🚀 go-pugleaf

bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>>>Why can't they just provide a release that fixes the old bugs without
>>>introducing (known) new ones?  Featurality first is the only explanation.

>>Well, I know of a case where this was tried, but one of the fixes involved
>>switching from a no longer supported (and *buggy*) comm library to a new
>>library that turned out to be buggier than expected. While waiting for
>>the fixes, the programmers decided to add a few of the "easy" features
>>users had been requesting. Which (of course) lead to a few new bugs.

>Appears to me to be a management problem, not a technical problem.

Hey, the programmers *are* the management. The outfit in question
is approximately 3 people *total*. 

Not everybody has huge staffs. This applies to a *lot* of the software
out there. Borland, Microsoft, and the other*big* companies can afford the
resources to do things your way. All the small outfits (especially the
shareware ones) *can't*. 

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)