Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> If it isn't stable and released than it is called alpha or beta, not final.
> GCC 3.0 is final, so it is stable.  If it is not, then it is from M$ ;-)
> Alternatively, it is just incompetence of the authors - their own list for
> testing included the Linux kernel...

Let's clarify some points.

IMNSHO...

Alphas are (should be) for testing the bare functionnalities
of a program, testing some new ideas, have the first feedback.
They are very buggy, and testers usually need to have means
to contact authors personnaly in order to solve problems
(that means a small team of testers)

Betas are (should be) for having most of the bugs squished,
and to have more feedback in terms of usability of the program.

But when no more bugs are found by the beta testers, and
everything seems stable and finished (as planned), it's time
for release.

And when the program is released, much more people use it,
and people use it for real-life needs, indeed, and so new,
hard-to-catch bugs are found. System incompatibilities, too,
because you can't test your program in every possible
configuration.

Most programs that I use have a .1 or .01 or whatever,
because that's the version the authors distribute. The .0
release is generally replaced by the same, bugless (we hope)
version.

Complex pieces of code like gcc, or the Linux kernel,
which use a lot of elaborate mechanisms, which deploys
for the first time new whole pieces of program (this is
a major realease guys!) have a 101% chance of containing
bugs.

I'm impressed to see lots of people rushing to use ReiserFS
to store their data, while there still are known bugs into
it! Using an instable program to do some calculus, or some
games is fine for me, but storing data unreliably... Wow.

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message