Comment 17 for bug 1922342

@lucap

I dispute that 'they' don't care.

Canonical employees are paid to work only a set number of hours a week, and have responsibilities/tasks they need to complete in their hours, so have very limited time to fix extra issues.

This bug was reported once during the hirsute cycle in QA-testing (by http://launchpad.net/~jmarinho).

I would also likely have reported it too, only at the time the bug report was NOT that the system took ages to boot, but instead that "HIrsute live session does not work on BIOS systems" so my QA tests did not fit the then description of this report (it booted).

Two boxes (of the six) I used were specifically chosen as they were troublesome in the groovy cycle as they were slow. The result of lack of reports (in QA-testing) was this was not a high priority bug.

A number of issues with BIOS devices were discovered during recent cycles in QA-testing (esp. groovy if I recall correctly), and I saw a lot of energy spent on resolving those issues (ISOs were spun for me to download & boot on the two (plus one other) boxes I described as troublesome earlier just so more could be learnt). Late in the cycle though there is limited time, thus bugs with low rating being ignored is to be expected.

The time to get issues detected is usually earlier in the cycle (alpha stage), and via the QA testing site (so testing is tracked, appears in weekly reports regularly/repeatedly etc).

80% of my QA-testing is on BIOS only boxes, but I tend to QA-test lighter flavors as GNOME isn't much 'fun' on c2d & like machines