Once again I question why there is only one hifi system that gets constantly bombarded with changes that don’t work or don’t work yet. Why not have a system that is kept in a reasonably stable state that gets updated when changes in the test/development environment are judged to be stable and have been DOCUMENTED so that ‘testers’ can actually test instead of flail around.
If you would like to experience a moderately stable virtual reality , i can recommend Second life.
I never knew you can have stable alpha releases. Small quote from wiki
Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.
You want a beta version, i think that’s planned for 2016. But don’t nail me on that.
Well, there are alpha testers and alpha users. For me this is a difference. When I have developed software - and this were great programs, which have controlled different devices how microscopes, high resolution cameras and controllers, than I have had a small team of alpha testers. When a version was stable enough, we have given it to users to test. But this has meant - the program has started at different platforms, the worst crashes were gone already and the basic functionality has worked. You can’t confront an alpha user with hourly updates. There must be a more or less stable version for a while. So I think about this. Go to Secondlife is not the answer, I would give my users.
Every software system I have ever worked on that was opened for any test had a testable version and the development version. The development version got all the myriad changes and was not expected to be testable except for the testing of current development by developers. The actual test environment, be it pre-alpha, alpha or beta, was kept in a reasonably stable condition with sufficient documentation to allow testers to ascertain how the system should work at that point in the cycle.
@Richardus.Raymaker Love it or leave it is a rather pathetic response.
ok then we will make you stay
Seems your world is a bit… limited… in perspective.