Re: PRE releases

Reuben Farrelly wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> At 10:16 PM 2/10/99 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> >I've noticed quite a few people reporting problems with 2.2 PREn releases,
> >and I strongly suspect a lot of them don't know that the PRE means that it
> >may not be reliable.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Perhaps the squid web page could put some more warnings on the download
> >pages for pre-releases that they should wait for the RELEASE version if they
> >want something stable.
>
> That sounds logical to me. I gather that people are a bit too keen to
> deploy "pre" releases on production machines.
>
> Perhaps a small point, but people get used to "beta" for non production
> software - using PRE could be taken to mean to be more suitable than beta -
> even though I understand from what I've read that there is no difference
> except the wording:)

'Certain' biggish software companies routinely release PRE and BETA
software to the public, and most folks (unfortunately..I grit my teeth
over this) just grab it and install it, without even thinking, and
_expect_ it to work just fine....or at least no worse than those
companies' release offerings.

I think people have been desensitized to the potential problems of
pre-release software. They either don't care or don't think. Personally,
I _will_ use pre-release, or beta software on production boxes, but only
if it passes through my testing schedule. But then, I perform the same
testing on release software as well, and if it doesn't pass, it doesn't
go on. Most people - I find - test neither.

Hope springs eternal, and all that.

D
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 17:03:53 MST