Comments on: Notes about distros, QA, etc. http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/ Ramblings on software, law, and the spaces in between. Wed, 23 May 2012 07:48:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: andrelop’s blog » Blog Archive » Distribuições voluntárias abertas mais estáveis que distribuições enterprise http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1959 andrelop’s blog » Blog Archive » Distribuições voluntárias abertas mais estáveis que distribuições enterprise Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:22:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1959 [...] Quotando Luis Villa : It is worth remembering that every significant community linux distro has a community of thousands who will gladly test anything you throw at them, so distros must actively encourage and take advantage of that. Any distro which doesn’t (and many don’t) is throwing away free time and free money. (Relatedly, I firmly believe that as a result of the opportunity for free QA, most open distros should in practice be more stable than their ‘enterprise’ alternatives, which have smaller user bases who would rather pay for someone else to do the work. That in practice enterprise distros tend to be more stable points to inefficiencies in how open distro QA is done, IMHO, not just the obvious points about business models.) [...] [...] Quotando Luis Villa : It is worth remembering that every significant community linux distro has a community of thousands who will gladly test anything you throw at them, so distros must actively encourage and take advantage of that. Any distro which doesn’t (and many don’t) is throwing away free time and free money. (Relatedly, I firmly believe that as a result of the opportunity for free QA, most open distros should in practice be more stable than their ‘enterprise’ alternatives, which have smaller user bases who would rather pay for someone else to do the work. That in practice enterprise distros tend to be more stable points to inefficiencies in how open distro QA is done, IMHO, not just the obvious points about business models.) [...]

]]> By: andrelop’s blog » Blog Archive » Distribuições voluntárias abertas mais estáveis que distribuições enterprise http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1960 andrelop’s blog » Blog Archive » Distribuições voluntárias abertas mais estáveis que distribuições enterprise Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:22:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1960 [...] Quotando Luis Villa : It is worth remembering that every significant community linux distro has a community of thousands who will gladly test anything you throw at them, so distros must actively encourage and take advantage of that. Any distro which doesn’t (and many don’t) is throwing away free time and free money. (Relatedly, I firmly believe that as a result of the opportunity for free QA, most open distros should in practice be more stable than their ‘enterprise’ alternatives, which have smaller user bases who would rather pay for someone else to do the work. That in practice enterprise distros tend to be more stable points to inefficiencies in how open distro QA is done, IMHO, not just the obvious points about business models.) [...] [...] Quotando Luis Villa : It is worth remembering that every significant community linux distro has a community of thousands who will gladly test anything you throw at them, so distros must actively encourage and take advantage of that. Any distro which doesn’t (and many don’t) is throwing away free time and free money. (Relatedly, I firmly believe that as a result of the opportunity for free QA, most open distros should in practice be more stable than their ‘enterprise’ alternatives, which have smaller user bases who would rather pay for someone else to do the work. That in practice enterprise distros tend to be more stable points to inefficiencies in how open distro QA is done, IMHO, not just the obvious points about business models.) [...]

]]> By: Ken http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1956 Ken Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:17:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1956 Did anybody else read that as "something like 4% of Ubuntu users were edgy, while 76% of Debian users were unstable"? As a Debian user, I fear it may even be true... Did anybody else read that as “something like 4% of Ubuntu users were edgy, while 76% of Debian users were unstable”?

As a Debian user, I fear it may even be true…

]]> By: Luis Villa’s Blog » More on QA, Ubuntu, trust, etc. http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1947 Luis Villa’s Blog » More on QA, Ubuntu, trust, etc. Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:43:19 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1947 [...] James: I’ve not considered an LWN article on distro QA because for quite some time (really since around when I left Novell) I’ve been pondering writing the definitive serious white paper on the subject. As dobey is about to find out, writing anything of that length is hard :) We’ll see if these blog posts coalesce my thinking enough to get something LWN-length out, though. [...] [...] James: I’ve not considered an LWN article on distro QA because for quite some time (really since around when I left Novell) I’ve been pondering writing the definitive serious white paper on the subject. As dobey is about to find out, writing anything of that length is hard :) We’ll see if these blog posts coalesce my thinking enough to get something LWN-length out, though. [...]

]]> By: Michael Banck http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1946 Michael Banck Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:00:09 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1946 > That combo, used effectively, should have caught this before it went out. Note that the X server update did not go through the public dapper-proposed channel, but was pushed into dapper directly from a non-public dapper upload queue, at least AFAIK. I think this policy (besides a lot of other stuff pertaining to stable updates) is being revisited now. > That combo, used effectively, should have caught this before it went out.

Note that the X server update did not go through the public dapper-proposed channel, but was pushed into dapper directly from a non-public dapper upload queue, at least AFAIK. I think this policy (besides a lot of other stuff pertaining to stable updates) is being revisited now.

]]> By: Rodrigo Novo http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1944 Rodrigo Novo Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:02:34 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1944 Luis, since yesterday evening, UTC time, the xorg-server upgrade issue is displayed quite proeminently on www.ubuntu.com website (its the first item displayed on it, actually). We have worked full time on the last two days on this issue, to make sure: 1. Affected users are able to completely recover from it 2. Possibly affected users can check (and update) their computers if they were affected 3. Community, media, and everyone else interested on the subject is made aware of the problem An update was quickly released, mirrors were redirected to the master archive, to make sure no new ocurrences of this happen due to outdated mirrors, instructions for fixing and checking if you have the bug were written, published on the Ubuntu website, media channels were contacted, etc. and most important: 4. Make sure such an unfortunate event *NEVER* happens in the future The Ubuntu development team has had a few brainstorming meetings since, to analize the situation, and take it as a (painful) chance for us to learn with our errors, and more important, measures to make sure something like this never happens again. Official statements (unlike this one) will be made by Canonical, today, and in the next few days. Luis,

since yesterday evening, UTC time, the xorg-server upgrade issue is displayed quite proeminently on http://www.ubuntu.com website (its the first item displayed on it, actually).

We have worked full time on the last two days on this issue, to make sure:

1. Affected users are able to completely recover from it
2. Possibly affected users can check (and update) their computers if they were affected
3. Community, media, and everyone else interested on the subject is made aware of the problem

An update was quickly released, mirrors were redirected to the master archive, to make sure no new ocurrences of this happen due to outdated mirrors, instructions for fixing and checking if you have the bug were written, published on the Ubuntu website, media channels were contacted, etc.

and most important:

4. Make sure such an unfortunate event *NEVER* happens in the future

The Ubuntu development team has had a few brainstorming meetings since, to analize the situation, and take it as a (painful) chance for us to learn with our errors, and more important, measures to make sure something like this never happens again.

Official statements (unlike this one) will be made by Canonical, today, and in the next few days.

]]> By: ogra http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1943 ogra Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:50:26 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1943 "Shockingly, no real response from Ubuntu that I can see anywhere" ... did you check http://www.ubuntu.com/ ? it has info since yesterday already ... “Shockingly, no real response from Ubuntu that I can see anywhere” … did you check http://www.ubuntu.com/ ? it has info since yesterday already …

]]> By: bisho http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1942 bisho Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:49:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1942 Debian unstable is a must for having a decent workstation, with updated software. Ubuntu on the other hand has very recent software versions on the stable branch. The unstable branch of Ubuntu is like "experimental" on Debian, and no so many people runs that branch. I used to use debian experimental on my workstation and unstable on my laptop (I depend more on the laptop, so I needed more secure release). Right now I use Dapper on both, but with the hoary->breezy and breeze->Dapper transitions I updated the workstation to the experimental branch of Ubuntu when 2-3 months left for release. In all this time I have had much less problems using the experimental branch of ubuntu (3 month away of release) than using debian unstable before. Debian unstable is a must for having a decent workstation, with updated software.

Ubuntu on the other hand has very recent software versions on the stable branch. The unstable branch of Ubuntu is like “experimental” on Debian, and no so many people runs that branch.

I used to use debian experimental on my workstation and unstable on my laptop (I depend more on the laptop, so I needed more secure release).

Right now I use Dapper on both, but with the hoary->breezy and breeze->Dapper transitions I updated the workstation to the experimental branch of Ubuntu when 2-3 months left for release.

In all this time I have had much less problems using the experimental branch of ubuntu (3 month away of release) than using debian unstable before.

]]> By: Chris http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1940 Chris Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:11:42 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1940 > something like 4% of Ubuntu users were using edgy, while 76% of Debian users were using unstable. I don't think these percentages mean what it's implied that they mean. Edgy has only just come out of being in huge flux, with packages merging in from unstable and the distribution as a whole being broken (and expectedly so) for significant periods of time. In contrast, there's a more reasonable expectation that Debian/unstable will behave more often than not, and it's been in existence and in working order for a far longer period. There's also a matter of motivation: until recently edgy was little more than a clone of dapper, and dapper is still pretty modern; there's approximately no "I'd use dapper, but I need version $foo of $bar, so I have to use edgy" use case right now, but there are plenty of equivalent cases in Debian. If the impression people have is that edgy is like dapper but broken pretty often and with no significant new features, it's unsurprising that they haven't upgraded yet. > something like 4% of Ubuntu users were using edgy, while 76% of Debian users were using unstable.

I don’t think these percentages mean what it’s implied that they mean. Edgy has only just come out of being in huge flux, with packages merging in from unstable and the distribution as a whole being broken (and expectedly so) for significant periods of time. In contrast, there’s a more reasonable expectation that Debian/unstable will behave more often than not, and it’s been in existence and in working order for a far longer period.

There’s also a matter of motivation: until recently edgy was little more than a clone of dapper, and dapper is still pretty modern; there’s approximately no “I’d use dapper, but I need version $foo of $bar, so I have to use edgy” use case right now, but there are plenty of equivalent cases in Debian. If the impression people have is that edgy is like dapper but broken pretty often and with no significant new features, it’s unsurprising that they haven’t upgraded yet.

]]> By: Erik http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-1939 Erik Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:21:56 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/23/notes-about-distros-qa-etc/#comment-1939 I used to run Debian unstable on my desktop around six years ago. At the time I wasn't a complete newbie to Linux but still very fresh. However when it came to installing Debian for the first time I chose Unstable over Testing or Stable. In terms of running recent software Stable was years out of date so I didn't want to use that, and I had heard reports that Testing tended to be less stable because of how packages were put into Testing (x days without an update then gets put into testing). In the three years that I used unstable I think I only ran into 3 decently major problems, all which were solved within a day or two's time. Several years later I'm using Ubuntu on my laptop (previously it ran FC). Some of the reasons I chose Ubuntu over something like Debian is because Ubuntu has much better hardware detection and setup than Debian and I don't want to spend a day after installing just trying to get X to work properly. Furthermore because of the 6 month release cycle, things are still very up to date on Dapper, I don't need to use Edgy. I think a more useful comparison would be between those using Debian Experimental to those using Ubuntu Edgy. I used to run Debian unstable on my desktop around six years ago. At the time I wasn’t a complete newbie to Linux but still very fresh. However when it came to installing Debian for the first time I chose Unstable over Testing or Stable. In terms of running recent software Stable was years out of date so I didn’t want to use that, and I had heard reports that Testing tended to be less stable because of how packages were put into Testing (x days without an update then gets put into testing). In the three years that I used unstable I think I only ran into 3 decently major problems, all which were solved within a day or two’s time.
Several years later I’m using Ubuntu on my laptop (previously it ran FC). Some of the reasons I chose Ubuntu over something like Debian is because Ubuntu has much better hardware detection and setup than Debian and I don’t want to spend a day after installing just trying to get X to work properly. Furthermore because of the 6 month release cycle, things are still very up to date on Dapper, I don’t need to use Edgy. I think a more useful comparison would be between those using Debian Experimental to those using Ubuntu Edgy.

]]>