@Uberseehandel wrote: @DAHG wrote: True to a certain degree. The manufacturer can't test all environments. Beta is supposed to be ~90% there. Nothing wrong with releasing Beta. Once a Beta release has been out for a while and no major bug reports are coming out, then you release a RC. A RC is supposed to be production ready code. That should attract more customers to load it. Wait a bit, if no bug reports come in, release it as Stable. Have you spent your entire life drinking the manufacturers' cola?   I can't even begin to express how many ways what you say is wrong. But I guess you are used to it, and have no expectations of anything better. To be honest, software development has gone backwards over the last 40 years.     No. I have actually spent a good portion of my life as a software developer. Complexity of the deployed environment has gone up. Thus the impossibility for a manufacturer to test every possible scenario. Heck, I spent time doing QA at IBM, we'd get bug reports on LANGUAGE specific version of the software.   I'm not excusing the company. I do however live in the real world. I expect the software to work, I understand that no software beyond a "Hello World" program will have bugs. I expect the manufacturer to do due diligence in testing, hence Beta and RC releases. I also expect that at some point, software becomes RTM. ... View more

True to a certain degree. The manufacturer can't test all environments. Beta is supposed to be ~90% there. Nothing wrong with releasing Beta. Once a Beta release has been out for a while and no major bug reports are coming out, then you release a RC. A RC is supposed to be production ready code. That should attract more customers to load it. Wait a bit, if no bug reports come in, release it as Stable. ... View more

But we're talking about more than bad/no QA here. We're talking about a company not putting releases to a Stable track, and apparently denying support if you don't load the latest "Beta".   For me if something goes wrong, there is a huge difference in regards to my board and regulators if I can show that the software at fault was Stable as opposed to a 6 month old Beta that the manufacturer said was "stable". It may be the same code, but the implications are wildly different.   I've loaded plenty of RC and Beta releases on non-critical systems. I don't have the luxury of having non-critical firewalls. ... View more

@ccnewmeraki wrote: The current v13 build is stable enough and has been out for ages, it fixes a number of critical bugs, people should be encouraged to install it, not put off by calling it a beta.     I'm sorry, but that is hogwash. I've been in IT well over 35 years, and over 15 of those of software development. There is a difference between Beta, RC and Stable. There are a lot of industries that are prohibited from running anything but Stable.   If Meraki thinks a firmware version is ready, then move it to the Stable track. ... View more