OK: I really need to clarify what I wrote there . . .
"if that were the case . . ."
What I meant is that, as far as I can see (pace Microsoft, Apple, et
al), software developers
release versions "into the wild" knowing that the chances of them being
100% bug-free is practically nil,
and relying on end-users to spot those bugs and report back.
Many long years ago (about 18) I worked on a CD about Music genres for
Scottish schools, and my boss
said he could not be bothered with beta testing because it would cost
too much money.
When the final thing (A Runtime Revolution standalone) had been burnt to
disk he (my boss) found it contained
one insignificant bug: he wasted an awful lot of time ranting at me.
When he then decided to take me to
court (!) he consulted a lawyer who laughed in his face and stated that
a whole CD's worth of software with
only 1 bug was nothing short of a miracle.
What the chap should have done is come back to me with details of the
bug so it could have been sorted out. What he actually did (!) was dump
all the CDs and go to another company in Edinburgh who "re-did" the whole
thing with MacroMedia Director that ended up crashing computers.
Obviously, as his wife told me, a rather slow learner.
Of course, of course, of course things would have been better had there
been no bugs . . .
Now there are companies who "jump on bugs" just as soon as end-users
report them, and there are those
who don't: and most software developers probably fall somewhere in between.
"Sharing the burden" depends whether or not you want to buy into the
Open Source story or the Commercial one:
The Open Source story is based on a view of the world where everyone is
into caring-and-sharing in a
big hearted sort of way and is prepared to "pay" for 'free' software by
pitching into to do stuff such as
fixing bugs.
The Commercial story is based on a world view where customers pay and
developers deliver, and customers
have all sorts of rights of redress if they don't get what they have
paid for.
The slight problem is that LiveCode is currently taking part in both
stories simultaneously, and it seems
that none of the end-users are completely convinced of the validity of
either story.
On 7.10.19 23:45, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
On Oct 7, 2019, at 13:42 , Richmond via use-livecode
<use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
1. people feel that the company responsible for producing some software should
bear full
responsibility for fixing bugs.
Mind you, if that were the case I don't think there would be anyone developing
any software anywhere at all.
Really? What other software company shares the burden of bug fixing with it's
clientele?
Bob S
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
