[lug] Initial impressions of Kubuntu

[Nate Duehr]

Collins Richey wrote:

> I really get P'Od about these type of general assumptions. The fact is
> that there are always going to be some PCs with broken ACPI and/or
> other BIOS settings that don't take well to LiveCDs is just a fact of
> life.  I've heard the same sort of comments about FC releases. There
> is only so much testing with oddball machines that can be done by any
> distro.

Why does it make you mad?  Is software supposed to be "innocent until 
proven broken"?  What's to be emotional about?

You assume that testing was done.  How do you know ANY testing was done, 
beyond the developer's machine and five people on a mailing list that 
replied to his request for testing?

I contend that NO distro tests most of the software in a distro, even 
slightly.  I can't find any evidence otherwise.

Please feel free to point it out, if you find it.

I also think *most* of the computer industry is this way.  End-users 
*are* the testers nowadays.  No one tests, they just alpha and 
beta-release and let the end-users suffer through it.  Very few 
end-users bother.

Most developers (many who call themselves Software Engineers) are just 
lucky that their end-users are persistent and stubborn if they want to 
use a particular distro or piece of software, and those end-users will 
put up with the software not working first-time-out, and will send in 
information to help the developer fill their knowledge holes about their 
chosen language and/or hardware platform.

> The concept that installer problems of this type have anything to say
> about the quality of the distro and its pre-release testing is just
> absolutely wrong. I've never encountered any of these problems, and my
> Kubunto 6.10 is rock solid (has been for 3 months before release)..

Ubuntu must have done good quality work because it runs on your hardware?

Logic bug.  :-)

Nate