Issue 2. [Re: [ros-general] ROS-User-Issues]
dhinchliffe at mpl.com.au
Wed Oct 26 04:46:22 CEST 2005
> Statements like ReactOS is still an Alpha release is not necessary.
> Microsoft has made the eternal Alpha release it's fortune.
> Now Red Hat has too, and most other Linux releases.
> Copy Cat Industrialised production cannot be trusted.
> I get mixed messages from ReactOS Users.
> Is this an issue worth pursuing?
I don't think it is right to compare ReactOS stating that it is an alpha
release to Microsoft and Redhat (or other Linux distro) releases. Sure,
there is undoubtably a history of Microsoft releasing software that it has
been best to steer clear of until at least SP1, but I don't think you can
say that ReactOS is anywhere near any previous Windows release in terms of
functionality relevant to the average user.
And nobody at this stage can expect it to be, hence the 'alpha' releases.
I think maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft and Linux
distros have made beta releases, rather than alpha. Beta releases will
generally contain the functionality expected, but may contain bugs in the
way that functionality is implemented, whereas alpha releases are
generally lacking in expected functionality.
So I believe it is correct to term ReactOS as 'Alpha' (and to make this
clear to users, there is no point in hiding the truth) for the time being.
People are then more likely to be impressed with the progress so far (as
they should be) rather than disappointed because they expected a usable
More information about the ros-general