That seems about right. I'll add that QS has always been in beta and some things have, as near as I can tell, never worked right. Saying QS is "unstable" is probably a bit strong. Some plugins aren't working that used to work (I tried to start a thread to track them but got very little feedback) and some (like iTunes) work better. If a plugin you use regularly is broken, then it's unstable for you, but given that everyone uses different plugins, it might be just fine for someone else. When things have broken badly (like the site going down) Alcor did fix things reasonably quickly, so unsupported is too strong a term too.
Howard On Apr 23, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Luhmann wrote:
Having read the FAQ and this thread, I *still* feel confused about the state of Quicksilver. If I understand correctly, this is the current situation: 1. The developer, Alcor decided that the original code base was too messed up, so announced he would no longer be developing that particular version of QS. 2. This was widely misinterpreted as meaning that QS is dead - but that is incorrect. In fact, Alcor is simply working on a new version of QS which will be even better than the old one. 3. Meanwhile, a lot of Leopard users are frustrated by the performance of the current version of QS, and Ankur Kothari has taken it upon himself to make improvements to the current code base. Those can be found here: http://lipidity.com/software/quicksilver/ However, while some people have been able to make it work, it is not recommended for the average user, and breaks some features of QS. 4. So the end result is that current QS users have a choice between the official unstable version and an unofficial unstable version, but at some unspecified distant time in the future Alcor will release a new and improved version which he is working on when he isn't at his day job with Google. Money will not speed this process along, nor will complaining on the forums. So ... patience. Is this correct?
