See? That is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You argument will be essentially the same if one year from now Nokia still hasn't released PR1.2. Hence it's flawed as an argument, because it does not take 'time' into consideration.

Really, but really, do I have to explain? PR1.2 works in China N900s and Scratchbox. PR1.1.1 and PR1.1 would have the same issues, but they were released in time.

You can't just apply the same old argument after that long.

No product or patch will ever be bug-free. There's some compromise between releasing a patch in a timely manner and without too much bugs. Also, not every bug has the same impact. You can fix the most dangerous and impacting bugs and let the other, less serious bugs to be fixed in the next patch.

But this has been said in another threads. And I know that you're knowledgeable enough to know that from other posts you've made. That's what's driving me mad, why do you STILL think there might be a slight merit for Nokia on this issue? There isn't. PR1.2 should have been released. The most serious bugs should have been prioritised, forget about that small graphical glitch that appears after one week of use.

THIS is reality. It's not difficult to grasp. Not delaying a patch to infinite. There are bugs marked as fixed as early as january and we still don't have the fix, how serious is that -- extending the damage track of a bug? If the whole system were open-source like some linux distros, there would surely be communities builds of it at large. But no, Nokia chose the perfect imbalance by using the worst parts of the closed and open-source ecosystem! Congratulations, Nokia, for being evil and stupid at the same time.