On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Todd Fahrner wrote: > Benjamin Franz wrote, at 10:06 -0800 on 26.11.97: > > > Whups. Scratch that on the low x NS4.0x. It was the MSIE 4.0b browsers > > with ActiveX turned off that made the content vanish (I went back and > > checked my old mail - I reported this to the www-html list back in May). I > > haven't tried it in the MSIE 4.0 final yet. > > Beta software is supposed to crash: that's the point. If authors concern > themselves with coding around bugs in beta software, they impede the work > of the beta testers (you know - 63% of the Web browsing population) and do > a disservice to the developers, who need to know when spec-compliant inputs > break their software. This is true to a lesser degree with dot releases, > isn't it? Users must understand that if they're not running the latest dot > release, they can expect to encounter problems, for which fixes exist > already. No sale. NS finally went to 'drop dead' dates for betas because many people *don't* upgrade unless forced (I've got hits from *NS 0.9b* in my log for yesterday!). As for 'dot' releases - people are reluctant to spend the time to download bug fix releases. According to my stats, over 20% of *everyone* is still using either NS 3.0 or MSIE 3.0 base release - despite their age and many known problems. This is in spite of two 'dot' releases for MSIE 3 and FOUR for NS 3. Basically, as soon as they got to the level that didn't have a drop dead wired in, they stopped upgrading. As an *author* it doesn't really matter *why* people continue to use less than the current 'dot' release: They do and I have to code for it. -- Benjamin FranzReceived on Wednesday, 26 November 1997 14:09:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:53 GMT