back to Ubuntu 8.04

[Michael Hipp]

Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> The fact remains that only ubuntu falls apart under these
> circumstances while the others do not.

The fact remains that this is an assertion made solely by you and in which you 
refuse (or are unable) to share the testing methodology.

> Quite the contrary, it means alot.  I never claimed that Ubuntu was
> somehow unique based on the fact that it had bugs.  What I stated is
> that quality is unimportant to Ubuntu as their bar is set against
> Microsoft products.

Then, pray tell, *what* does it mean? You linked 2 bug reports. Is the quantity 
2 somehow indicative of Ubuntu's quality? Or is it those 2 particular bug 
reports? If I searched could I not find similar bugs of comparable seriousness 
and/or age in other distro's tracking systems?

What does it mean? Hand waving doesn't answer the question.

> Pot -> Kettle -> Black.  You asked for more information, I provided
> it.  Now you've changed your story and don't want to hear any of it.

You provided nothing remotely resembling authoritative information. You 
provided a link to a general-audience media piece that doesn't even support 
what you claim.

> Just don't start taking a high & mighty tone with me about the
> 'foundations of science' while you disparage that which you don't want
> to hear.  You deserve Ubuntu if this is the attitude that you choose
> to have.

Hypothesis: Ubuntu's choosing to focus on Windows results in poor quality.

Tell me, is it falsifiable?

I invited you to share your data and testing methodology. I'm glad to hear it 
if it's factual. I'd like to see how it's done as I'd probably learn some 
really interesting things.

But when pressed, *you* always retreat.

My attitude. Is that I'd like to see the data and know how it's arrived at.

Michael