🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug18.220408.24269@leland.Stanford.EDU> m@crito.stanford.edu (M Carling) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.204351.178605@lexmark.com> songer@lexmark.com  
>(Christopher Songer) writes:
>> I'd have to agree with this. My current assumption is that 3.0 is likely
>> to be pretty unstable -- I think I'm going to wait for 3.1. If this does
>> in fact come to pass (I'd like to be wrong) then Next seems to be making 
>> a habit of this. (I'm sure everyone recalls how stable 2.0 was :) Next
>> has great software, but the base has to be stable for it to be usable.
>
>NeXT is not currently planning a 3.1 release. They would like to be able  
>to make 4.0 the next release. I am cynical, but I expect that, eventually,  
>the reasons against an interim release will be overcome.

Unlness 3.0 runs on every piece of hardware they will have between 3.0 and
4.0 (i.e. no new hardware until 4.0) then I'd expect 3.x releases if not
just for new hardware.  They would be silly not to fix bugs in these
releases.....
-- 
:: Christopher Lloyd :: a74k110@titan.ucc.umass.edu :: Yrrid, Inc. ::