Re: Why AS

Darren Eckhoff (
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:37:32 +0000

Let's not beat-up on RedHat because they released a version of AfterStep
before it was considered "stable".  After all, consider the only other
choice they had at the time... NO AFTERSTEP AT ALL!  When was the
last "stable" release of AfterStep that they could have used at the time,
and would it have been better than what was released? 

Consider this, the majority of the e-mail's I've received since posting
my views on 1.5.X have been to NOT recommend upgrading.  The additional
features, they say, do not make up for the things that worked fine in
1.5.X and broke in 1.6.X or 1.7.X.  On top of that, I have yet to hear
of any super-duper feature in the later releases that totally would convince
me to upgrade at the risk of running into a few bugs.

I would love to upgrade, but first give me a release with all the necessary
patches built-in and all the major bugs worked out.  Maybe the developers
should hold off on adding new things and concentrating on fixing the
existing problems in order to put out a stable release of
(or whatever, you get the point).

Let's not lose site of the fact that we all LOVE AfterStep, I just don't want
to wind up with something that might change that attitude.  After all, how
hard is it to downgrade from 1.7.X to 1.5.X if I'm not happy with it?

Darren Eckhoff
Chairman of the board
He-Man AfterStep Lover's Club

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I second this.  It was utterly irresponsible of RH to ship a development
> version as a "working" window manager.
> It still is.  A friend of mine here in Hamilton and I had a lengthy e-mail
> exchange because one of the 1.7 releases was included as a (default-ish
> choice) GNOME wm in RH 6.0.  Nice, if one is already experienced with AS,
> or GNOME, or both, but rather a dirty trick to play on a new user who just
> wanted to get up & running.
> The development releases of AS are unbelievably stable, and it's a tribute
> to the developers that these things work so well.  But development
> releases are still, after all, development.  Things break in unusual ways.
> Anyway, I'll shut up now.
> A
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan | (home)| (work)
>                                    *  *  *
> AfterStep FAQ: or
> On 10 Aug 1999, Doug Alcorn wrote:
> > Darren Eckhoff <> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >   The reason I am hesitant to upgrade is because IT WORKS SO WELL!
> > > Now maybe I'm the exception, but I'd hate to upgrade, patch, re-patch,
> > > re-re-patch, and still find out that something that worked fine before
> > > now pukes when you activate the smallest of bugs.
> > >
> > >   Are the features in 1.6.x or 1.7.x such that it warrents upgrading
> > > from a problemless 1.5.x to a 95% working release?
> > >
> >
> > I did a _lot_ of support back in the 1.5.x and early 1.6.x days.  Red
> > Hat took one of our pre 1.5 beta releases and renamed it to 1.5.0.
> > There were a lot of features that we got working before we actually
> > shipped 1.6.0.  Most of the _really_ cool aestetic stuff is after the
> > RH 1.5.0 rpm.  The beta versions of 1.5 were released as the stable
> > 1.6.x tree.
> >
> > If the rpm shipped with RH 5.2 works OK for you.  Don't upgrade.
> > However, if you see cool screen shots and say, "How do I do that?" We
> > will immediatly reply, "Upgrade."  Sorry.  I wish RH had included one
> > of our 1.6.x rpm as an update, but they didn't.
> >
> > --
> >  (__)  Doug Alcorn
> >  oo /
> >  |_/
> >
> > --
> >    WWW:
> >    FTP:
> >    MAIL:
> >
> >
> --
>    WWW:
>    FTP:
>    MAIL: