Michael Devore escreveu:
Yeah, but if you release what is perceived by more than a few percentage of
users as a failed install or operation, FreeDOS could require significant
damage control. And give more credibility to a few vultures who will
over-hype FD problems for their own purposes,
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand,
that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0
software doesn't have bugs? People expect it. But
Michael Devore wrote:
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I feel it's important to get 1.0 out there to draw a line in the sand,
that we're at least 1.0 quality. We can do what MS-DOS could do. Maybe
we have a few bugs, but (and maybe this is a sad fact) what 1.0
software doesn't have
At 02:01 PM 8/18/2006 -0500, Jim Hall wrote:
Basically, what I'm asking for, and I can't believe I'm doing it, is for a
bit more time to pass, keeping the release based on feedback levels and
with an eye on a firm release date in a timely fashion. Your original
announcement of a month
Michael Devore escreveu:
Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door
today, and frankly I'd like more time than
Alain M. wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
Personally? I want another week to clear my schedule of incoming (and hope
there isn't a lot more) plus monitoring, and another week after that for
follow-up. Currently I feel like I should get a release out the door
today, and frankly I'd
At 09:00 PM 8/18/2006 -0400, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
Alain M. wrote:
May I offer a suggestion: we can have
FreeDOS 1.0 alfa
FreeDOS 1.0 beta 1
FreeDOS 1.0 beta 2
That would keep the schedule *and* allow time to test...
Boy, it seems like 1.0 is a perfection that no one can achieve
