<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Beta Cycles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tntluoma.com/opera/beta-cycles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tntluoma.com/opera/beta-cycles/</link>
	<description>Stuff I've Written Down</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:52:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://tntluoma.com/opera/beta-cycles/comment-page-1/#comment-1228</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tntluoma.com/?p=444#comment-1228</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Love this site, it gives a personal feel which is good. I&#039;m a linux enthusiast my computer is my workbench my hobby and my toy so I am on it all the time. For those who aren&#039;t always on their computers perpetually downloading versions going up by .1 is not an option. With tools like apt-get and swaret it is easy to keep your system up to date. It is a bummer that this is necessary but it is. If projects/companies/developers would just have the patience to stick to a release cycle things would be a lot smoother and more stable. Opera is feature rich and is stable while still humanly possible to keep up with.I personally hate the Office release cycle. Microsoft was very crafty when they came up with the business model for office, they took something that is ever unchanging like standard office apps and completely revolutionized it with every release. Just look at the naming scheme, we started off with Office 97 and Office 2000 but then we hit Office XP to shake things up and back to the ever classy year scheme. Each has had a slogan and advertising campaign of it&#039;s own. In the end they are all the same though.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love this site, it gives a personal feel which is good. I&#8217;m a linux enthusiast my computer is my workbench my hobby and my toy so I am on it all the time. For those who aren&#8217;t always on their computers perpetually downloading versions going up by .1 is not an option. With tools like apt-get and swaret it is easy to keep your system up to date. It is a bummer that this is necessary but it is. If projects/companies/developers would just have the patience to stick to a release cycle things would be a lot smoother and more stable. Opera is feature rich and is stable while still humanly possible to keep up with.I personally hate the Office release cycle. Microsoft was very crafty when they came up with the business model for office, they took something that is ever unchanging like standard office apps and completely revolutionized it with every release. Just look at the naming scheme, we started off with Office 97 and Office 2000 but then we hit Office XP to shake things up and back to the ever classy year scheme. Each has had a slogan and advertising campaign of it&#8217;s own. In the end they are all the same though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

