On 31/10/06 07:05, Basil Chupin wrote:
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. Sorry, have no bridges. How about some beachfront property near Alice Springs?
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]). Given the number of open severe bugs I just found in the mozilla core alone, I have to say you are very lucky.
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! Is Yast not installed?
I won't try to suggest that the problem is a trivial one, because it isn't. Beyond suggesting it might be the unintentional byproduct of some other bug fix (which probably happens a lot more often than anyone might wish to believe), I wont' even speculate how or why it arose. But that is what you get when you sign up for a beta. If you don't even have Yast, the old standby, at your disposal, then yes, it is irreparably broken. Is it really that bad?