>>> v4 was released somewhere about 2002
>> I think it was in the (very) late 1990s.
> [...] v3 manual, [...] These comments are [...] file dated as: 9-May-2000
> [...] "PAGESTREAM 4.1 Release 2! January 23nd, 2002", the
> PageStream v4 file information on the CD is dated 28-Jan-2002, the
> majority of the later files are dated 5-February-2002 - which is as I quoted.
PageStream v4 didn't start at v4.1 but at v4.0:
"PageStream4.0 for the Amiga is available now! We began shipping on the 26th of October, 1999!
"Amiga: Final program began shipping October 26th, 1999!
>>>> the OS3-68k releases are apparently deemed final releases,
>>>> at least judging by the titles in the list of PageStream releases
> whether Deron marked the file as looking like a full, or Beta, or
> alpha version, [...] not a one of the releases was worth trying
I know as much. What I was getting at was that he seemingly deemed some of his 2010+ releases as beta and some of them (unjustifiably) final, which is the (wrong) impression I got from the titles in his list of PageStream releases. As outlined in the last paragraph of my comment #58, I'm now aware that all of those releases were actually deemed beta versions by him, no matter if the title in the list of PageStream releases contains "beta" or not.
>> You mean he released the v22.214.171.124 on 2010-10-11 and ten days later
>> released the alpha of the same version? Doesn't make sense to me as
>> this would be reversed order.
> Do you think Deron was bothered about there not being a "b" to signify
> it was a Beta version either?
Generally, the order of release in software development is "alpha" -> "beta", not the other way round. If the 2010-10-21 release was deemed alpha as you say, the 2010-10-11 release would have been deemed pre-alpha (or also alpha at best), not beta. And we *know* from Deron's mail to amiga-news.de (see link in previous comment) that he deemed the v126.96.36.199a as beta, not alpha. From this it is clear now to me that he deemed both releases 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 as beta and suffixed an 'a' to the latter version number to denote a change he considered too tiny to warrant a change of any digit.
> Would you consider it fair to release a program as a commercial
> offering that was never fit for purpose?
Of course not, and I'm quite sure I haven't even implied I would.
> Call it an alpha, call it a beta if you like
I wasn't discussing what I (or you) would call it judging from the perceived state of the software but what Deron actually calls it.
> do you think he was bothered about putting an "a" at the end of a file or not?
Yes, I think he was, as that's what he actually did. He was bothered enough to publish the new release ten days later, and without the suffixed 'a' there would have been two releases with the exact same version number and no possibility to tell them apart by version number.
> it's not a complete version, just test it out, and
> "for those folks who can fire it up".
Yes, he apparently called it a beta version himself (see comment #58). We could discuss if "beta" is an apt term for the poor state that v188.8.131.52a is in, and if "alpha" or anything else might be better descriptions, but *that* discussion is what would be moot in my view.
>> To my mind, the 'a' denotes a change that's deemed too small for
>> even increasing the fourth digit '8' to a '9', which means v184.108.40.206
>> got a tiny update and was thus followed by v220.127.116.11a.
> if you still want to believe that, then you might as well believe
> what you like, as you don't want to trust me
This is not about trust but about plausability. For the outlined reasons, I find my explanation regarding the intended meaning of the 'a' suffix way more plausible than your explanation. That's all. I'm also unsure why I should trust you regarding what Deron intended to indicate with the 'a' suffix, unless he gave you the explanation of it (which you didn't claim he did) or you regard yourself as a mind reader.
> He used to withold certain questions asked [...] from me on the
> Yahoo Groups mailing list, [...] so he never posted them to the
> Group, [...] or do you think I am making that up as well?
I see no reason to not believe you that this is what happened.
> Maybe the "penny will drop" for you then, and you might even accept
> what I have said as fair, and factual.
The more I read what you write, the more I get the impression that you're reading things into my comments that aren't there, and that you are inferring a perceived stance of mine about PageStream (non-)development that isn't my actual stance. What I indeed do not accept as factual is what you've written about the year of PageStream v4 release and about the intended meaning of the 'a' in the 18.104.22.168a version number.
>> it seems all 2010 and newer releases in the list of PageStream
>> releases are beta releases, with some of them correctly denoted
>> as beta in the title while others are missing the beta denotation.
> It doesn't matter if they were called alpha or beta releases
Then why do you keep replying to this if it doesn't matter to you? I think I've been very clear since comment #56 on what I've been intending to talk about, namely Deron's own designations of his PageStream releases, not what you or I think the releases should be called. We are on the very same page regarding the latter, I reckon.
If something I write doesn't matter to you, then please feel free to save your precious time and effort by simply ignoring such comment instead of trying to make points regarding things that you now say don't matter to you.