The Reg takes note of Karmic problems

[CbrPad]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...a_frustration/

[bryncoles]

And not only... The Telegraph does too, under the headline "Bad karma for Linux koalas".

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks. Remember the damage word of mouth did to vista?

Both the Reg and the Telegraph link to this poll as evidence of the disaster that is karmic.

Lets not give the popular press sticks to beat ourselves with now, eh? They're hardly likely to point out that every release is met with howls of "I wish I'd stayed with the last release". Hell, all the people who wish they'd stayed with 9:04 because it worked perfectly also wished they'd stayed with 8:10 because it worked perfectly, as did 8:04...

And remember, it only takes a month for Ubuntu to stabilize, rather than a year for the first service pack to make it usable!

[SirBismuth]

The glaring problem is that people have upgraded, and not done a full install. Only time I ever tried to upgrade was from 8.04 to 8.10, it failed and broke my installation. Have been doing full installs since then, without any problems.

B

[Falc7]

The glaring problem is that people have upgraded, and not done a full install. Only time I ever tried to upgrade was from 8.04 to 8.10, it failed and broke my installation. Have been doing full installs since then, without any problems.

B

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

[SirBismuth]

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

This is true, maybe they should only let you upgrade after clicking on a a message, that goes something like "This upgrade may break your system".

Although, before Karmic Final was released, I saw a number of posts saying that you should rather do a full install, than upgrade.

B

[bryncoles]

I did upgrades from 7:10 (my first 'buntu *sigh*), and never had a problem. This is the first distro I've clean-installed with, and also had no problem with (though I did get the jaunty intel-crash bug!)

[mivo]

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks.

Are you suggesting we cover up the issues that people have? That we pretend everything is dandy, for the purpose of getting good press?

This is not a wake up call for the community. This should be a wake up call for Canonical. The distro upgrade has not been reliable for years now, to a point where by now most people just suggest to reinstall instead of upgrading. Old bugs are not fixed, new bugs are introduced by constant new additions and changes. The tower gets taller and taller, but the foundation crumbles in some places, and it isn't stable enough to continue to be able to carry all the new floors that are added all the time.

What Ubuntu needs is a consolidation release where nothing new is added and only existing bugs, problems, issues and weaknesses are tended to.

I do feel that the upgrade mechanism "sucks", and I have said so for quite a while now. And looking at the numerous help requests and "doesn't work" posts, which in my subjective observation exceed anything previous versions have seen, it certainly seems that 9.10 was rushed, because "we must stick to our 6-months cycle, no matter what". If the bad press is a result of this, then that is self-inflicted. Maybe that's what it takes to achieve improvement and change.

[CbrPad]

If upgrades fail so much then it shouldn't be an option, if windows failed this much when installing a service pack imagine what we'd be saying

+1 The upgrade option should not be enabled by default. Anyone who knows and understands the risks can easily try an upgrade manually or change the settings to inform them of an available upgrade, or whatever, but it shouldn't just pop up to be clicked on by the average user.

Also, there are more serious regressions such as the fact that 3g usb modems are almost completely broken. This, imo, is reason enough in itself for Karmic not to have been released. These modems are incredibly popular, and how can someone be expected to install a patch or future update fixing the issue if they don't have internet access in the first place ?
There's no mentions of the problem in the release notes as far as I know either?

Overall I think a serious look has to be taken at releasing on time regardless, as the cost of releasing late can sometimes be easily outweighed by the cost of releasing a product with so many issues.

[whitefort]

I think this should be a wake-up call to the community: if we bitch and moan about the poor install experience of a fresh release, we'll give the impression that our beloved OS sucks. Remember the damage word of mouth did to vista?

The reason word-of-mouth damaged Vista is quite simple. Vista DID suck, so people talked about it.

Are you saying that if Canonical release an utter dud, we should all pretend it's wonderful? I love Ubuntu, but I'm not prepared to lie to promote it.

I've been (fresh) installing each successive Ubuntu across all my machines for about 4 or 5 years now. I've liked some better than others, but I've never encountered SO many hassles as I've had with Karmic. I've now switched most of them back to Jaunty.

If word of mouth gets Karmic a bad rep, perhaps - just perhaps - it will be because a bad rep was deserved. Maybe Karmic will be Canonical's Vista.

[Merovius]

+1 for a consolidation release. After half a dozen releases it seems maybe a good housecleaning release would be a good idea.

Like when your doing a renovation on part of your home you occasionally just stop work and clean up before moving on to the next stage. Makes things easier in the long run.