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
