Re: Updated Fedora Workstation PRD draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Adam,

Indeed that what we are set to do is hard, and I all I have to say about
that is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1DidldxUo

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 10:19 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:58 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > > Based on my experience (>10 years of it, with multiple distributions and
> > > OSes), this is an incredibly ambitious goal. It may in fact be entirely
> > > unachievable as written. I'm not aware of a single operating system in
> > > existence which actually achieves this.
> > 
> > Citation needed? Windows Mobile, Android, iOS, PlayStation 3, XBox... I
> > never heard any users of these OSes complaining about how upgrades broke
> > their system in an ongoing basis.
> 
> So, two problems with that:
> 
> 1) you moved the goalposts. The draft doesn't say 'upgrades should
> mostly avoid breaking people's systems', but you wrote "how upgrades
> broke their system in an ongoing basis." The draft ties us to a _much_
> higher standard than boring old "doesn't break systems".
> 
> 2) Windows Mobile and Android devices frequently just don't _get_ OS
> upgrades, or get them very belatedly. I've seen Android upgrades shipped
> that aren't really 'upgrades': you could only 'upgrade' by flashing
> clean and starting over. PS3 and Xbox are so different from what we're
> doing, plus who knows what the hell is in any of those updates? It's all
> secret sauce, all the way down. The only ones that might be somewhere in
> the neighbourhood are iOS and Nexus phones, but I don't think even those
> hold up to the draft's wording when looked at carefully. It really is
> setting an extremely high bar.
> 
> >  Yes, maybe from time to time, somebody
> > hits a problem there, but the upgrade process in those systems is pretty
> > robust due to several design decisions.
> > 
> > >  Even cellphone manufacturers -
> > > who have a very clearly-defined single piece of hardware to deal with,
> > > and a much smaller set of software and use cases to worry about than we
> > > have - don't achieve this. I'm really not sure it should be front and
> > > centre in a foundational document without some really convincing
> > > evidence that it's even vaguely achievable.
> > 
> > Again, I've never had an issue upgrading my PS3, Android phone or my
> > iPad, 
> 
> Again, 'never had an issue' is not the same thing as 'upgraded system
> must function precisely like a newly-installed one'.
> 
> > The fact that we may not achieve this goal in a 100% flawless fashion
> > doesn't mean we have to give up on it altogether, the room for
> > improvement here is huge, and anything we can do to make this better is
> > worth every line of code. This problem is a major scare-away for many
> > users.
> 
> I haven't disputed that, I've just raised a concern that the specific
> aspiration written in the draft is an extremely hard one to meet. I
> didn't suggest that we should just not care about upgrades, or
> something.
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> 

-- 
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz

-- 
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux