Talk:Perpetual beta

Why is it a "nonsense" term?

Oxymoron is surely more appropriate to describe it, any views? I think this article need a good rewrite. Olivia Guest 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A total rewrite! We need examples, better quotes. etc. I have made a prewrite (so that I could really rip the article apart) at User:Monkeyblue/sandbox/Perpetual beta. I will start working on it on the weekend but if you feel like starting go ahead.

I don't think Oxymoron is the right term. Perpetual beta does not really contradict itself. Monkeyblue (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It can if you look at it this way: Perpetual: Never Ending Beta: A SHORT test period. Billy Bishop 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta does not relate to the length of the development stage, just the type of development that the software/system is undergoing. Monkeyblue 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual Beta, no matter what you personally may feel about the term, is an industry accepted term. It's silly to name it "nonsense" simply because you don't agree with the practice. Nevermind the fact that it is an intentionally inflammatory phrase. Therefore, I've removed the word from the opening paragraph. If you really believe that it is a "nonsense" phrase, please provide some encyclopedic references in order to support it's inclusion in the opening paragraph. --Ohms law 12:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual Beta is also known to mean abandon ware that never left beta. - James

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikipedia is not a forum

---

O'Reilly should pack his things and move out of the sight of anything electronic

confusing or unclear for some readers? Anything that O'Reilly writes is unclear and confusing, especially Web 2.0 stuff he makes up. - --Analytik 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikipedia is not a forum

---

Hilarious, it's basically GOOGLE

The perpetual beta concept is really a Google one...nothing like this has existed before. Interesting how drastically altered the world is as a result of Google. Gautam ^Discuss 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly.

ICQ did this too (at least back in the 90s. Every release was beta. 69.31.174.220 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of interest

James H Morris contributed with an edit that cited his blog (and is not written in encyclopedic tone). As he's notable enough to have his own article, I'm reluctant to simply remove all of his text. I don't have the time to clean it up, so I'm tagging it and leaving it in a perpetual beta. Andjam—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andjam (talk • contribs) 18:08, October 10, 2007

Why the "banana principle?"

An explanation of the term and/or its origin should be added, even as a footnote link. 64.74.198.10 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)