Versioning --- the whole truth

NSFW alert!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/04/bofh_2011_episode_17/

 

Hahaha!!! It was to read. But I also agree

 

Very funny, and in some cases almost literally true LOL

 

Everything from browsers to operating systems just got explained in one short article

 

Bwahahaha very true if I may say. Some companies make changes just for the change.

 

Nice find.

 

Yep, the next version will be even more slick, more features removed to make the core feel faster, if you need the feature back, there are thousands of add-ons available that will do exactly that. So there you have your feature back.

(2 weeks later)

It's running like crap again, even slower than before !
- Run it in safe mode, it's *your* fault, you're running add-ons that will slow our product down. Don't come whining to us if you use add-ons, whine at the add-on author.
- But you told me to install an add-on to have my precious feature back.
- I don't care, I tell you, if it's running fast in safe mode, it's your fault, it's you who decided to use add-ons, not we !
.......
.......

 

More like the whole lie.

 

Lmao, so true.

 

Hilarious article with more than a touch of truth about it

 

I'd add that they eventually go to an annual release, ie version 2011, 2012, etc to reflect a new GUI, Facebook integration and a new ask toolbar. Then they request beta testers to help with future versions. The testers can be part of the exciting development of the product. The active beta testers who submit error reports and enhancement suggestions will be promised a free license. Then just after the 2012 product is released it is announced that the product has been purchased by another company. And sorry beta testers the free license promo will not be able to be fulfilled but you can have a 10% discount.

 

Yet another truth, lol...why do I get this gut feeling I know the product of which you speak?

 

Is it a Common-'Secret'?

 

Definitely. Updates and new versions pretending to be progress (mostly eye candy) but done primarily for marketing. The sad part is that people get distracted with this lousy eye candy and often don't see what gets taken away or some less desirable things that get added. I got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.

 

Revisiting the idea of rapid releases -> thoughts from a regular user

^^^
Not recommended reading for those whose minds are already made up.

 

Completely rebutted here: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/2bf478fd4a1e0b1f

 

The link points to the same Jan 12 2012 post as vasa1's, except vasa1's includes an extra
post by Nick. Where is thye rebuttal ?

 

I think "Sir" just had a rush of "Bazinga" to the head

 

What are you asking?

vasa's link goes to the thread named Revisiting the idea of rapid releases -> thoughts from a regular user - created by shadows...@gmail.com .

The link I posted is a direct link to the first answer of that thread, an answer made by Christian Legnitto. That's the answer I'm considering a complete rebuttal.

 

Sure, but vasa1's link includes that rebuttal by C. Legnitto, just scroll down.
Sorry for nitpicking, I'm out of here.

 

I wanted to give special emphasis on the rebuttal by C. Legnitto. Isn't that obvious?

 

http://blog.xfce.org/2012/01/xfce-4010/

 

The "number" attributed to a version means... not a whole lot. I think that it's basically "Big number" ie: 4, 17, whatever. And the little numbers like .123.2 etc.

The big number is a way to keep developers on a release schedule and the little numbers are a way to let developers know when something is new.

For the user it doesn't matter much except to keep track of whether you're onthe latest or not.