Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Dotan Cohen]

>> Acknowledging that there is a problem was a good first step, if the
>> problem could not be resolved before release. However, it has been a
>> month since release, and no fix to the issue. Acknowledgement does not
>> justify abandonment.
>
> The issue is handled upstream and there will a fix as soon as upstream
> has one.
>

I understand that, Florian. The issue does not even affect me directly
(it does affect some of my users, though). However, passing the bug
off as "upstream" is saying that Canonical is not responsible for the
software that it ships. It is blame-shifting. I understand the
reasons, but the fact remains that the user got his OS from Canonical,
and that OS is flawed.

This same argument is very often used to justify hardware not working
in Linux distros. However, the user does not care if it is HP's fault
or Linux's fault: he cares that his printer does not work, and he
blames the OS for that as other operating systems, or other versions
of the same OS, do in fact work well with the printer / video card /
webcam.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il