From: XavierGr <xaviergr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:02:06 +0300

I must agree with the side that says not to release until some major bugs
are ironed out.

As already many said, Rockbox will have its first non-Archos release. We
must make it as perfect as we can. Unfortunately many lazy users will just
claim it is worse than defualt firmware when they learn about less battery
life or some weird quirks with playback.

Keep in mind that this release will hit on Digg or Slashdot and other major
technology news sites. So it would be better to keep the image high,
because, most ignorant users will try to spoil that.

My opinion (if it matters):
Either pre-release: 2.x
or just don't release at all.

Daily builds are there for anyone that wants to give Rockbox a try....

On 01/06/06, Jonathan Corbet <corbet_at_lwn.net> wrote:
>
> Andrew Hart <ahart_at_dim.uchile.cl> wrote:
>
> > I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments below concerning the typical
> > user who is too lazy, stupid or incapable of taking five minutes to read
> > the release notes.
>
> Wow. Is that really how this project views its users? That will put
> off more people than the battery life issue ever could.
>
> I guess I would counter that users who cannot be bothered to read the
> written materials will never succeed in installing the bootloader, and
> thus will not be affected by the battery life problem. For the rest, a
> prominent note in the installation instructions should be a sufficient
> word to the wise.
>
> I still think that H3xx Rockbox is an improvement over the stock
> firmware in enough ways that it is worth making generally available. If
> the project would rather leave it out of the 3.0 release, it's not a
> huge deal, though; as has been pointed out, those of us who want it can
> still find it.
>
> jon
>
Received on 2006-06-01