- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I just went to fireflymediaserver.com and was redirected to Roku’s site touting the “1.0” release of firefly. What’s up with that?
thanks!
That doesn’t answer the question though – he surely knows about the .org, who could he post here otherwise? 😉
The “Firefly 1.0” is some quite stable nightly build… some 13** nightly if I’m not mistaken.
AFAIK Roku registered both fireflymediaserver.com and fireflymediaserver.org last year and, (according to this thread), RokuPatrick changed the DNS for fireflymediaserver.org to servers under Ron’s control.
Yes, but I thought the question was about “what’s about that there’s a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one”. If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize 😉
@CCRDude wrote:
Yes, but I thought the question was about “what’s about that there’s a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one”. If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize 😉
that’s what I was wondering, you pretty much answered my question.
although I am curious about where the 0.2.xx number comes from and when *it* will reach 1.0…
@theseum wrote:
@CCRDude wrote:
Yes, but I thought the question was about “what’s about that there’s a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one”. If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize 😉
that’s what I was wondering, you pretty much answered my question.
although I am curious about where the 0.2.xx number comes from and when *it* will reach 1.0…
Rolling out stable builds is an amazing pain in the rear. I don’t like doing it at all, although now that I have an automated build system, it’s become a lot easier.
There are a lot of things in the code I am embarrassed about. Once I have those mostly removed, then I’ll feel better about making it a 1.0. Right now, I can just say “It’s still development code! I’m working on it!” But as soon as I release a *real* 1.0, then I’m somehow staking that code out as acceptable code. Which it isn’t right now. The database stuff is really not right at all.
I think that’s really the last thing I have to do before making a 1.0 release. I really do need to settle down for a stable release.
Guess I’ll start pushing for that.
— Ron
Or to say it in a different way: especially in open source, you’ll find a lot of projects with 0.something version numbers, because people who do this kind of work for free usually tend to feel that a version 1.0 should be something they feel absolutely comfortable about. Commercial things on the other hand usually reach version 1.0 not because its perfect, but because the planed X time and Y money was spent and the boss says they need to make profit of it now, having the marketing guys make it look perfect if it isnt yet.
And I guess the Roku 1.0 version is something in between those… Roku wanted something that users will trust (and users will trust 1.something more than 0.something), and didn’t need the most beautiful sourcecode (which users won’t see anyway), as long as the code was stable – a compromise.
I’ve seen really bad and unfinished software with much higher version numbers, so the 0.x is really just a sign of Ron being humble and honest or something like that 😀
I’ll chime in to point out that the new nightlies are very stable. I run 1463 on Ubuntu and have not had much trouble with it. Sure there are some glitches (with 1463 one glitch is a problem with the static playlist part of the Web interfacr), but for the most part it works great. So great in fact, that I have not bothered to update to the newest version, which I believe has fixed that playlist glitch.
If you can be a little bit flexible and are willing to play around with config files and whatnot, even noobie like me can make it work very consistently.
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.