This should be required reading for developers.

[exploder]

I happened to see this and I agree with the Author.

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/the ... tion-32934

[Carl]

I happened to see this and I agree with the Author.

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/the ... tion-32934

Absolutely spot on now someone mail this to the Ubuntu developers

[exploder]

Carl, you read my mind!

[midas]

Please mail the link not ONLY to the Ubuntu-devs...but also to the Mint-devs. Seems to me that a 6 month release-cycle (fever) and wanting the latest/greatest of software packages are not good circumstances to develope this 'eye for detail', the readyness out of the box and unquestionable quality and stability. Let's make the next step together...

[altair4]

Please mail the link not ONLY to the Ubuntu-devs...but also to the Mint-devs. Seems to me that a 6 month release-cycle (fever) and wanting the latest/greatest of software packages are not good circumstances to develope this 'eye for detail', the redyness out of the box and unquestionable quality and stability. Let's make the next step together...

This 6 month "release early and release often" mentality is at least in part, our fault - not Mint or Ubuntu. Well maybe Ubuntu Look through the forums here and you'll see things like:

Where the heck is Firefox 3.5.5 RC1? Why is it not in Synaptic?
I need to update to kernel 2.6.31. It's inconceivable that it's not in the repository.

I dual boot with WinXP which except for bug fixes (?) has remained unchanged for 8 years. Somewhere there is a happy medium between 6 months and 8 years.

Just my opinion

[exploder]

OpenSuse changed their release cycle to 8 months instead of 6. My complaint stems from things like the Intel issue, Brasero not working and the fact that updates to correct these problems never make it into the main repos. No one will ever convince me that upgrading Brasero will compromise the stability of my system!

[Carl]

Please mail the link not ONLY to the Ubuntu-devs...but also to the Mint-devs. Seems to me that a 6 month release-cycle (fever) and wanting the latest/greatest of software packages are not good circumstances to develope this 'eye for detail', the readyness out of the box and unquestionable quality and stability. Let's make the next step together...

Mint doesn't have a 6 month release cycle, it's released when clem feels that it's ready to be released and generally that's normally about a month or so after Ubuntu

[midas]

Carl wrote: Mint doesn't have a 6 month release cycle, it's released when clem feels that it's ready to be released and generally that's normally about a month or so after Ubuntu

Yes Carl, but that means Mint still having the same regressions like Ubuntu's sixmonthly releases. There must simply be a way to avoid these regressions. Perhaps taking another base...perhaps taking the Ubuntu LTS-editions as a base (semi rolling distro). In short, there are some tough decisions to make

[Carl]

Carl wrote: Mint doesn't have a 6 month release cycle, it's released when clem feels that it's ready to be released and generally that's normally about a month or so after Ubuntu

Yes Carl, but that means Mint still having the same regressions like Ubuntu's sixmonthly releases. There must simply be a way to avoid these regressions. Perhaps taking another base...perhaps taking the Ubuntu LTS-editions as a base (semi rolling distro). In short, there are some tough decisions to make

Yes I see you point and agree that mint needs to take a tough decision concerning the base...

personally I would love to see a Debian base which we then customize with Ubuntu code and then we can add or remove the best and the worst features of Ubuntu

[exploder]

Here is an example of something being released before it is ready.

http://envb.sapphirewillow.com/writings ... -i-use-it/