MRGLSMRC  it does not make sense to post potentially conflicting release notes in many different places that that have to be revised quickly for beta software when that kind of info can easily be garnered at the developers website forum notes.

distributing software itself is another matter because of the costed bandwidth when the software is unmonetized.

i feel these attacks upon this developers behavior amounts to little more than a pet peeve on the part of someone who does not appreciate the process. a comparison to food is also vapid because the federal law in the usa requires the safe labeling of food drugs.

installing this or ant software involves entering into a contract or license even if the software is provided without cost. one agrees to the terms of usage. no one forces you to use free software. your one man crusade to ask macupdate to delist free software that you don't intend to use flies in the face of the freedom of others to choose for themselves and also macupdate's business model.

and i do not suppose that microsoft software will improve in quality when free competition is delisted. so even if you won't use developmental distributions, it is in your interest directly that these exist.  
(Version 9.11.beta1)

DANA SUTTON  Even if there’s no sinister motive for this practice of not publishing release notes, it’s a bad one. Imagine buying some food in the store and when you look to check its ingredients the mfr. only said “Ingredients list not available at this time.” Would you want to put the stuff in your mouth? And yet quite a few software developers expect us to put their stuff in our computers without giving us any idea what we’re getting. It might be a good idea for us to boycott software like this as a matter of principle, and the good people who run the MacUpdate site might want to think about refusing to post any software offerings that are not accompanied by release notes. This all sounds a bit harsh, I know, but how else are we consumers going to get developers to clean up their act?   
(Version 9.11.beta1)

MACLORNEBEYN  I really don't understand the criticism...

* In the title, the version number and the editor notes it is clearly stated that this actually is a beta version

* Open source communities depend on voluntary beta testers, lacking those convenient but cost-intensive Q&A departments of commercial developers. Therefore it is necessary for them to have their beta versions listed on pages like MacUpdate to recruit fresh and formerly uninvolved geeks

* If you do not want to be a beta-tester: there is a link to stable versions of this software on this very page

* Also there is direct link to the (well-done) community's website with all the information you could ever want

* Most of the open-source developers actually do all the work out of the goodness of their hearts (or maybe out of interest for the project), but definitely not for financial gain (except perhaps the chance to get better payed jobs when adding their involvement in open source to their CV)  
(Version 9.11.beta1)

ILGAZ  It also shows that they have capability to ship product for PPC Macs, even in this age.

It should be a lesson for Adobe (PS elements 8), MS (Silverlight 2) and Apple (some tools, like Quicktime X).

No wonder why people predict open source will take over, no matter how amateur things begin.  
(Version 9.11.alpha2)

VIKRAM SHARMA  Do you have the link to the PPC version of Plex, I tried to look for it but could not find. Thanks.  
(Version 9.04)

D4RK  Obvious plug, but how is that even an advantage? You still need an Intel Mac 10.5 to run Plex. XBMC will run natively on PPC or Intel with 10.4. Comprehend the difference?  
(Version 9.04.1)

RAMPANCY  I'm sick of the complaining over Plex being Intel-only. If they can only afford to direct their available resources to Intel-only development, then I'd rather have Plex being an amazing app on Intel versus being a mediocre, buggy app on PPC and Intel. What next, are you going to complain that Apple isn't supporting OS X on your Performa 6400?  
(Version 9.04.1)

D4RK  RAMPANCY, the only one complaining here is you, maybe you meant to post in another thread.

Also, the quality of a piece of software doesn't have to be inversely proportional to the number of supported platforms. If that were the case, most console games would be unplayable.  
(Version 9.04.1)

ILGAZ  @RAMPANCY as I said above, a tool being Intel only tells a lot about its inner parts, how "native" it is, how "portable" it is for future (very interesting things to come), how competent the developers are.  
(Version 9.11.alpha2)

MACUPDATE ADMIN  The horse's mouth:

http://xbmc.org/support/

http://xbmc.org/forum/  
(Version 8.10)