On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 16:51 -0500, Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
- Problems are patched too slowly compared to other DE's. It takes
months or almost a release cycle to have (if ever) the major bugs fixed, while other distributions do this in about one month. One clear example are Fedora and Ubuntu: they released with PulseAudio in a clearly worse state than openSUSE, yet they fixed it quickly. OpenSUSE has some minor problems and are almost all still there.
the difference between ubuntu and fedora is that they use PA for the whole distro, while we use it only for GNOME, unfortunately. This is the cause of most of the problems (not all of course), that users install alsa/oss/flash-based apps which, by default, are not configured to use PA because they are expected to be used in both KDE and GNOME.
Also, the other problems related to PA, most of them are upstream, and are getting fixes upstream, so those problems have shown up also on Fedora and Ubuntu.
>I think a good spate of education for the diehard users of other DEs >would be a good start, lets try and do something fun and informative >for all of us.
Education and information are useful if there is a base to build them upon. And that base has to be a quality release. I saw improvements from 10.3 to 11.0, that's evident, and I'm pleased of that. But we still are not at the level of RH/Fedora, and the reasons are not clear.
The GNOME team used all the possible excuses that might justify the difference in quality between GNOME and KDE,
no harsh intended to the KDE team here, they already got a lot for KDE 4, but the general impression, at least in 11.0, is that KDE quality is worst than GNOME's, because of KDE 4, so I don't think nobody is using that excuse.
and GNOME in openSUSE/GNOME in other distributions. It is time to stop hiding behind the excuse that SuSE was a KDE-centric distribution, and that it takes time (the typical "wait for next release and see!") to have a good GNOME implementation, because the team had a whole release cycle (10.x) to do that. It missed the opportunity because instead of preparing a solid base and then adding features simply skipped the first step, hoping to fix the problems as they come out. It doesn't work that way on the long run.
I don't think we work that way. When we release software, it has been tested. Of course, problems show up (like with PA) when lots of users (much more than testers) start using the software. Maybe we should be quicker in fixing the issues, you might be right there, but please, don't pretend to say we just release buggy software and hope users won't find problems. Apart from our testing, upstream GNOME gets a lot of testing before being released.