5 ms·
You can contribute plugins, sure, but the direction of the entire project is in the hands of one person. As others have said, updates have become more scarce i
by trevor-e 12y ago
You can contribute plugins, sure, but the direction of the entire project is in the hands of one person. As others have said, updates have become more scarce in recent times. For example, it was almost 6 months between build Build 3061 and Build 3062.
Open Source doesn't imply that there's a productivity gain. For obvious reasons I'm a lot more comfortable using OS tools at work.
- enraged_camel 12y agoI don't know how much it being open-source will help though. The open-source world is chock full of libraries and tools that have been abandoned long ago, despite having numerous contributors listed on the project. I'd say that about 30-40% of Rails gems I come across everyday have not been updated in a year if not more. Sure, they have forks, but unlike the original gem, they are not mature enough to be used in a production environment.
- Karunamon 12y agoCan I ask a really silly question? Why do updates matter unless there are either serious bugs or glaring missing features? If a tool is relatively bug-free and has a plugin ecosystem which handles added functionality, why does the state of the core program matter all that much?
- drewcrawford 12y agoThe real issue is that of nomenclature. If you are a professional software developer (ST target audience) then you are careful about how you use a #1 development tool that calls itself "unstable". It implies certain things about whether it is a good idea to install on a mission-critical server for example, or whether it is a good idea to invest time in writing plugins against its API. The product itself may be relatively bug-free, but that is not really the issue. RHEL7Beta was relatively bug-free, but I would not advise you to use it for most purposes.