i had a bit of trouble falling asleep last night.
the cure was to read the last few days of johan's post in this thread.
was asleep in a flash.

"Johan Kullstam" <kullstj-nn@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:87zn4ban4o.fsf@sophia.axel.nom...

fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:

Johan Kullstam <kullstj-nn@comcast.net> wrote:

I still think it's not ready to be called "beta" nor "trial".  "alpha"
perhaps, but even that may be a little early.  You are free to
disagree, but I remain unmoved by your argument as you are to mine.

You haven't presented an argument.

You've made an unsupportable
claim.

There's a difference.

I presented a definition of trial in which a trial software would be
equivalent to a beta and mostly be functional except for odd corner
cases.  I think that calling it "trial" would mislead people into
thinking it is more ready than it is at this stage.  That is the
argument in support of the definition.

Definitions need not be proved, they are definitions.  They do need to
be useful.  I find my definition useful.  Perhaps you would care to
offer and motivate a competing definition?

-- 
Johan KULLSTAM