[wplug] buggy threads

[Vanco, Donald]

James O'Kane wrote:
> Two questions to the people discussing bugginess of distributions.
> 
> 1. How do you objectively define bugginess in such a way that it can
> be measured and compared from one version to the next and from one
> vendor to another. Until that happens, this is only a "vi vs. emacs"
> style flame war.
	Most times it's pretty simple for me - I'm a hardware guy.
	My definition:
	Buggy = things don't work as advertised.  E.G. - Mandrake (circa
6.x) refused to turn off BIOS probing for PCMCIA after repeated bug reports
of lock-ups, therefore it couldn't boot.

	Buggy is NOT "I don't like the look of the GUI".
	Buggy is NOT "I can't play MP3z"
	"I didn't bother to look at the release notes or the Docs CD" is not
buggy.  Neither is it a preclusion to slagging on a distro apparently.

But looking at distro -vs- distro things get cloudy -
	Debian won't turn sound on on my laptop - RH does - is that buggy?  
	Debian won't bring up networking on my laptop - RH does - is that
buggy?
	Red Hat can't find my WinModem - Lindows does - is that buggy?

	...it's a very subjective thing

> 2. Of those that complain about bugginess by whatever definition you
> use. How many of you have submitted bug reports?
	Lots.  OK - 4.  5 if you count my submission to the authors of MuSE
that as of yet goes unacknowledged.

> Those are mainly rhetorical, so don't feel you must reply.
	So - if I have not filed a bug report my does that mean that my
opinion doesn't count or I can't tell when something's broken?  Not actively
participating in the community does not make anyone a better or worse
citizen of that community, or a better or worse judge of "broken".

Don