Going to move the discussion here.
Then there's a problem there. I don't see how even solving all the R1/beta bugs including low priority ones, which should be around twenty, will change anything in this sense. There are lots of problems in an area or another which can be cataloged in the section of the many problems.
It seems then we are still far from this idea of having a beta.
Then, is maybe that the whole idea of R1 is non viable, in contrast with the development model?
We can just have like most projects in the open source world, periodic releases with major, minor and testing versions.
I don't see what would be for you a "stable platform". We certainly can't be bug free, so can you extend?
I see only confusion around. Suppose I'm going tomorrow to submit a patch for each of the R1/beta1 tickets, then what'd change?
The project will still have embarassing bugs. I suggest to focus on the blocker bugs only and release the beta one time for all.
I still don't understand. I must be blind. Wasn't Haiku R1 marketed to be a viable replacement for BeOS R5? It seems this goal is filled since years now.
R1 was promised to be BeOS compatible because the community wanted a solid stone to build a bright future for OpenBeOS. Now Haiku is at this point, why the project fear going forward?
Of course not. But having a release set in stone should motivate some people to advance the project. Supply better API and better support.
Why someone should build an application for an Operating System which missed to do a release for 18 years?