even if some code was the same it doesn't mean the bug fix would be the same . Sometimes a quick fix is modifying other portions of the software than the faulty one, maybe even not knowing where the fault is , just patch something until it works. For example, something hangs, we don't know why, put a timeout on it , problem solved although the cause still exists.
Matt Tudor, MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > I was thinking about this a bit more today. This evening Terry Creer > discovered a 'new' bug. Subsequently, a few of us confirmed it in DXP. > Here's an interesting perspective: It's probably clear that DXP has some > if not a lot of code reuse from 99SE. If we find a bug in DXP, you know > it will have very high priority. If it turns out that a bug is fixed in > a module that was reused, that would be a FREE fix for the 99SE code > base. A service pack might move forward for 99SE without them even > trying! > > Neat huh? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 AM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Cc: JaMi Smith > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > ~ ~ ~ > > > > > Not to jump all over you, but how do you suppose Altium is > > supposed to > > > fix bugs if we don't report them? > > > > > > Excellent point Tony, > > > > But I think that there are actually some other priorities too! > > > > I think that the first thing we have to do is pull together > > as a group, and "poll" the major players out there on just > > what we want to do, and how we can effectively go about doing it. > > > > I think that it really is clear that we want and need a > > Protel 99 SE SP7. > > > > I also think that we all must realize that Altiums priorities > > are with DXP now, and we are not going to get very far if we > > attempt to draw resources away from DXP, which I do not > > believe that we have to do. > > > > I think that we have crossed the major hurdle that was in > > place in that most people out there now appear that they are > > really ready to admit that Protel 99 SE is if fact a software > > package that has some real serious bugs out there which are > > causing some real stability issues and problems, and is in > > fact flaky, and that Protel / Altium has never appeared > > willing to admit to any of this, nor have some of it's > > staunchest supporters. > > > > But the facts appear to speak for themselves. > > > > Protel / Altium will just have to face the facts. > > > > I think that if Protel /Altium are faced with a unified front > > from their customers and users, I think that we actually can > > get a lot of things done. > > > > I think that another major issue and hurdle is also about to > > fall into place, or actually out of the way, and that is the > > issue of DXP. Many are ready to abandon Protel 99 SE in order > > to jump on the DXP band wagon, thinking that all of their > > software problems and shortcommings will go away once we get > > past DXP SP1 and learn how to operate DXP. > > > > What many of those people do not understand is that even if > > all of the code was rewritten, by an entirely new team of > > programmers, the environment and mentality that allowed this > > to happen with Protel 99 SE is still very much entrenched at > > Protel / Altium, and that means that the same thing will > > happen with DXP, unless the customers and users confront > > Protel / Altium and let them know that this type of > > programming and lack of support cannot be allowed to continue. > > > > I don't think that it is going to take much to convince most > > people out there that unless we as a group demand more from > > Protel / Altium, we are simply not going to get it. > > > > Many of those people will soon find that the current > > attentiveness of Protel / Altium management in the DXP forum > > and their willingness in trying to get things worked out with > > DXP, is only a temporary situation brought about by the need > > to start collecting annual renewals for ATS in just a little > > over 2 weeks now, in an attempt to head off a PR and > > Financial Disaster, not to mention potential legal issues. > > > > As soon as they can convince enough people that DXP is really > > working, so that they can start collecting revenue from ATS > > as well as new DXP sales, we will see that support in the > > forum evaporate, and we will be in exactly in the same > > position that we have been in with Protel 99 SE for the past > > however many years. > > > > And it is not even as simple as that, not only since any new > > code base not only has its own new problems, but not every > > thing in DXP is in fact new, which means that there may be > > some old problems sneaking into the mix. > > > > So as I was saying, I think that we need to organize > > ourselves and come to a consensus as to our direction, and if > > we cannot get everyone's support, we can at least request > > that everyone ackwiess [sic?] to not interfere with an > > otherwise unified attempt to get things done. > > > > I then think that we need to sort out just exactly what it is > > that we think we want to accomplish, and go from there. > > > > Then I would say then comes the compilation of the real bug list. > > > > One of the things that I have tried to make very clear, but I > > am not too sure that I have been able to do, is to let > > everyone know that I do not expect Protel / Altium to have to > > continue to support Protel 99 SE. > > > > I am not asking for that. > > > > What I am asking for is to have Protel / Altium make an > > effort co meet its customers and users in the middle ground > > somewhere, and make one last effort to fix some of the > > remaining problems with Protel 99 SE so that it can continue > > to be used, without some of its current problems, by all of > > its current customers and users, at least up and to the point > > that DXP is in fact a real and viable product. > > > > Then if Protel / Altium wants to abandon Protel 99 SE, since > > they obviously appear to feel that they cannot develop it any > > further, then so be it. > > > > But actually, I really I believe that with one more Service > > Pack, Protel 99 SE could be transformed into a very stable, > > useable, middle of the road product that they could continue > > to sell just as is, for many years to come, just as it is, > > with out any new development. > > > > More importantly, those customers and users who have bought > > into Protel 99 SE relatively recently, but are just not ready > > for whatever reason to step up to DXP, will be able to > > continue using a much more stable version of the Protel 99 SE > > product they paid good money for, rather than being totally > > abandoned by Protel / Altium with Protel 99 SE left in it's > > current unstable condition. > > > > At a very minimum, a concerted effort at this time by all > > customers and users to really attempt to get to the bottom of > > some of these bugs, now that we have gotten past our first > > hurdle above, will at the very least leave those people who > > continue to use Protel 99 SE with a fairly well researched > > bug list and understanding of pitfalls and things not to do > > if you do not want it to crash. > > > > First and foremost, most of us have jobs to do, and projects > > that must get finished, so I think that one of the important > > things that we must do is to respect each other's time constraints. > > > > This means nothing will happen overnight. > > > > But it also means that if we all do a little, then we really > > can get things accomplished. > > > > That said, I nominate you all for the SP7 committee, and I > > will now go to bed. > > > > JaMi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > ********** > > * Tracking #: F11BB67F7999E64DA64E25752BE42D35403D8DC6 > > * > > ************************************************************** > > ********** > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
