Many people I see are complaining about the release date slipping on SuSE 10.1. And I think I every would be far happier if this didn't turn into Vista, a 4 year late release.(first quarter 2003 release date, now early 2007 general release) However, we have to think of this in another way. Bear in mind of course I want it released as badly as the next guy...

However, the last 2 versions of SuSE, and frankly many projects(I will not name all the ones I have tried that shouldn't be full releases, that list is far too long.) I, unlike many, apparently see this release of SuSE 10.1 being slipped as a very good thing. If you have been keeping up on the http://en.opensuse.org/Bugs:Most_Ann...Linux_10.1_RC3 in the path to a stable and high quality 10.1 as I have, I hope you would see the same thing I do. A big initiative for quality.

I can't honestly remember the last time ANY flavor of linux was postponed so many times for so long sheerly to seek a truly stable, high quality version. I don't know about most of you, but with the large number of things 10.1 is delivering, I am very glad they have decided to take the high road, something done well too seldomly around here. I don't know about anyone else, but I certianly am willing to wait 2 months, 3 months, hell, even 6 months, to get a truly stable, and as close to perfect version of a distro as I have seen. All too commonly the low road is taken, and that isn't fair to us as users, and it degrades the distro itself.

Thank you OpenSuSE, and thank you Novell for taking the high road, and taking the time to make 10.1 to beginning of a rock solid release. I would much rather have you hit quality standards, than release schedules.

I agree, I don't mind the delayed release of 10.1, although I do wish they delayed a little bit more and fixed the bug with the Intel i810 chipset instead of implementing the "work around"

Pressing towards artificially defined deadlines at the expense of quality code is a poor idea, but on the other hand, there probably will never be a perfect, bug free release of any software that contains thousands if not millions of lines of code. To me, as long as a list of Known Bugs is also released at the same time the new version is made available, users have the chance to evaluate whether or not the known issues would be deal-killers or not, and install or not based on their own personal decision. That seems like the ideal balance.

Personally, I'd like to see at least one version upgrade per year. The 3+ years between Debian releases was way too much, and by the same token, a new release every 5 minutes would be equally pointless. I like the direction SuSE has been taking lately, and at whatever point they feel comfortable that v10.1 is ready to go out the door, I'll be waiting

Personally I believe that Suse 10.1 was delayed because of XGL and the new package manager (which I don't like so far because its very slow and keeps constantly refreshing sources whenever you try to do anything related to package management). I think such massive changes should have been introduced during the initial testing phases of 10.1 or left for the next major release because this has caused so many delays and even at the rc stage many things still don't work right. I do agree though, that there is no point in rushing a release to meet a deadline.

I for one am impressed with a 6 month cycle for the SuSE distribution. The open source development community deserves our praise. Commercial development usually targets a 1 year cycle which is frequently missed. Last time I checked Microsoft requires many years for a single release which still doesn't work.

I think the move to an eight month release cycle is a good thing(tm). Maybe Andreas and crew can get some sleep I agree with redazz that they should dump the new package manager until they get it figured out. It is a little too ambitious for this release.