On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by > the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE!!!! > I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as > my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit.
No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Remember, the market for SMSQ is now so small, really, everything is beta. ICQ has more beta testers than SMSQ has users! > > By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and > > am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is > > well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount > > of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms > > without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. > > the FPU/No FPU situation. > > This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by > those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. > When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to > me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a > feature is possible on the other machines.! There are two kinds of "features" involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? *shudders* I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... Dave
