- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux 3.1 Kernel Draws More Power With Another Regression
|
|
|
Comments (48)
28 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:The whole point of Ubuntu in the beginning was as a community.
Only in so far as it provided an excellent marketing opportunity for a commercial company. This is not to say there is anything wrong with doing that, but that was the real point.
@ta -
Yup. I'm amazed that anybody could have thought differently. Canonical has never hidden their role.
Yup. I'm amazed that anybody could have thought differently. Canonical has never hidden their role.
Quoting:Good luck with getting most large proprietary software houses to look at any kind of enhancement or bug fix (unless it is very serious) unless you are a very important user.
@skelband - Well Microsoft has fixed bugs for me, and written knowledge base articles about problems I have found so I know this is not really true. All you have to do is pay for the support incident and follow the process. Your implication that they won't tells me that you haven't really tried.
It wasn't a fun process, but I was shoved into it and asked to fix it and that was the net result. It was related to MS Exchange, and SSL if you are curious, 6 or 7 years ago.
Quoting:Those that are fixed quickly, and Those that are never fixed at all.
Interesting problems, or, more specifically, those that are important to the developers, tend to get handled quickly. Not-so-interesting problems may languish forever.
@Dinotrac - This is absolutely true. Launchpad for example has many of examples of this, including bugs that are 3 or more years old.
My point wasn't to imply that bugs just don't get fixed. My point was if you want someone to be accountable for bugs, then proprietary software may be a better route to take. That doesn't mean it's ideal, but that's just how it is. Canonical is the only "company" that is focused on Linux "desktops", and they don't really have anyone working in the kernel. (note: See rants by Gregg K-H)
Quoting:The whole point of Ubuntu in the beginning was as a community. This seems to be rapidly fading.
@montezuma - I disagree. The whole point of Ubuntu was to build a business by exploiting the community. I'm glad to hear that you do issue bug reports, but I might recommend another distribution if you actually want those bugs fixed.
Why should Ubuntu be criticized for not being a significant kernel contributor? Greg K-H doesn't deliver a desktop distro. I don't agree with the characterizations that Canonical is exploiting 'the community' for profit, either. For one thing after all these years there is yet no profit. We can't have it both ways, and be all happy that someone like Canonical spends squillions- including developer salaries- supporting a distro, and then go all peevish that they might want to earn some revenues.
fewt,
You missed my point. I have lodged over 50 bug reports for Ubuntu and in the first few years they were nearly all taken seriously by the developers which is the reason I stuck with the distro since that indicated they were taking the community thing seriously. This has changed in the past 2-3 years.
Being cynical about Canonical's role is easy. I can sneer as well as the next person. The problem for Canonical is that a business model based on exploiting a community and not giving back is a business model doomed to failure. The only way Ubuntu will work is with an engaged community. Without this it will rapidly go downhill.
I am beginning to think that Ubuntu/Canonical isn't a business model at all. More like a big ego trip by Mark Shuttleworth.
You missed my point. I have lodged over 50 bug reports for Ubuntu and in the first few years they were nearly all taken seriously by the developers which is the reason I stuck with the distro since that indicated they were taking the community thing seriously. This has changed in the past 2-3 years.
Being cynical about Canonical's role is easy. I can sneer as well as the next person. The problem for Canonical is that a business model based on exploiting a community and not giving back is a business model doomed to failure. The only way Ubuntu will work is with an engaged community. Without this it will rapidly go downhill.
I am beginning to think that Ubuntu/Canonical isn't a business model at all. More like a big ego trip by Mark Shuttleworth.
Quoting:Why should Ubuntu be criticized for not being a significant kernel contributor?
@tuxchick - Why shouldn't they be?
Quoting: We can't have it both ways, and be all happy that someone like Canonical spends squillions- including developer salaries- supporting a distro, and then go all peevish that they might want to earn some revenues.
They will need a real business model if they want to be successful. Performing actions such as changing the affiliate code in Banshee to take money that was being earned for GNOME is valid evidence that Canonical is willing to exploit the community to earn a buck.
Quoting:I am beginning to think that Ubuntu/Canonical isn't a business model at all. More like a big ego trip by Mark Shuttleworth.
@montezuma - +1. I realized that as I was writing my Ubuntu rant a few years ago.
Ah fewt, dodgey as usual.
Quoting:You keep telling yourself that. The rest of us who know better will continue to know better
looks like you can't handle facts and this is your easy way out. Hmm, must be the training in Redmond.
Quoting:Ah fewt, dodgey as usual.
@tuxchick - Hardly, I gave a specific example.
Quoting:looks like you can't handle facts and this is your easy way out. Hmm, must be the training in Redmond.
@Fettoosh - ok, like I said, believe what you want.
@fewt -
Why shouldn't you be criticised for not bothering to broker a Middle East peace deal? Or not making a battery that can power an electric car for 500 miles and be recharged in 5 minutes?
You certainly have a vested interest in a world that doesn't explode into global war, melt down in global warming, or run out of energy.
But you have other things to do and other contributions to make. We don't criticise police officers for not putting out fires or firemen for not catching criminals. Why would we criticise Ubuntu for not contributing more to the kernel? There are other things to do in Linux, too.
I remember listening to Linus address attendees at Linuxworld in New York more than ten years ago. At that time, he said that it was more important to make contributions to user space than the kernel. I believe that still to be true. The kernel works pretty damned well and lots of people contribute to it.
User space? Not so much.
As to exploiting the community, so what?
Where is it written that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that? Has Canonical lied to anybody about who they are or what they are?
People who willingly take part in something where nobody is hiding the truth have no right to whine because somebody makes money.
Ditto for those who write GPL'd code only to see somebody take their code and run with it -- while turning a few dollars.
The license specifically allows that.
Why shouldn't you be criticised for not bothering to broker a Middle East peace deal? Or not making a battery that can power an electric car for 500 miles and be recharged in 5 minutes?
You certainly have a vested interest in a world that doesn't explode into global war, melt down in global warming, or run out of energy.
But you have other things to do and other contributions to make. We don't criticise police officers for not putting out fires or firemen for not catching criminals. Why would we criticise Ubuntu for not contributing more to the kernel? There are other things to do in Linux, too.
I remember listening to Linus address attendees at Linuxworld in New York more than ten years ago. At that time, he said that it was more important to make contributions to user space than the kernel. I believe that still to be true. The kernel works pretty damned well and lots of people contribute to it.
User space? Not so much.
As to exploiting the community, so what?
Where is it written that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that? Has Canonical lied to anybody about who they are or what they are?
People who willingly take part in something where nobody is hiding the truth have no right to whine because somebody makes money.
Ditto for those who write GPL'd code only to see somebody take their code and run with it -- while turning a few dollars.
The license specifically allows that.
Dino,
I agree that Canonical are open about their motivation and good luck to them in making money. What I object to is that some of the value that has been created in Ubuntu is down to a large number of volunteers. Canonical's role has been in the past to provide a crack team of developers who worked with the community to provide a great distro.
If they take that army of volunteers for granted by not responding to serious bugs which are a major annoyance to users then that army (which has included me) will take our contributions elsewhere. That strikes me as very stupid of Canonical.
I agree that Canonical are open about their motivation and good luck to them in making money. What I object to is that some of the value that has been created in Ubuntu is down to a large number of volunteers. Canonical's role has been in the past to provide a crack team of developers who worked with the community to provide a great distro.
If they take that army of volunteers for granted by not responding to serious bugs which are a major annoyance to users then that army (which has included me) will take our contributions elsewhere. That strikes me as very stupid of Canonical.
@fewt:
A product fails to work as advertised, but you have to *pay*to get the fix?
I ain't buyin'.
A product fails to work as advertised, but you have to *pay*to get the fix?
I ain't buyin'.
Quoting:A product fails to work as advertised, but you have to *pay*to get the fix?
@gus3 - I challenge you to find a product that doesn't have bugs. Having bugs != not working as advertised.
Quoting:I challenge you to find a product that doesn't have bugs. Having bugs != not working as advertised.
Dodgy , you are missing the point. It isn't software without bugs, it is having to pay for fixing it after you already paid for it up front.
Quoting:Dodgy , you are missing the point. It isn't software without bugs, it is having to pay for fixing it after you already paid for it up front.
@fetoosh - You are just making excuses about something that you don't like.
@fewt: "All you have to do is pay for the support incident and follow the process."
Well I didn't say they wouldn't fix your bug, just that you have to be an important customer. Paying for support makes you important.
You have to wonder though that if you have bought one of their products and you are taking the trouble to let MS know that there is an issue in their software, that they feel that they need to charge you for that privilege, there is something wrong with their culture. You are helping them, not the other way around.
I guess that is my point.
Well I didn't say they wouldn't fix your bug, just that you have to be an important customer. Paying for support makes you important.
You have to wonder though that if you have bought one of their products and you are taking the trouble to let MS know that there is an issue in their software, that they feel that they need to charge you for that privilege, there is something wrong with their culture. You are helping them, not the other way around.
I guess that is my point.
Quoting:You have to wonder though that if you have bought one of their products and you are taking the trouble to let MS know that there is an issue in their software, that they feel that they need to charge you for that privilege, there is something wrong with their culture.
Their business model requires that they have an income to feed the people that fix bugs. It isn't a privilege. Besides, they in many cases will waive the fee if it is in fact a bug.
@montezuma :
Well, can't argue with you there. Stupidity has been know to show it's ugly little pointed head in more than a few corporate cultures.
Well, can't argue with you there. Stupidity has been know to show it's ugly little pointed head in more than a few corporate cultures.
@fewt: "Their business model requires that they have an income to feed the people that fix bugs. It isn't a privilege.."
That there is the problem. After sales. The money is got, anything after that is a liability. From a pure business perspective, I can see why they would think that.
Everything before the sale, marketing, r&d, management costs, the guys that were supposed to fix the bugs before release, pretty much everything that it costs to run a company is paid for by the purchase price of the software. Then there is support, that unfortunate bit afterwards, where you look after your customers. It speaks volumes about the ethos of the company.
It's unusual in the business world though, isn't it?
If I buy a vacuum cleaner and it has a fault, the manufacturer will repair it, or replace it free of charge, within a reasonable period of time. After all, they want me to buy another one of their products in the future don't they?
If I buy a car and it has a safety issue, then they go to huge lengths to get them all fixed, cost be damned (unless you're Toyota of course, and you see where that ended up).
If I buy some corn flakes and they're not quite up to what I expected, they will give me my money back, no questions asked.
We as consumers expect perfection and most manufacturers go out of their way to give it to us as far as is humanly possible.
Strange then that if a software house fixes a critical bug in a piece of software, they potentially make a lot of their customers happier, for relatively small cost by making the fix available on their website, and for my assistance in this, I have to pay them. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and for that reason, we accept it as normal.
That there is the problem. After sales. The money is got, anything after that is a liability. From a pure business perspective, I can see why they would think that.
Everything before the sale, marketing, r&d, management costs, the guys that were supposed to fix the bugs before release, pretty much everything that it costs to run a company is paid for by the purchase price of the software. Then there is support, that unfortunate bit afterwards, where you look after your customers. It speaks volumes about the ethos of the company.
It's unusual in the business world though, isn't it?
If I buy a vacuum cleaner and it has a fault, the manufacturer will repair it, or replace it free of charge, within a reasonable period of time. After all, they want me to buy another one of their products in the future don't they?
If I buy a car and it has a safety issue, then they go to huge lengths to get them all fixed, cost be damned (unless you're Toyota of course, and you see where that ended up).
If I buy some corn flakes and they're not quite up to what I expected, they will give me my money back, no questions asked.
We as consumers expect perfection and most manufacturers go out of their way to give it to us as far as is humanly possible.
Strange then that if a software house fixes a critical bug in a piece of software, they potentially make a lot of their customers happier, for relatively small cost by making the fix available on their website, and for my assistance in this, I have to pay them. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and for that reason, we accept it as normal.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I have contributed much to the Ubuntu community through bugreports which in the past has been appreciated by many Ubuntu developers. If Canonical wants to take my contribution for granted and exploit me for commercial gain I will take imy efforts elsewhere. The whole point of Ubuntu in the beginning was as a community. This seems to be rapidly fading.