on an irrational hatred of Ubuntu.

Ok, fair enough. But your *mannerism* regarding this subject makes you come 
off exactly as such. About all you ever bring up is some grievance from 4 
years ago about being ignored by some developers. That's the only "data" I was 
aware of.

 > yet Mark Shuttlesworth
 > doesn't seem to care, because his well stated opinion is that their
 > competition is Windows, and we all know how the quality is in that
 > camp.

Can you attribute a quote somewhere to this effect? I'd be surprised if that's 
really their position since quality is actually the thing that would cause 
Windows users to switch IMHO.

>> If some newbie (or intermediate, or advanced) Linux user came to me and
>> asked for a distro recommendation I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Ubuntu.
>> Likely they'll be happy, if their needs can at all be met by Linux.
> 
> That's unfortunate.

What? That they'll be happy. ;-)

Michael