Detailed technical computer model number and hardware specs should be included on customer facing certification site

I will comment on the tittle of this bug:
"Detailed technical computer model number and hardware specs should be included on customer facing certification site"

I would say for the certification list to be usefull as a buying guide, the list must include SKU number, if the list contains SKU number, then detailed HW description should be unnecessary and maybe even confusing if it does not match the specs on the manufacturers site.

Another thing....

Why is bug #650550 marked duplicate of this one, I believed that the convention was that the first bug was the main bug and all later bugs (like this one) was duplicates...

Jarl

@Jarl sometimes a later bug is a dupe of an earlier one, sometimes vice versa. It doesn't really matter so long as the necessary data is captured.

@Alan, you may be right from a bug-fixers point of view. But things look different from a bug-reporters point of view. I consider it quite dis-respectful to the bug reporter. Quite some time and effor is spent to make good valuable bug reports (here among searching for existing identical bugs), if this effort is not respected bug repporters wil most likely not put so much effort into the process in the future since the effort (searching for existing identical bugs) is (apparently) not valued and respected anyway.

Marking a bug as duplicate sends two messages to the bug reporter:
1) Your effor tin reporting the bug has been waste of your time, since another person have reported the same issue.
2) You have waste the time of bug-fixers (by not searching for identical bug) because they have spent time on identifying it as a duplicate.

Tell me. Why would I ever want to search for previously reported bugs of identical issue if nobody (no other bug reporters) else does, and nobody (no bug-fixers) really cares if I do it or not?

Jarl

@Jarl your analysis of the impact and time use of duplicates being filed is incorrect.

Many times a different report with the same root cause will expose information the first report missed. Sometimes many reports are needed to triangulate and identify the root cause. So filing a duplicate is not /necessarily/ a waste of time.

Secondly finding duplicates is often much harder for a bug filer than a developer of the package/product - because bug filers don't know the architecture.

Lastly, particularly in complex components like the Linux kernel, developers *do not want* users to search for duplicates: there are so many symptoms that look similar, that it causes a lot of harm when user A comments on a bug filed by user B.

All you need to do to be a good bug filer is:
 - follow the bug filing wizard
 - if it offers a duplicate up, and you think its the same, click on affects me too
 - if you get asked to provide more information, do so

@Robert. Thanks! I agree, I especially see the point in the case of large software component such as the Linux kernel. I have seen several cases where bug-filers comments have confused developers more than helped due to laziness of not reporting a separate bug. I also see the point in apport and bug filing wizard suffers in detecting duplicates (I wonder why bug #650550 didn't show up for this one).

Nevertheless I have also seen (apart from this one) seen examples where bug-filers have felt offended by their bugs being marked duplicates of later bugs.

Though, an interesting discussion, it should take place somewhere else... I will end here with the open question how does duplication marks affect the bug-filers karma? For the bug-filer of the duplicate bug? and for the bug-filer of the main bug?

Jarl

The public certification site now contains details of devices in a given model.