Comments on: When Ubuntu Breaks, Who’s to Blame?

By: Martin Walker

Martin Walker — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:26:10 +0000

It is very hard to play the blame game, when there are so many factors involved.
But as a dual monitor user who has used a Linux desktop for many years my experience across assorted distributions has and continues to be an unhappy and expensive one.
The net result being that I could not possibly recommend anyone who is not pretty geeky to use any Linux on a dual monitor system.
As we all know support for other hardware is also still a little thin on the ground. I can take pleasure in the fact my CX11N printer/scanner now is supported as a printer and showing a few signs of life on the scanning side. But it still don’t really work and that is not acceptable to a normal user.
I can’t help that think that if a lot of distributions disappeared and the effort went into dealing with the core weakness of hardware support then Linux would get a lot further.

By: Steve George

Steve George — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:59:45 +0000

Christopher,

Many of the items you identify are fundamentally true due to the distributed nature of Open Source development. The project has a general level of responsibility to all users to provide a high quality distribution and to fix problems where ever possible.

Additionally, Canonical takes a higher level of responsibility to individual users where they have subscription. As part of the support we respond to identified customer issues and provide a workaround or fix for their specific problem.

By: Zac

Zac — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:14:26 +0000

Takla:
First, you mentioned RedHat and Novell, both are profitable public companies with thousands of full-time paid employees who have been around alot longer than Ubuntu/Canonical has, and of course it is in their best interest to contribute to the kernel to further their offering, there share price depends on it and the shareholders demand it. It is business.
Second: Please stop whinging about Ubuntu, it’s not helping Linux at all, and you come across bitter and frustrated.

I have tried many distros, and I have also ‘blamed’ the name on the CD, I guess it’s a natural tendency to. All distros take responsibility and they do the best they can with the available resources to fix the problems within their reach. I think also Ubuntu/Canonical are doing a great job, it’s early days yet and it’s still evolving and trying to find its place. Ubuntu has worked fine, actually more than fine, for me for over two years.

By: aikiwolfie

aikiwolfie — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:23:22 +0000

I have to confess I have myself cursed the Ubuntu team when things don’t work. Even things like Flash. And when I used SuSE I cursed the SuSE team as well.

The whole point of a “distribution package” is that everything works together. All the different components are supposed to be chosen for their compatibility as well as their function. So when things don’t work, someone at the Ubuntu team needs to at least take responsibility for selecting that package and either fix the bug (FOSS & OSS allow access to the source) or find an alternative.

When that process breaks down then the “distribution” becomes pointless. We’re back to every-man-for-himself clamouring to download separate packages and endlessly fiddling to try and make all work together. Not exactly the scenario that’s taking Linux into mainstream distribution.

But with all that said, I think Canonical has done a great job at getting things working seamlessly. The basic Ubuntu installation works flawlessly for me. And when problems do occur with more complex stuff, there’s always the Ubuntu forums.

By: Alpinist

Alpinist — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:44:35 +0000

Yes Ubuntu should take the blame for their distribution and it’s faults. The dual monitor problems (even with FOSS drivers) shouldn’t exist and certainly not for as long as it has (3 releases by my count).

If Ubuntu released an LTS that worked and then marked all their other releases as Alpha that would be one thing but if the LTS releases are riddled with non-trivial bugs and the other releases are marked as usable when they are not, then Ubuntu are creating their own problems. It’s hard to build the perception of a stable distribution and easy to trash it, maybe Ubuntu will find this is the trap they are throwing themselves into with apparent glee.

You wouldn’t expect Microsoft or Apple to erect a Someone Else’s Problem field around their products, why should Ubuntu?

By: kornelix

kornelix — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:05:05 +0000

“Something doesn’t work as well as it’s supposed to … these new users condemn Ubuntu and Linux in their entirety as a result. But are these charges justified, and how should Ubuntu respond?”

Of course they are justified. If I buy a Ford with a defective radio from a supplier, I still expect Ford to fix it. If Ubuntu cannot get working software from upstream, it implies that the whole business model is broken. If Ubuntu and the other distros want significant market share, the problems have to be fixed regardless of their root cause. The distros need to lead the charge to fix the business model instead of expecting users to accept broken products. In the Linux world, too many developers do not feel responsible for the problems they create and do not take enough care to avoid them or fix them quickly. The feedback loops are not right. This is what Ubuntu and the others need to work on.

By: Takla

Takla — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:29:22 +0000

“Ubuntu developers themselves bear little if any responsibility for bugs or shortcomings in the everyday experience of users. 95% of the packages that ship with Ubuntu come from upstream, meaning that no one involved with the Ubuntu project is able to do much to improve them directly.”

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Ubuntu *chooses* to source almost all its packages from Debian Sid and Experimental, packages which usually are many many months of testing and bug fixing away from being accepted even into Testing, let alone a stable Debian release. It *is* Ubuntu’s responsibility to test and repackage those choices so that they are fit to use. If that isn’t possible then Ubuntu has no business offering its distribution as anything other than an Alpha or Beta.

Nobody “is able to do much to improve them directly.”

Please don’t write such nonsense. This is precisely the opposite of the truth when it comes to free software, *anybody with suitable skills* may make the fix, or at least attempt to do so, there is no restriction. Again, if Ubuntu cannot do this then they have no business offering their distribution as anything other than Alpha or Beta software. Does Canonical not employ developers? Are there not many thousands of users who are gracious and enthusiastic enough to report bugs and even offer fixes?

Yes, sometimes the distributions have to take the flak for upstream inadequacies, that’s almost a level playing field because most distros are in the same position. A few such as Red Hat/Fedora and SLED/SLES/OpenSuse are notable contributors to the kernel, the core libraries, driver development, key applications etc but for the most part the distros rely heavily on upstream and exert little influence. If there are certain problems with Ubuntu that aren’t apparent in other distros then let’s stop blaming upstream. If there are problems upstream that cause difficulties for Ubuntu then Canonical and Ubuntu have a responsibility to contribute solutions or at a minimum to quit complaining or blaming.

“Accepting blame for someone else’s faults is neither pleasant nor fair.”

Blaming others for one’s own inadequacies is worse.