faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Not stable
by Eric Laffoon on Thursday 21/Apr/2005, @22:25
|
I think if people saying this could actually get perspective they would see the sad humor in such statements. First of all stability in general... People assume because computers are based on logic that they will operate with certainty and consistency rather than inconsistent and uncertain. The first thing you have to ask yourself is this. Do you believe the developers are happy producing a wonderful interface that runs like crap? Seems illogical, right? In fact Quanta almost never crashes for me, and I run the development version.
Most instability I observe is introduced in packaging issues. In particular it is easy to encounter binary issues where programs may run, but run terribly. Some packagers hack up the source a fair amount and introduce problems in the process. Also there have been more than a few releases made of Quanta which were not our official release, or where a bug was found and there was a re-release in days that was not picked up. In addition to this people can have entire systems full of cruft causing problems by hacking things together where configuration and package management fails to adequately manage. Finally there are cases where what a user may do will encounter a bug that the developers don't because of the complexity of the program. These bugs we really need to hear about. Packaging bugs are a pain that we can't fix, but if you can't be sure if it is packaging it's better to report it.
> I fill bug reports when I can but the most I can do to help now is to suggest making the app stable before adding new features.
Here's the facts. I sponsor Andras full time to work on Quanta and he keeps it with one of the lowest bug counts of any application in KDE. During every release cycle roughly 1/3 of our anticipated features fails to get done because we are spending time fixing bugs. Your suggestion may be logical but it's not taking the facts into account. The bugs that are not fixed either are not introduced by us or are simply unknown to us.
> Am I the only one who think quanta isnt stable enough?
Sadly I'm sure you are not... but whether it is stable on your system or somebody else's is not solely the result of the source code. Does that make sense now? So I would say you are in a small minority as most people experience Quanta as being very stable.
I have to admit it bothers me when someone says something like this. It operates on the erroneous assumption that we will have a universal experience where too many external factors can break the best of programs. What bothers me is that it implies, however unintentionally, that the developers would intentionally, or through a lack of competence, knowingly produce junk. I doubt you intended to imply that and you should know is that this is not only illogical but not true. Having said that you should know that it is very important to us that you have a good user experience because we are proud of our project. So please help us to root out the problems we can fix and encourage packagers to do likewise. |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
