I fully agree, it is hard to take me seriously. :)
And, truthfully, the first time I proposed this I was trying to be
sarcastically funny. And yes, I was frustrated at Real. However, that
was when I thought their goals matched mine. (Put out a bug free, excellent
product. I know that goal can never be reached, but most of the time you
can come close.)
But, after time, I came to see that this tongue-in-cheek scenario
explains things rather well. Occam's razor.
I _don't_ think that anyone that works at Real has this attitude
consciously.
I for one think it is brilliant marketing. Absolutely brilliant. Now
that believe I understand their goals, I am no longer frustrated. I'm
simply waiting for the fish to reach the right size and then I'll strike
with more licenses.
I _know_ all future versions of RB will have bugs. Hopefully those bugs
will be small enough for me to handle without causing my users to go into
orbit, which costs me revenues. The 3.1 revision works gamely enough for
now, but I have to warn my users of some of its bugs to avoid backlash.
In addition, Real will never put out a product without some annoying
bugs. Ever. Their product is now so large in terms of code footprint it is
physically impossible for them to do so with the number of engineers they
have. That is why the Mac OSX and Windows XP/Vista and Linux OS are still
carrying bugs.
This is actually very good. Now Real can fix their bugs without fear
because: 1) it is realistically impossible for them to make a bug free
product, and 2) there are enough bugs they'll never be able to kill that it
is finally in their best interest to reduce bug count.
In my mind this can take pressure off of the workers, and they can more
aggressively go after bugs without being afraid of fully cleaning out the
fish pond.
For me, this gives me hope that in a year or two their product will be
much more usable.
You don't have to agree with me. I rarely do. :) I _do_ appreciate the
feedback!
wade
> On Oct 29, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Roger Clary wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 29, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Wade Maxfield wrote:
> >
> >> So, bottom line, it make no economic sense for Real to ever fix their
> >> annoying bugs. They have to fix their killer bugs, but the annoying
> >> ones
> >> will be fixed only if new annoying bugs replace them. It is in
> >> their best
> >> interest to introduce new bugs as the product goes along and then
> >> fix the
> >> older bugs so the relative number of bugs stays the same.
> >
> > I understand how frustrating this all can be when projects don't
> > work correctly. Believe me, I've given up programming more often
> > than I've given up golf. ;-)
> > But to suggest that RS, or any software developer, intentionally
> > leaves "fixable" bugs or, more so, intentionally introduces new bugs
> > so as to foster additional subscriptions is simply ludicrous. I
> > think you let your frustration get the best of your reason there,
> > Wade.
>
>
> Actually not so ludicrous -- see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> AARD_code>. In this case, though, it's hard to take Wade seriously.
>
> Charles Yeomans
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|