Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3139 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Installing 10.2 beta 1: read this BEFORE installing
  • From: Basil Chupin <blchupin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:05:28 +0000 (UTC)
  • Message-id: <45474A09.7020705@xxxxxxxxxx>
Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 31/10/06 05:49, Basil Chupin wrote:
<snip>
Here is what the wikipedia, in part, has to say about beta version:

Basil, if you are relying on wikipedia as being definitive, I have some
farmland to sell you -- about 350 km due east of Sydney :-)

Not interested in farmland--there's a drought you know. But I'm in the market for a good Bridge, preferably with Harbour views, if you have something in this line.


QUOTE
beta release (pronounced "beetah" or "bayta") usually represents the
first version of a computer program that implements all features in
the initial software requirements specification. It is likely to be
unstable but useful for internal demonstrations and previews to select
customers, but not yet ready for release. Some developers refer to
this stage as a preview, as a technical preview (TP) or as an early
access.
UNQUOTE

It then goes on to say-

QUOTE
When a beta becomes available to the general public it is often widely
used by the technologically savvy and those familiar with previous
versions as though it were the finished product.
UNQUOTE

And general availability of the 10.2 alphas does what to this statement?
This statement naturally extends to "a beta is generally regarded by the
techoids and the experienced user as a finished product".. note the
subtle difference, "regarded to be finished" vs. "used as if it were
finished". IMO, both views are ludicrous. A beta is there to be broken
(ie. you're the end user, try it, break it, and let us know what bugs
you find).

I think both you and Clayton are missing the point here. I fully understand and accept that a beta may be unstable and there to be broken (but strangely, every beta of Firefox has performed almost flawlessly; the same I can say about Thunderbird and I am now using the beta1 of v2.0 without any problems [except one very minor one which doesn't affect its daily use]).

Before you can find out if the program is unstable or can be broken you must be able to *install* the damn thing. Beta1 won't even install correctly for chrissake! :-) . You cannot even find out what has been installed when you do install it after doing the "workaround" because one of the key components--for which 10.1 has now become infamous--is not installed by the installation module!

If you look at the Most Annoying Bugs list you will see that there was no mention for the need of a "workaround" during installation in alpha5 --it came in at the beta 1 stage. Now, surely any fair minded person would take this as progress, a natural step necessary for the software to now come under the definition of a beta and therefore be deemed as possibly unstable and probably full of bugs.

How can you take a piece of software called v10.1 which works, work on it for months to fix any discovered bugs as well as introduce new features, eg the latest Linux kernel and the new-look menus, call the work-in-progress alphas, reach alpha5 stage and then put out a beta which won't even install?!

[pruned]


Cheers.


--
I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups