🚀 go-pugleaf

ewl@shellx.best.com (Jim Goddard) wrote:

>Brendan McKay (bdm@cs.rit.edu) wrote:
>: You have low standards!  Note what your discovery implies: that the
>: Netscape crowd never tested it over an extended period of time.
>: What sort of beta release is that?  What sort of shitty company is that?

>Beta implies that the code is (at least mostly) complete but needs
>testing.  Now, certainly no coder would ever run for 2 hours without
>stopping, unless 1) He/she was playing or 2) he/she got a bug report
>that required 2 hours of running to produce.  That entire point of
>a BETA version is to find bugs such as these that the programmers, (and
>quite often the internal testers) cannot find because they do not use
>the program in the same manner as the intended audience.

>You are also ignoring the obvious.  BETA==has bugs (Actually released
>==has bugs but that is a different discussion.)  It is entirely
>possible that this bug was know to Netscape but they released the
>BETA version anyway.  This is a perfectly acceptable scenario that
>always takes place.  As long as this bug does not do any damage to
>the user's system and does not seriously deter the testing process,
>why hold up a BETA release to fix it?  I guarantee you cannot find
>a single piece of major software that has been released  without
>known bugs (BETA or otherwise).

>Jim

I agree with Jim... Don't complain about Beta Software, use it at your
own risk! Software can only work fine after a period of testing
(BETA-fase). Else re-install Netscape 1.22.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arjen Rijpma
arjenr@xs4all.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connection Centre - http://www.xs4all.nl/~arjenr/