User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Ubuntu and hardware support regression

Ubuntu and hardware support regression

Posted Jul 22, 2008 0:07 UTC (Tue) by wt (guest, #11793)
Parent article: Ubuntu, security response, and community contributions

I believe that Ubuntu's hardware support is not as good as it could be. For instance, I have a
Dell 1420n laptop that shipped with Feisty. It ran Gutsy and now runs Hardy.

With the upgrade to Hardy, the sound driver is broken. I would have expected the Ubuntu folks
to take care not to break a somewhat flagship piece of hardware that ships with their
distribution. If you look on the Dell website, the 1420n model still only ships with Gutsy
last time I checked.

To be fair, there is a work around (which is to run the real time kernel). However, it isn't
something that a less than geeky user would even think to do, and the real time kernel
sometimes fails to work with the sound also.

I tried to participate in the bug reporting and fixing also, but I have gotten no replies from
Ubuntu folks on the bug report, only others with similar problems.

That this situation occurred in what Ubuntu is calling an LTS release is truly sad IMO.

BTW, for anyone else with this problem, the next upstream kernel allegedly fixes this issue.
Maybe there's a backport or something.

wt


(Log in to post comments)

Ubuntu and hardware support regression

Posted Jul 24, 2008 10:08 UTC (Thu) by Miladinoski (guest, #52970) [Link]

Yup, I totally agree with you and I think that Hardy is Ubuntu's worst version 'till this date, I won't even upgrade to it, I had looots of problems doing that once, and then I reverted back to Gutsy.

Ubuntu and hardware support regression

Posted Jul 24, 2008 11:20 UTC (Thu) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]

Not likely that there will be a backport of a whole kernel to hardy. This has already been asked in many occasions as a remedy for the random freezes that the hardy kernel experiences on some hardware, but has been so far excluded. Possibly, there can be a backport of specific features from 2.6.x with x>24 to 2.6.24. To me it remains a mistery why kernel version x with patches including pieces of version x+k should be less of a jump in the dark than version x+k itself given that typically x+k will have already received more testing than x plus patches will ever have. Also to me it remains a mistery to me why distros do not package as an alternative to their own kernels the vanilla kernels from kernel.org.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds