These aren't different distributions (that is different similar
projects with possibly different goals and approaches) but different
versions of the same release. They aren't tested very extensively
(hence the designation "alpha") and are there for people to try and
report issues. The creators tried to fix problems and certainly some
problems are fixed compared to B54, but QS is complicated and fixing
one thing may break something else. With something as sprawling as QS
(100 different plugins), it's hard to even know if you break something
else. Most people only use a few plugins and if a release breaks
something in a plugin you don't use, you don't care about that.
It all depends on what your threshold of instability is. All QS
releases have some (significant) issues. If it's low, stick with B54.
If you want, or if you often run into B54 bugs, try the latest alpha
release and see if that's better for you. It would be ideal if each
release was documented succinctly as to what it's strengths and
weaknesses are and that was easily available to potential users. Alas,
documentation isn't always the strong point of free and open source
projects, but it is something that non-programmers can help out the
programmers with.
Howard
On Sep 30, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Chris Cairns wrote:
On 30-Sep-08, at 9:04 PM, Patrick wrote:
Hopefully I've made it a bit clearer, a1 - a3 are older alphas, but
are still up as some are more stable than others.
does it not complicate things? (Its only a question, not a
comment.....i am not a programmer)
I mean, i would try a1, and then move to a2 to find that some of the
things i did with a1 may be less stable now....and so on. And with
so many different releases by so many different people.....is it not
more difficult to move ahead? ....someone may work on some bugs on
B56a3 and other on B55 or B5X or on B54 and ultimately all these
efforts do not help to build just one single release which is better
than all. Its like linux-----so many different distributions and
all with their own advantages and disadvantages and their own bugs
and issues.......i guess thats not what open source is for. That
is why, i sometimes wish that the new QS to be released by Alcor
better not be open source. ..........so that whatever little time he
has to give to QS ....helps keep QS moving forward and not back and
forth........i mean, there are those who use QS all their life and
dont even want to try these new releases because of some issue or
other in each different release which takes their comfort away. (I
repeat, i am not a programmer.....so may be, i am completely
wrong......i am only presenting my views as an "user" of
QS.......plz dont take it as criticism.....i know you are all
working for QS and not for any monetary gains)
Of the current
release, there's an intel and a universal build.
On Sep 29, 6:51 pm, Chris Cairns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i know QS is open-source but someone plz tell me, how many different
QS do we have?
(i dont mean different versions released from time to time. i mean,
different version all coming at the same time)
there's a B54(3815) (which is called B53 on the website)
then B55a4
now here i see
some B56(a1 to a4) herehttp://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/downloads/list
and what is an alpha release?
and how many developers (like Ankur who has B5X) developing more
QS ?
On 29-Sep-08, at 9:39 PM, elventear wrote:
On the Google Code site there are two files, the v3823 and the
universal version. Why does the universal version have a lower
number
3818 ? Do they have the exact same changes? Or they different?
Thanks!
