Regardless, if it WAS tested, but tested in a very narrow scope so as not to show the issues that people would be having, then it was tested improperly. I'm not sure if you've ever done QA but at every QA center I've ever done work at, if it was tested improperly, it wasn't tested period. So what he said, stands. Odds are he's done QA work with people who live by that rule.
All that aside, I can understand why there are issues. There are probably a zillion different configurations of linux out there, not to mention the half-braindead FreeBSD emulated environments, etc. To test all of these different setups, they literally would have to have an entire building dedicated to a server farm to house all the necessary linux configurations. I just don't see that happening from a monetary standpoint for something that is, essentially, free. Does it piss off the people that run servers? Hell yes. Is it entirely Valve's fault? Not really. A lot of us who run game servers also do other things on the machines (serve web pages, photo albums, email servers....) so instead of these machines being purpose-built to Valve's specifications, we have a myriad of different tag-along apps and libraries and different versions of widgets and gizmos to do what we ALSO do with the machine besides serve up game servers. This becomes a QA nightmare. I wouldn't expect any company, not even Microsoft, to test for this many different configurations. They'd spend more time QA'ing the product than building it to begin with. Better to just chalk it up to another evil resultant of Steam, and get on with our lives, than sit here and bitch and moan about how broken it got. Anybody here ever run a MOHAA server on linux? You know how much of a pain in the keister that can be? First off, they don't have anything nearly as cool as the hlds update tool. Nope. You have to download the big honking patch and run it, and then make sure everything works. Unfortunately as with any tool like steam, there are bound to be some weird issues you run into. I expect them, so therefore I don't get nearly upset about the updates being broken occasionally. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric (Deacon) Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Crashes In a bold display of creativity, forb wrote: > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. > They released a faulty update that wasn't tested. I may have missed something, since I wasn't specifically looking for that, but what makes you believe it wasn't tested? I can understand saying their QA process for updates needs to be expanded or whatever, but to say it wasn't tested is probably inaccurate unless Alfred or someone actually said so, which would be odd. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
