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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to