On 13 Mar 2010, at 18:12, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 12:07 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> >> wrote: >>> If you ask me: our recent F11-XO1 builds have reached equal or better >>> quality than build 801, provided you disable automatic power management. >> >> Are all activities working, including collaboration? In Gnome, can you >> actually use FF? Camera? > > >> >>> Hopefully, they will complain a little less on the next upgrade to 0.86 >>> and 0.88... Until they finally get used to the idea that software tends >>> to improve over time rather than getting worse. >> >> Or we slow down to a rhythm that they can cope with ;-)! > > Slowing down deployment of new versions might make things even worse! > > The more changes accumulate, the less familiar the new version will look > like, and the more time the users got to get used to the experience > provided by the old version, no matter how buggy it was. > > The Vista vs XP effect. > > The only way to reduce user adversity to change is getting them used to > smooth change by providing a short development cycle with few changes > that deliver clear improvements to the user experience in terms of new > features or fewer bugs.
Agreed, though this argument only really works if the changes each time are easy to install from the user perspective with no loss of data. I wish we were doing much better here. It feels uncomfortable that Sugar 0.84 is already a year old effort as of this week, from its official release, too far ahead of deployments? --G > The #1 bait we used to push this new release onto teachers was 3G > support. Suffice saying, GSM connectivity is very popular in places with > no wired broadband. > > Unfortunately, this wasn't quite true, bacause many popular Huawei > modems use by default a "Windows compatible" mode in which they show up > as mass-storage devices. After backporting udev to F-11, I found out > that now users are being sold an even newer model of Huawei modem which > is not yet supported by the Fedora 12 version of udev's rules. > > Teachers blamed the new Sugar for breaking their shiny new modems: they > seem unable to distinguish between a regression, a bug in new feature, > or an entirely missing feature. Heh... > > Anyway, now I found a temporary workaround and reported the missing > feature upstream: > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573250 > > Too bad it was so easy: support for new devices would have maed a major > selling point for the next version of Fedora :-) > > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel