registry team mailing list archive

["shanen \(Shannon Jacobs\)" <shanen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I couldn't remember this discussion after a couple of years, but I was
amused by the comment and depressed to see that after two (more) years
things have NOT turned around. I still want alternatives to Microsoft's
awful software, but the major change of the last few years is that
Microsoft has apparently lost their drive to be the evil empire and
Apple has taken over as the leading contender (though Google is showing
increasing signs of evil ambitions and capabilities).

Comment 1: I have basically given up on Ubuntu, though I am still using
OLD versions on two machines. I have experimented with later versions on
several machines, and Ubuntu has become less and less ready for prime
time. I managed to avoid ever buying a Vista machine, Apple has dropped
out of my consideration, but I increasingly doubt any acceptable
alternatives will appear before I am obliged to buy a Windows 7 box...
Right now Google's Chrome looks to be the best alternative, but I feel
like I've wasted a LOT of time with Ubuntu, and that casts a shadow on
all of the Linux alternatives. (My company uses RHEL, which I've never
managed to like. If it was actually offered as an option on a machine,
I'd probably take it over Windows--but so far it has not been
competitive in the real-world market.)

Comment 2: I think the REAL problem is Ubuntu's financial model doesn't
provide sufficient push for regression testing against the pushes for
the development of new features. The most serious problems I've
encountered over the years are almost always breakage in old features.
The problems with new features are annoying, but rarely show stoppers.
Ergo, I suggest Ubuntu might be salvaged with an alternative funding
model that supported MUCH more testing, especially boring old regression
testing. Perhaps something like this:

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2009/11/economics-of-small-donors-
reverse.html

In applying the model to Ubuntu's situation, I think that the project
models should have substantial allocations for testing in their budgets
--but the virtual shareholders would also become the highest-priority
candidates to become testers. In other words, if you bought a share in a
particular project, you could also volunteer as a tester at that time,
and record your configuration. At that point it would be a bit of a
lottery, but essentially the Ubuntu people would be picking testers to
maximize coverage, and the winners would be paid for their testing work.
The value paid for testing would probably be more than the cost of
shares, so the winners would be happy and it would be yet another
motivation to support a development project. I think the main advantage
is that the projects would be buying testing from normal users--but
perhaps that's because I think that the earliest users of most programs
tend to be on the strange side or stranger. (The main risk might
actually be a kind of gambling by people who think they have especially
useful configurations for testing...)

I still want more options, and I wouldn't mind a bit if the Ubuntu
people could turn things around--but I'm not worrying about it at this
point, and I even resent the loss of capabilities and increasing
bugginess of newer versions...

-- 
GNOME Bug Report Tool missing arguments
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/198162
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Registry
Administrators, which is the registrant for Bug Buddy.