was it always so common to release unstable updates?
>>106435550Op here, I use arch btw
No but we can no longer afford waiting testing for months, shareholders won't be happy
>>106435550I wouldn't know.
In the olden days software was delivered on a physical format, tape, floppies, cartridge, CD. It had to run properly on the customer's computer right away with no patching, updates, etc. So a lot of care was taken in making a 'gold master' that at least was bug free to the greatest possible extent. All work on new features would stop for a period and the software was stress tested and every bug shaken down. It would be checked for memory leaks. It would be checked for crashes. They would even put effort into making it exit cleanly. Because if the software didn't work the company would get a bad rep and especially the software itself would too.Now as it's industry standard practice to use paying customers as alpha testers, it's all people know. And any bug can be fixed later, just tell the poor sods to updoot and reboot. You can't just stop everything and go on a bug hunt every so often, the other guy's not stopping! Gotta compete! Feature parity plus+!
>>106435700thiswe worked on an app and the deadlines were pretty hard, we had to skip the testing completely to make the shareholders and their deadlines happy.
>>106435647I'm shocked. Arch is the problem.
