> [...lots of "the installer should do this" and "the installer should do
> that" stuff deleted...]
I've got to ask.
Are these features or are these evidence of bloat?
;-)
Seriously, 95+% of the people using this product didn't change the names,
didn't change the icons, and didn't internally tweak any of the bits and
pieces of the applications.
Yet people are naively insisting that the updaters should incorporate
literally man years worth of programming effort into dealing with these
kinds of situations! (1)
I'd rather see that effort expended on functionality that makes me more
productive. Not on an updater that I'll run perhaps once in my life.
#####
That having been said: Whoever decided that silently failing was a good
idea should be taken out back and beaten.
Only working with a particular configuration is one thing. And is quite
reasonable. Not working with no indication of failure is completely
unacceptable.
Bad Microsoft, no Microsoft biscuit!
mikel
(1) Speaking of failure to comprehend the effort necessary... When dealing
with large companies that make airplanes, if someone from that organization
says to you "I don't understand how it can take so long to write a driver
for Windows 2000, people have been writing drivers for years", it's not
acceptable to respond with "I don't understand why you can't make a rudder
that always works...I mean, geez, people have been flying for nearly 100
years". And here I'd only recently gotten it sorted out that our software
didn't crash, it experienced anomalies.
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
