There is nothing wrong with that approach as long as you are clear on
'what isn't wrong' and 'what isn't broken'.
Many bugs are fixed each release. Some of them are otherwise unknown
bugs that the devs discover as they are refining the code and fixing
other known bugs. But plenty are the result of existing bug reports on a
previous version.
So while generally GnuCash performs well, the idea of 'not broke' is
subjective depending on your needs and use case. And in some cases, for
some needs, the latest and greatest fixes those bugs and thus makes the
software that much more useful.
Of course, the question of, "Does this applies to me?", is for you alone
to decide.
Regards,
Adrien
On 12/5/23 11:45 AM, G R Hewitt wrote:
There is always a drive to have the latest iteration of this, that and the
other - out with the old and in with the new.
My MacPro was bought off my son when his firm upgraded his to the latest
(being Apple they could afford to) and he was able to buy it from them.
It is a Mid 2010 and I have had it for 8 years and it does everything I
need. I have a 2017 iMac too, but my main go-to is the MacPro.
My point in telling you that is that if your current set up does all you
require, and you have no need for additional bells and whistles, I'd stick
with it
and save yourself the hassle of learning a new set of features and their
attendant bugs. The maxim 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind.
But. If you are full of daring-do and to hell with the consequences, by all
means upgrade, I did and I quite like it and with the pleasing interface
make-over
provided by a list member whose name regretfully escapes me, I'm very happy
with it.
If you can't make your mind up, toss a coin and if you are not happy with
the result, do the opposite.
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
