Zenon Panoussis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Why do you think that a 0.x version reflects immaturity? I guess this > > paradigm comes from the commercial software world... > > Not really. Commercial software never starts at anything below 1.0 > anyway. But the 1.0 version is a way of marking that the basic goals > of the software have been achieved, that it does what it is meant to > do and not only half of it, that it is sufficiently bug-free to be > presentable in good company, that kind of thing.
You mean, like Windows 1.0? Plus, you are forgetting that most software's goals change over time, even Windows' ones did. > 1.0 for software is like the 18th birthday for humans; it carries a > symbolical value. I agree that many people take "1.0" as carrying a symbolical value. But in reality, half of all software products are far from usable at 1.0, and the other half has reached maturity long before 1.0. As a matter of fact, this "1.0 = first mature version" thing is an illusion. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
