Upgrade fever is hardly the problem here, since OS X 10.2 is a significant improvment in quality over OS X 10.1 and this is the first announced, stable release of fink for OS X 10.2.
If so, what is the REAL problem, I wonder? Interpretation of "stable"?
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to justify it. I'm just suggesting a piece of wisdom from a practical point of view. -- being well aware of potential unstability of major releases of ANY kind of products should be a good protection of yourself.As much as I like fink and hate to see if being bashed, I believe that this attitude:For whaterver kind of OS, free or commercial, any major releases are unstable, aren't they???is a big problem for the health of the software community at large.
I totally agree on that, but you have a diIemma between faster releases and better qualities? Both of them are what most users want! I don't think that there is any *a priori* criteria as to which aspect is considered more seriously.The average quality of software is unbelieveably bad and this state of affairs should not be tolerated -- consumers of software should expect a high standard of quality and as developers we should feel some amount of shame for not being able to provide it. (I am not a developer of fink, but I do develop software and I try to hold myself and my colleagues to a high standard of quality -- we don't always succeed, however.)
To boil it down, my point is just this -- You can protect yourself before getting victims of softwares of bad quality. To do that, users need to make THEMSELVES more clever instead of trusting the quality of developers and relying on them too much.
-Kow
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
http://hpc.devchannel.org/
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
