After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish+++ belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:16:09 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> That's why they call it "beta" and advice that you only install it on your
>> test machine (or test CMS or whatever). *smile*
>
> And there it is ladies and germs.
> The classic Linux user excuse.
>
> "It's beta/free what do you expect?"
Don't be a dumbass, flatso. I got many months of good service from this
beta version of XFce before hitting this particular pothole.
Of course, the free cost of XFce is a big plus.
> FWIW the entire Linux system can be considered beta, for the most part
> anyway.
It depends on the subsystem and the label. Generally, "stable" releases
will not be "beta" software. And "release candidates" are pretty close
to being solid (unless you're talking about "release candidate" as
issued from the lips of a team leader for project "Vista".)
For example, I'm using Firefox 2.0rc1, and it works well. Did encounter
a Microsoft-based site that froze it, though. But it works well enough
that I ditched 1.5, though I still keep 1.0.7 around for those corporate
sites that use Microsoft software where fixing Javascript actually
breaks it.
Microsoft is a bull in a china shop.
<snide schoolboy "homo" reference snipped>
--
Secret hacker rule #11: hackers read manuals.
|
|
