Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51046 > unrolled thread

The Death of 10.8?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 14:08 +0000
    Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 15:53 +0100
      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:12 +0000
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:34 -0700
          Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 16:48 +0100
            Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 16:55 +0100
              Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 16:24 +0000
                Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 17:33 +0100
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 10:10 -0700
                Re: The Death of 10.8? David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2013-10-28 16:14 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:39 +1300
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 14:23 -0700
          Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:54 +0000
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 14:50 -0400
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 19:56 +0100
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 15:11 -0400
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:24 +0000
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 18:10 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 07:49 +0000
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 05:49 -0400
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 10:25 +0000
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 06:52 -0400
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 11:41 +0000
                            Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 10:29 -0400
                              Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:38 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:36 -0700
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:35 -0700
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:33 -0700
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-29 08:47 -0500
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:45 +0000
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 14:32 -0400
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 09:57 -0400
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 07:35 -0700
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:50 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 08:58 -0700
                            Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 16:03 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:36 +0000
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 14:32 -0400
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 18:11 -0400
      Re: The Death of 10.8? David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2013-10-28 12:19 -0400
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 19:59 +0100
      Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 16:22 +0000
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:53 +0000
          Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 21:55 +0000
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 22:53 +0000
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-28 18:58 -0400
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 23:24 +0000
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 19:13 -0400
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 16:32 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 16:35 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 20:04 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 22:45 -0400
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:26 +0000
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-29 18:14 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 23:59 -0400
      Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:50 +0000
      Re: The Death of 10.8? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 10:53 +1300

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#51176

In article <barmar-DFEBF4.05492829102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> > "beta".
> 
>  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
>  release.

...which doesn't make the first release "beta". 

-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51178

In article <slrnl6v3ko.dca.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <barmar-DFEBF4.05492829102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry 
> Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any 
> > > problems 
> > > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> > > "beta".
> > 
> >  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
> >  release.
> 
> ...which doesn't make the first release "beta".

What part of "effectively beta" or "beta-quality" are you trying 
incredibly hard to avoid understanding?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51179

In article <barmar-82FEC4.06521729102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any 
> > > > problems with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me 
> > > > consider it "beta".
> > > 
> > >  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
> > >  release.
> > 
> > ...which doesn't make the first release "beta".
> 
>  What part of "effectively beta" or "beta-quality" are you trying 
>  incredibly hard to avoid understanding?

Huh? I wrote the top-quoted statement above, where I explained that I, 
personally, never have used a 10.x.0 version of OSX that I would ever call 
"beta-quality", where you responded with the fact that there usually is a 
point upgrade soon after release.

I interpreted that as you telling me that this is a sign that the 10.x.0 
release is of beta-quality, which of course it isn't. I replied with the 
correct fact that releasing an update soon after the release version does 
not make the release version a beta version, or even a "beta-quality" 
version. 

If that wasn't your intention with your comment, I can't really find any 
intention with it at all. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51188

In article <slrnl6v83c.dgv.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <barmar-82FEC4.06521729102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry 
> Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > > > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any 
> > > > > problems with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me 
> > > > > consider it "beta".
> > > > 
> > > >  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
> > > >  release.
> > > 
> > > ...which doesn't make the first release "beta".
> > 
> >  What part of "effectively beta" or "beta-quality" are you trying 
> >  incredibly hard to avoid understanding?
> 
> Huh? I wrote the top-quoted statement above, where I explained that I, 
> personally, never have used a 10.x.0 version of OSX that I would ever call 
> "beta-quality", where you responded with the fact that there usually is a 
> point upgrade soon after release.

Well, that's your opinion. Many others usually wait for 10.x.1 before 
installing it, allowing you and all the other early adopters to test it 
for them.

For instance, I've read that Mavericks has some issues with Smart 
Folders in Mail disappearing after the upgrade. Not a critical failure, 
but serious enough that many users will be inconvenienced.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51192

In article <barmar-B0D91B.10295229102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > > > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any 
> > > > > > problems with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me 
> > > > > > consider it "beta".
> > > > > 
> > > > >  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
> > > > >  release.
> > > > 
> > > > ...which doesn't make the first release "beta".
> > > 
> > >  What part of "effectively beta" or "beta-quality" are you trying 
> > >  incredibly hard to avoid understanding?
> > 
> > Huh? I wrote the top-quoted statement above, where I explained that I, 
> > personally, never have used a 10.x.0 version of OSX that I would ever call 
> > "beta-quality", where you responded with the fact that there usually is a 
> > point upgrade soon after release.
> 
>  Well, that's your opinion.

As I clearly and unambiguously stated.

>  Many others usually wait for 10.x.1 before installing it, allowing you 
>  and all the other early adopters to test it for them.

Which doesn't make it "beta" either.
 
>  For instance, I've read that Mavericks has some issues with Smart 
>  Folders in Mail disappearing after the upgrade. Not a critical failure, 
>  but serious enough that many users will be inconvenienced.

Hasn't happened to me, and wouldn't make it be "beta" either. There can be 
bugs in a 10.x.9 release as well. 



-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51184

In article <barmar-82FEC4.06521729102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had
> > > > any problems with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would
> > > > make me consider it "beta".
> > > 
> > >  There's almost always a software update within a month or so of
> > >  the release.
> > 
> > ...which doesn't make the first release "beta".
> 
> What part of "effectively beta" or "beta-quality" are you trying
> incredibly hard to avoid understanding?

What part of "No software is bug free," do you not understand?  "Golden
Master" does not mean "bug free".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51182

In article <barmar-DFEBF4.05492829102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> > "beta".
> 
> There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
> release.

Yup; it's to fix minor bugs that didn't make the cut for the release,
and sometimes to fix a major bug that didn't get caught before release.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51181

In article <slrnl6uqf2.d0e.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> >  Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
> >  always effectively a beta.
> 
> But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> "beta". 

Including 10.0.0?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51185

On 2013-10-29 13:33:35 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <slrnl6uqf2.d0e.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically
>>> always effectively a beta.
>> 
>> But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems
>> with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it
>> "beta".
> 
> Including 10.0.0?

For me, yeah.  I've never had an issue with OSX upgrades along the line 
since the very first.  I will say there were some I didn't see much 
gain with though.

Don't ask which ones, I don't remember.  Getting old ain't for pussies 
you know!!!  :)

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51193

In article <291020130633351533%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > >  Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
> > >  always effectively a beta.
> > 
> > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> > "beta". 
> 
>  Including 10.0.0?

Well, actually no. I wouldn't call it beta. I would call it the first 
release of a new operating system. Only super-early adopters used it (me 
included) and it lacked tons of features, but not due to it being "beta 
quality". I'm sure it had lots of bugs as well, but none that I can think 
of now. The main problem with 10.0 and 10.1 was that it lacked features, 
but lacking features doesn't make it beta unless the supposed final version 
should have had them.

But then again, this was a long time ago, maybe there were tons of bugs I 
don't remember. I do remember that Kodiak, the "Public Beta" had tons and 
tons of bugs, but that *was* a beta. :)

-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51216

In article <291020130633351533%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > >  Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
> > >  always effectively a beta.
> > 
> > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> > "beta". 
> 
> Including 10.0.0?

10.0.* was more alpha than beta, let alone release. it was missing a
significant amount of functionality and horribly slow. 

a lot changed in 10.1, which was the first version that was usable (and
that's being generous). it was free for a reason, because 10.0 was such
a pile of shit.

10.2 was much better, and where it started to become usable by more
than early adopters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51186

Sandman:
> But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> "beta".

Same here. That the new version gets updated in a month or so to fix
minor bugs still does not make it a beta. Crashes, locks up, doesn't do
what it is supposed to do--that would be a beta OS. I personally
haven't seen much of that since 10.0.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51190

In article <291020130957237203%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> Sandman: > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never
> had any problems > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would
> make me consider it > "beta".
> 
> Same here. That the new version gets updated in a month or so to fix
> minor bugs still does not make it a beta. Crashes, locks up, doesn't
> do what it is supposed to do--that would be a beta OS. I personally
> haven't seen much of that since 10.0.

If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
are in place and work at least rudimentally.

Beta means that all major bugs have been squashed and all features are
full operational, even if not bug free.  (This doesn't mean that
something can't be broken later, or that a new feature can't be added. 
When we were beta testing Claris Emailer 2.0, the beta testers
requested a new feature, which we added.)

Golden Master means that the software is ready to ship, and needs only
a final shakedown before release; if the shakedown discloses anything
that requires fixing, it gets fixed and a new Golden Master is
produced.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51195

In article <291020130735543773%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Sandman: > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never
> > had any problems > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would
> > make me consider it > "beta".
> > 
> > Same here. That the new version gets updated in a month or so to fix
> > minor bugs still does not make it a beta. Crashes, locks up, doesn't
> > do what it is supposed to do--that would be a beta OS. I personally
> > haven't seen much of that since 10.0.
> 
>  If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
>  feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
>  are in place and work at least rudimentally.

Not generally not. It's up to anyone how they want to apply these labels to 
their projects of course, but hte consensus is that "alpha" means that the 
software is run internally for testing.

"beta" is when the software is feature-complete and it is released for 
external testing (by users, other developers, depending on your setup).

Some use "pre-alpha" as well to signify the phase before internal testing 
and very little executable code has been written. Depending on how you 
develop this phase can include mockups, UI stacks, databases and data, but 
not anything complete to hold them together. :)



-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51197

In article <slrnl6vml8.dqj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> >  If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
> >  feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
> >  are in place and work at least rudimentally.
> 
> Not generally not. It's up to anyone how they want to apply these labels to 
> their projects of course, but hte consensus is that "alpha" means that the 
> software is run internally for testing.

The definitions I gave are my recollection of how we used the terms at
Claris.

> "beta" is when the software is feature-complete and it is released for 
> external testing (by users, other developers, depending on your setup).

Sometimes we didn't release the products for external testing until we
were in late beta; just because it was beta didn't mean we released it
for external testing.

> Some use "pre-alpha" as well to signify the phase before internal testing 
> and very little executable code has been written. Depending on how you 
> develop this phase can include mockups, UI stacks, databases and data, but 
> not anything complete to hold them together. :)

We were testing during pre-alpha, but only those areas the developers
said to test.  The object was to find and fix bugs as early in the
development cycle as we could possibly do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51199

In article <291020130858547861%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > >  If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
> > >  feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
> > >  are in place and work at least rudimentally.
> > 
> > Not generally not. It's up to anyone how they want to apply these labels to 
> > their projects of course, but hte consensus is that "alpha" means that the 
> > software is run internally for testing.
> 
>  The definitions I gave are my recollection of how we used the terms at
>  Claris.

Yes, and I merely added how they are generally used. As I said, they can be 
used for whatever purpose one sees fit, of course.

> > "beta" is when the software is feature-complete and it is released for 
> > external testing (by users, other developers, depending on your setup).
> 
>  Sometimes we didn't release the products for external testing until we
>  were in late beta; just because it was beta didn't mean we released it
>  for external testing.

Sure, but again, that's usually how it is done. 

> > Some use "pre-alpha" as well to signify the phase before internal testing 
> > and very little executable code has been written. Depending on how you 
> > develop this phase can include mockups, UI stacks, databases and data, but 
> > not anything complete to hold them together. :)
> 
>  We were testing during pre-alpha, but only those areas the developers
>  said to test.  The object was to find and fix bugs as early in the
>  development cycle as we could possibly do.

Always a noble goal :)

-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51268

In message <slrnl6vml8.dqj.mr@irc.sandman.net> 
  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <291020130735543773%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> > Sandman: > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never
>> > had any problems > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would
>> > make me consider it > "beta".
>> > 
>> > Same here. That the new version gets updated in a month or so to fix
>> > minor bugs still does not make it a beta. Crashes, locks up, doesn't
>> > do what it is supposed to do--that would be a beta OS. I personally
>> > haven't seen much of that since 10.0.
>> 
>>  If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
>>  feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
>>  are in place and work at least rudimentally.

> Not generally not. It's up to anyone how they want to apply these labels to 
> their projects of course, but hte consensus is that "alpha" means that the 
> software is run internally for testing.

I've been in several alphas over the years, all were external tests.
However, the terminology has evolved. Alpha is mostly dead, and even
beta is used far less than it was, and it now means an "early preview
given to our customers in the hopes they find some bugs."

> "beta" is when the software is feature-complete and it is released for 
> external testing (by users, other developers, depending on your setup).

Beta is *supposed* to work, but it is understood that just because it
is supposed to work doesn't mean it will.


-- 
Ninety percent of true love is acute, ear-burning embarrassment.  --Wyrd
Sisters

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51217

In article <291020130735543773%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <291020130957237203%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > Sandman: > But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never
> > had any problems > with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would
> > make me consider it > "beta".
> > 
> > Same here. That the new version gets updated in a month or so to fix
> > minor bugs still does not make it a beta. Crashes, locks up, doesn't
> > do what it is supposed to do--that would be a beta OS. I personally
> > haven't seen much of that since 10.0.
> 
> If I recall correctly from my days in software development, alpha means
> feature complete; i.e., all features specified in the design documents
> are in place and work at least rudimentally.

the definition has eroded (gmail endless beta anyone?) but as i learned
it:

development - work in progress. features being added or changed. likely
to crash and you will lose data.

alpha - feature complete. level one bugs (crashing) exist. you may lose
work.

beta - feature complete. many bugs remain but nothing major. can be
used for actual work but not ready for commercial release. 

release - most bugs fixed. there will always be some bugs but nothing
that is a show stopper

> Beta means that all major bugs have been squashed and all features are
> full operational, even if not bug free.  (This doesn't mean that
> something can't be broken later, or that a new feature can't be added. 
> When we were beta testing Claris Emailer 2.0, the beta testers
> requested a new feature, which we added.)
> 
> Golden Master means that the software is ready to ship, and needs only
> a final shakedown before release; if the shakedown discloses anything
> that requires fixing, it gets fixed and a new Golden Master is
> produced.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51120

On 10-28-2013, 11:54, Sandman wrote:
> In article <l4m05v$qvd$1@dont-email.me>, Michelle Steiner <email@michelle> wrote:
>>   Some people believe that any n.0 release is really a final beta, and
>>   that the real product doesn't come until the n.1 release, or maybe the
>>   n.0.1 release.
>
> What people "believe" is of no importance here. The author of the software
> gets to decide whether or not is a beta version or not. The user of the
> software does not get to decide that.

It is what it is--good or bad--and calling it crap or calling it Omega 
won't change what it is.


-- 
Wes Groleau

   Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51067

In article <526e7a6e$0$8957$c3e8da3$4e334b76@news.astraweb.com>,
 Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-10-28 14:08:03 +0000, Lewis said:
> 
> > I flippantly said that Apple could drop support for 10.8 now that 10.9
> > is out for the same hardware at no cost. I wasn't being serious at the
> > time, but after seeing how Apple is pushing Mavericks on the App Store
> > I'm not so sure that they are not planning on dropping 10.8 very soon.
> > 
> > Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in Software Update
> > sometime soon, maybe when the first security update comes out.
> 
> The question is "What's wrong with this?". 10.8 has no perks 
> whatsoever(at least I don't see them) in comparison to 10.9. Why would 
> you want to stay on Mountain Lion? I am not talking about _now_. Of 
> course, at the moment 10.9 is still in beta state. But after the 10.9.1 
> I would expect to have a nice and stable system, with improved Finder, 
> iCloud keychain and other features. 

I can think of three reasons for me to stay on 10.8, at least for now. 
1) MT-Newswatcher doesn't run on 10.9 
2) My version of EndNote doesn't run on 10.9
3) My version of Acrobat doesn't run on 10.9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web