 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years,
it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where
you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:55:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a very
good job.
Version numbers in OSS, like commercial software, are nothing more than
marketing tools.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
> for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a very
> good job.
Would you build a commercial product around it? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:43:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
>> for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a
>> very good job.
>
> Would you build a commercial product around it? :-)
As it's included in commercial distributions, the question seems somewhat
moot to me. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> As it's included in commercial distributions,
Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken it
is, the more money they make.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace. Emacs is still at 23.1
ever since the Paleolithic. The Linux kernel is still 2.6!!
Also, the more specialized and difficult, the slower to change.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>
>
> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
> it is, the more money they make.
Um, I don't see how. Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Um, I don't see how. Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
>
> Jim
See! I _told_ you that Novell had its business model wrong :-D
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years,
> it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where
> you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
Would you trust a software which version number is 1.0? Or would you wait
for at least something like 1.0.5?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>>
>> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
>> it is, the more money they make.
>
> Um, I don't see how.
If you can copy it for free, the only business model is to charge to fix it.
Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a living
if all software is free?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
