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

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.

You presented your personal definition.  So what?  It's nothing but
handwaving and hot air and bullshit comparisons of SETI-BOINC to
commercial projects.

Your claim was (and I quote); "Didn't they have a trial period before
telling everyone to switch to BOINC?".

The fact is that they have not (I'll repeat that, you are slow to
comprehend.  THEY HAVE NOT) told everyone to switch to BOINC.  The
fact is that they have been quite clear that this is a teething stage
as they scale from the beta to full public release.

Or to put it simply:  Yes, they are having a trial period, that period
is now.

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?

This is not a matter of definitions.  It's matter of facts.  The facts
are that they are in a public trial prior to shutting down the old
system.  The drug addled definitions you use have no bearing on
reality.

D.
-- 
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.