The article points this out. But it also points out (using the Ubuntu release notes) that there are quite a few regressions as well.
In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able to stabilize everything in time for the release?
I don't think its about when you code-freeze. I think its more because there are way too many bugs and variations of bugs and not enough people to try and solve them. Which is why all the developers ask for help in triaging and polishing bug reports.
This is especially true when its bugs related to different hardware configurations such as multi-screens with specific graphics cards and so on.
> In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases.
I agree. I think they should make their releases less frequent, e.g. move to a 2 year relase cycle. I have zero interest in fiddling with a working computer setup every six months in order to get the latest goodies.
Their mission is to get more people using Ubuntu - a 6 month release cycle works wonders for that. People (like me) who think "I could almost use the permanently" get excited, and give it another go, when a new version comes out. Also, it generates a lot of buzz.
However, 9.10 hasn't been a smooth ride for me. When I plug in an external monitor, and open Display Options to enable it, my X server crashes, due to Compiz not handling such a large resolution.
In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able to stabilize everything in time for the release?