Stable OS's ???

[Brian W]

Like any newbie, I'll have a lot of questions...so bear with me.

I've noticed on http://sourceforge.net/projects/alt-f/files/Releases/ that there are so many RC's available.  But what about having at least one STABLE version as I know that this is a W.I.P.  But after dealing with other software makers,  unless the version is completely numbered...having RC, Beta or any other "do I dare install this" markers makes me wonder if I should have kept D-links default 1.09 considering I'm "relearning" Linux all over again.

TIA

[João Cardoso]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 11:49:08 PM UTC+1, Brian W wrote:

Like any newbie, I'll have a lot of questions...so bear with me.

I've noticed on http://sourceforge.net/projects/alt-f/files/Releases/ that there are so many RC's available.  But what about having at least one STABLE

Alt-F is stable. Software numbering schemes vary according to the soft author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning 

My preferred is Don Knuth Tex way :-)

TeX has an idiosyncratic version numbering system. Since version 3, updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end, so that the version number asymptotically approaches π; this is a form of unary numbering– the version number is the number of digits. The current version is 3.1415926. This is a reflection of the fact that TeX is now very stable, and only minor updates are anticipated. TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the "absolutely final change (to be made after my death)" will be to change the version number to π, at which point all remaining bugs will become permanent features.^[9]
In a similar way, the version number of METAFONT asymptotically approaches e.

 

During Alt-F Beta versions, features where added, then with the RC releases a stabilization period started, with only a few small features added. The next release will probably be 1.0.

However, the RC releases introduced some inner changes that should not be allowed in RC releases, and I'm currently evaluating still another big (inner) change. So, perhaps RC4... hey, I'm just one guy, not a corporation! And I don't have a roadmap.

version as I know that this is a W.I.P.  But after dealing with other software makers,  unless the version is completely numbered...having RC, Beta or any other "do I dare install this" markers makes me wonder if I should have kept D-links default 1.09 considering I'm "relearning" Linux all over again.

You can flash back D-Link firmware from within Alt-F, that's your choice. 

TIA