difference between releases

[TM4526 at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/8/04 4:46:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
thad.butterworth at hp.com writes:
>By the way, I’ve tested our competitions printers. HP’s printers are far 
better >designed than anything else I’ve worked with. The point is programming 
and >computer technologies are very young fields. You’re going to find problems 
>whether it’s closed or open source. Just don’t get bitter about it. Work 
instead to >make it better instead of complaining about everything. Like I said 
previously, let’s >see some helpful suggestions
Two words: Paper Paths. Feeding has always been an issue. Your post script
sucks wind too. But I digress...

The "technologies" are not in question, its the controls and the methods. And 
I'm
not sure why you keep harping on open source, because this thread has nothing
to do with it. BSDi vs FreeBSD is a good example. BSDi had a set of features 
and
objectives, and when they were "done" (ie fully tested) they released it. 
Personally
I think BSDi took it to extremes by making releases way too comprehensive and
would have preferred sub-relreases rather than their annoying patch system, 
but
it illustrates the difference between having a meaningful, documented release 
structure rather than just slapping out a snapshot because its "time". At some
point you have to stop working on stuff, hammer out a release, and then start
working again. It shouldn't just be a moment in time of -current, with all 
the 
uncertainty that entails. I'm not saying that's how it works, but when this 
thread
started, that's how it was depicted.