| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ubuntu 8.04.1 LTS releasedUbuntu 8.04.1 LTS releasedPosted Jul 5, 2008 13:57 UTC (Sat) by callegar (guest, #16148)In reply to: Ubuntu 8.04.1 LTS released by tajyrink Parent article: Ubuntu 8.04.1 LTS released
Please, don't make me say what I am not actually saying: I have never suggested that the bug is well understood. Indeed if it was, it would be fixed already. Suggesting the contrary would mean believing that it is left there on purpose, that I surely don't. I am only saying that: 1) the bug /existence/ is well documented as proved by the many (often duplicate) bug reports. And although these do not allow one to count the statistical incidence of affected systems, surely it says that it is > 0%. 2) the bug is acknowledged by the ubuntu kernel team. Otherwise, they would not be the first saying that it is fixed in the intrepid kernel, and there wouldn't have been some of them suggesting that something should (should have) possibly be done for 8.04.1 3) the bug appears to be fixed (maybe even incidentally, as the side effect of other changes) in more recent versions of the kernel. In my opinion (but I think that we may agree on it), this - together with the fact that the bug is marked at a high priority, and that frequent lockups can easily result in data loss - should have made this problem mentioned in the release notes, together with notices on how to identify if a platform is affected and with workarounds. Also in my opinion (and here evidently we do not agree), using a 2.6.25 "point 10" is not such a shot in the dark. In my opinion it would be wise to provide it /in addition/ to 2.6.24 /for those/ experiencing this showstopping bug on ubuntu's 2.6.24. In the end 2.6.25 is what everybody is using from Fedora to Opensuse. Indeed, (but again this just "pour parler"), I think that one of the reasons why some kernel bugs have not yet been fixed in Hardy is not only to be sought in the lack of resources of the kernel team (which surely plays a role), but also in the very initial choice of 2.6.24 that prevents from "re-using" the work of other distros kernel teams (thus relaxing the resource scarcity issue).
(Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu 8.04.1 LTS released Posted Jul 5, 2008 18:27 UTC (Sat) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] Right, the word "understood" was made up by me, from the "documented". I believe there are hang reports on every kernel, but possibly these hardy ones are now more common than with some of the earlier Ubuntu kernels (2.6.22, 2.6.20, 2.6.17, 2.6.15...). I'm not sure if the release notes could have something more than disclaimer-like "it may be that not all hardware combinations continue to work flawlessly in 8.04", and the same is true with every release. I agree to disagree with the 2.6.25 stableness vs. shot in the dark, and agree to agree with the fact that Ubuntu kernel team could use more resources. I've heard before there are no resources to support more kernels at the same time, which is why .25 cannot be offered in addition to .24. In the gutsy times people would have wanted the kernel team to offer differently compiled kernel flavors because ATI's binary drivers didn't resume from suspend with newer kernels with the new allocator. Thanks for elaborating the issue and answering my questions. I do think the issue is real, any regression is, and it's just details that I'm checking and also wondering how realistic any one solution is (if no clear patch can be found). It's not just a problem of Ubuntu 8.04, it's a problem with the generic problem of regressions that always happen.
|
|
||||||||||||