I do think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Probably
But - lets say there's a new version of Windows going RTM next week - it's like there being a problem specifically in Windows (which a driver update wouldn't fix
) that causes the system to freeze with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 in it. That card is so expensive and an INCREDIBLY tiny amount of Windows users have it they figure they'd just release the OS anyway and deal with it later. That doesn't really fly does it...
Anyway; they're never going to slap a kernel in that late unless it's desperately needed for a lot of systems, then they will consider slipping GA. And on something as big as a GNU/Linux distro there will always be regressions in the field (like yours).
To expect them to nail every system config is unreasonable, although a system lockup is a very high CIE so there is probably a stress related failure in more than the broken code (underlying architecture wasn't robust), but this is Linux so you shouldn't have been expecting that. I would never get on a plane running Linux, but I use it on my office PC & all my laptops.
Oh I get they'd never really put the release date back. But it's a bit stupid putting out an OS which will break some of your current users entire system. They know the bug is in there and what it does. All it would need is some warning in Update Manager/On the download page prior to serving up the download.
To expect something you get for free to just work for everyone is mad, things that cost a lot of money can't achieve that. I'd be interested to see how Canonical support would handle this...
Just a bit of background on my personal views to set up the next bit: I have
never thought "Linux" on the desktop would get any sort of market share. Ever. The sheer amount of fragmentation around the GUI is the major fault. One distro being able to have multiple GUIs, multiple distros having the same GUI. Most users care what the system looks like and associates exactly how it operates to how it initially looks. Windows looks like Windows. Mac OS X looks like Mac OS X. Linux looks like...well...anything.
Now, I'm not saying something based on the Linux kernel can't gain on the desktop. But it simply, for most people, won't be "Linux". Android is Android (or, OK, Android with HTC Sense UI for example). It is a singular thing, from a singular company, that operates the same. Such can be said about HTC Sense UI - buy an HTC Android phone and it operates like that! Heck my FreeSat box runs on Linux. Does anyone really care? No.
Ubuntu is now the first desktop OS, based on Linux, that has defined itself with the GUI. That screenshot zinc posted is a screenshot of Ubuntu
that can only be Ubuntu.
Anyway, Ubuntu is being squarely aimed at Windows and Mac OS X. And it isn't really "free". The amount of man-hours put into every package in that system would be massive. And the amount of people Canonical employ plus Mark Shuttleworth's millions of little contributions negate the argument that it being free should mean I expect less. Especially with such PR on the Ubuntu homepage as "Ubuntu is a fast, secure and easy-to-use operating system used by millions of people around the world." & "
Compatible with all your devices Ubuntu works brilliantly with a range of devices. No installation CDs. No fuss.".
At the end of the day, with what has happened, they've lost me as potentially becoming a user. I just can't have an OS to which a new version renders my system useless without warning. Obviously the incentive to update is incredibly high with new versions of applications being tied into that update. Which is a shame since I genuinely liked Unity. It was horrid in the 10.10 netbook edition but they really made it usable for any sort of computer.
Looks like I'm sticking with Windows. Or dare I even let the thought enter my head - re-enter the ignorant Apple reality distortion field
. Defaults back to gnome. Booo.