I don’t recall saying “nothing had been done.” What I’ve said is that it is remarkable how little information is given about the error; no context about the environment in which its occurring, what it looked like before/after the error, what was expected. I think that’s meaningful when Calamares spent a significant amount of effort developing the means to collect individuals’ hardware information. They expect you guys to spend countless hours stabbing in the dark (which you guys expected me to do, too). But, collecting user data is something they had no trouble implementing.
When I first brought this up, that Calamares should be expected to provide more error information, even notify itself through the “Ubuntu detected an error… send report?” workflow (they have their own data-collection work flow when there’s no error. But, when there’s an error, just keep stabbing in the dark. Don’t expect them to provide any information that would help identify what’s common between the random errors.). When I brought that up, I was told extended logging can be enabled with -d. Why hasn’t that been enabled as a default in the past four months? I could have had data the first time I hit the problem. It’s like we’re expected to work harder than necessary?
I don’t want to quench anyone’s passion about furthering Lubuntu, but… isn’t there more productive things to spend so much time on? If stabbing in the dark looks like a valid use of time (instead of expecting Calamares to put the same effort into error reporting that they put into collecting hardware information; or enabling debug logging as the default), doesn’t that say something about the extent to which Lubuntu can be furthered? (I’m saying this from the perspective of having used it for 4 years, until it became something else. Not just some random visitor opining.).
I was thinking about this last night. This is a perfect example of what Windows enthusiasts commonly refer to whenever Linux is mentioned as an alternative. They start talking about fragmentation, duplication of effort, everyone recreating the wheel. Here we have someone who decided to create a new installer (when Ubiquity seems fine). Now we have people spending countless hours stabbing in the dark because the duplicate installer is really good at collecting user information, but not providing actionable details when there’s an error. Nobody seems to think that’s a problem. Quite the opposite, they’re defending it.
I didn’t come here to upset anyone. I just wanted to help with testing. I appreciate all the very good information Chris and Walter provided which got me started with Ubuntu’s release testing. That was not a waste of time. I will definitely put that to good use. My previous 4-year use of Lubuntu probably makes me sensitive to how things are now. Personally, I think the common Windows-enthusiast complaint about fragmentation, duplication of effort applies to LXQt and what Lubuntu has turned into. I.e., I think it would have been more productive to just leave LXDE/Lubuntu where it was (end of life) and further other desktops that fill a similar lightweight space. I admire you guys for fighting the good fight. But, its stunning to me that anyone would spend 4+ months stabbing in the dark, not expecting the program (having the problem) to produce meaningful error information (especially when resources were spent to create data collection for other, convenience purposes.). Moreover, after almost 5 months, the debugging info hasn’t even been turned on by default. And, people seem to think there’s nothing wrong with this scenario. To me, it seems like self-inflicted work.
Good luck. I hope everything works out. I’m sorry for getting this involved. All I wanted to do was just help test Ubuntu generally, not get into community things. In some ways I feel very bad for having gotten into a discouraging discussion. But, in other ways… I’m a little outraged that I spent so much time working on something that’s been known for at least 4 months – and nobody’s expected anything better from it. I thought I stumbled onto something new, then something related to Chris’s bug. Now it’s turned into a well-known thing which is expected to be worked on using brute force. If I’d known that from the start, I would have merely said “good luck” without rocking anyone’s boat. If that’s how you guys want to work, that’s your choice. (If I had to do this, I’d just go back to Windows. I think the Windows enthusiasts have a valid point in this regard.).
Previously you said you have worked in development. I’m curious: where you worked, would this kind of stabbing-in-the-dark for 5 months be the way they’d conduct problem resolution? (I worked as a programmer and systems analyst for many years. People would be fired for this kind of stuff. Not so much the bug itself, but the “try again” response for 5 months – while devoting significant development resources to create a data collection process for other purposes.).
Sorry. I’ll shut up now.