-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 11:06 am, Tibbetts, Ric wrote: > Perhaps, like so many others you missed the intent of the statements to > start with. > The problem is, Mandrake is losing out on the desktop, and server wars > for a reason. The problem of every release is a .0 release, keeps the OS > unstable, and shied away from because of it. > > The suggestions of changing the model were offered in an aire of trying > to help. Not just a RANT. >
I did understand your point, I was not really resonding to you specifically, but to you generally. Although I get your point, I disagree with it somewhat because one of the reasons I use Mandrake is because it is always full of the most current releases of stuff. I don't want 9.1 to have KDE 3.0.5a because it is stable. If I wanted that kind of stability I would use Debian. Of course the other advantages to Mandrake, ease of install and adminstration certainly rank as well. > >>It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this > >>context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the > >>bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only > >>want, but need. > > > > Perhaps those users should use Debian than. > > Yup, that will really help Mandrakesoft out, now won't it? > C'mon. > I was being somewhat sarcastic here, but none the less, distros have different features for a reason. Debian prides itself on stability, and if somebody needs that, they should be using a distro that is known for stability. I for one would be very disappointed if Mandrake chose to put KDE3.0.5a or Mozilla 1.0.xinto 9.1 for stability reasons. > >>I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of > >>Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never > >>simple, but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those > >>outside the company. > > > > I know many say perception is reality, but some must correct thier > > perceptions with reality. > > And sometimes, people outside the company with experience in these > matters can actually offer suggestions that just could help a company > that is faltering. > I agree with you wholeheartedly, however the point I was trying to make was that as we all sit around here and discuss these things, very often we have that discussion based on what we think a particular term, like beta, rc or stability mean, without acknowledging the way MandrakeSoft means them. I do not believe that we should not communicate with the company to try to get them to change their definition, or modify thier way of thinking. Perhaps changing the way releases are numbered, so that common perception aligns with reality is the way to go, but as an alternative to your proposal, instead of changing the MandrakeSoft release philosophy, change the numbering so there are no longer any point releases. 10 and 11 vs 9.1 and 9.2. Although this would align reality more with what peoples understandings of releases are, I acknowledge that it does not address your criticism about bug fixing. Personally, if we're going to go the Club route, I'd rather see an annual release with updates to the latest release available for new packages that come out throughout the year. Put one team on maintaining the current stable and another on developing the next annual release. - -- Greg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XQmJGu5uuMFlL5MRAgdbAJwKMWPAUugtd2H4Q0KNdeyOwrykOQCfXj3S IUa1EcQsXrjdIzLQUhVjBWA= =HFOQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
