Not going to address all of your post, because a significant portion of it is you repeating things which have already been debunked... but one part which has already been countered warrants a response anyway, and there's a little more I think is worth saying.
ou have claimed otherwise but have failed to back that claim up, and are now not even trying to do so
Well I brought them up, you just ignored them, or tried to tone them down.
You BROUGHT up claims. You didn't BACK those claims up. And when pressed, you stopped even bothering to defend them in the first place in spite of me pointing out they were false AND backing that statement up with reasons why.
a) If you widen the audience for a piece of software you will widen the number of possible soft/hardware combinations that cause problems - so this is expected ?
b) there is still the whole Corona-Virus issue probably pushing down worker efficiency ?
c) people who are unhappy with a situation are the ones that respond the most / are most outspokej about it - you yourselv answered to a post that prompted other users to "tell them what you think ab G2", so this may not all be request to solve a technical problem ?
a) SOME increase in demand for support makes sense. But knowing that, increasing availability of support staff to compensate makes sense. So either they failed to properly account for the increase in tickets, OR they accounted for it but not enough because there was more than expected response. Which indicates PROBLEMS not just business as usual.
b) Galaxy 2.0 was pushed live during the lockdown period. That this is a time where there's reason for support to be more limited only makes it look like an even worse decision. Bringing that up only shows how terrible an idea it was to force the launch of software which THE COMPANY OPENLY ADMITS IS STILL IN BETA onto their entire community while they aren't able to provide adequate support.
c) They have a feedback channel which is part of support. The problems people have are almost unanimously design issues (valid to take to support) or bugs (valid to take to support), so no, they're NOT just "I don't like it" responses clogging up support.
I wanted to reply to rest of your external post, but quite frankly I have better things do: as you are clearly meandering around not really adressing any of the points I bring up, just dancing around them with terms like "strawman", "logical fallcies" and in the end even telling me that you had to give a certain answer because I left you no choice. While not even reading my posts correctly as I am now a "fanboy" in your opionion, so by nature all the points I bring up are wrong.
If you think that, you clearly don't actually understand basic English. My pointing out of the logical fallacies in what you're saying is not "dancing around" your points, but directly addressing them as the flawed arguments they are.
Which is kind of strange, as I never denied that G2 has problems (or that it should have remaind in beta stage) and if you look at my post history I am pretty confiden't that I never denied the existence of these problems or the importance of them getting fixed.
You are actively denying the SEVERITY of the problems, and talking up the severity of the negative feedback far beyond reason. I'm not saying you're pretending nothing is wrong. I'm saying you're reacting to the negative feedback as a fanboy, not as a clear-headed adult mind. And it's disappointing to me because from our interactions, as confrontational as they are, I can tell you're capable of better.
I just tried to give an explanation why a rollback won't happen andwhy just using the old version is detrimtal to the progress of G2.
Which is were (at least I think) the problem in our discussion lies (leaving aside me maybe not beeing able to keep up with you on an intellectual level):
Having 15+ years of experience in (end user) software development and first/second level support in several rather small ompanies (50-500 employees) has formed my view on how development processes and software rollouts usually works and how people that are affected by these react.
Cool. Quick question: In those 15+ years, how many times have you seen a new version of a piece of software pushed live and forced on end users while openly still in beta? Not an early access release where there is no finished product, but a forced UPDATE from a polished release-ready version to a beta version of the next generation of the product. If it's more than 1, or if that 1 is something other than GOG, you're going to need to cite a source.
And next question: How many times have you seen a service which allows users to opt OUT of beta testing, then forces it on them anyway when they do? If you have any example here that isn't GOG, you'll need to provide a source to back that up again.
the minority that is beyond that threshold is very active in giving negative feedback but doing it in 98% of the cases in a polite manner. But impolite/rude responses are those that stick the most (at least in my case and those people I worked with) as they provoke a more emotional reaction.
This would have been a more reasonable answer to some of my points than a lot of what you've said prior. The fact remains that a developer ignoring well-reasoned and polite feedback because a couple of slightly rude comments chased them away reflects poorly on them and their mental health and they should probably see someone about that and consider not working in an environment where people are going to have any kind of expectations for them.
b) If people have a chance to use the version they are familiar with they tend to use that one providing no feedback whatsoever for the new version
Which is why allowing users to opt into a beta results in exactly 0 beta testers every time, I guess?
...oh, right, that doesn't happen.
But it makes it ok to launch your beta as a forced update even though you have users who have explicitly opted out of your beta testing, right?
.wait no it doesn't.
So... what exactly is your point here? Because well, first off it's objectively false and second, it wouldn't make this right even if it was true.
c) end users and, not rarely, devs views on release cycles and their content often differ very much from the views of those that are defining those. As the views of these people are usually more driven by budget and long term release planning and less by user feedback.
And this ALSO doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the STILL IN BETA version of the app should be rolled back to being TREATED LIKE THE BETA IT IS. Which it should. Because it's still in beta.
d) Depending on the background of the people in charge there is a wild difference in motivations for a decision. While there are people that base their decision on facts and reason, I also experienced superiors in my life that mix up respect with fear thus their inital decision making is guided by facts and reason, but if a decision turns out to be wrong their way of handling the situation is more grounded in how to keep that facade of beeing the one that does everything rigtht mostly intact. And lots of people in between. Of course I have no clue how things are at gogs hq, this sermon is simply there to show that not all decisions are based on facts and reason.
See my answer to c)
Of course I can't tell were your opionions on this are coming from, but from what I gathered we are pretty much on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
I've made no secret of the fact that I expect Galaxy 2.0 to EVENTUALLY be a good launcher, and that I am still using it in spite of concerns with its current state. I don't believe it should be forced on all users and I do believe that doing so was an incredibly stupid decision and I do believe (based on more experience in the industry than you have) that companies are in fact capable of rolling their software back to the last known stable version. Especially when there are users who are demonstrating that the capability to do so exists within the company's own provided platform.
So how we want to proceed ?
Agree to disagree ?
There are aspects of this discussion where I think we already can agree to disagree. There are some points where you're talking past me without acknowledging the points I'm making though, and I know you're capable of understanding them. I hope you can give my comments a more clear-headed look and actually think critically about your own position instead of just trying to poke holes in mine. I've not only done my best to see your argument, but directly provided a scenario where the argument in favour of your position is stronger than your real argument, and STILL believe that in such a situation, rolling back to the last known stable version (1.2 in this case) would be the correct response.
I don't think it'll happen overnight. I'm not sure it WILL happen at all. But I DO think it's the most sensible and reasonable option for GOG to take right now, and I DON'T think it's entirely impossible to roll back just because it's been rolled out.