🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Eilers wrote:
> 
> > >
> > >you guys are missing the point--Nescape has developed an attitude problem
> > >of the highest magnitude: it has decided to foist its bug-ridden,
> > >crash-prone software off on us and have US do the beta-testing FOR them.
> > >What do you think the little "bugs" contest is all about, simple
> > >generosity on Netscape's part? This is really sheer arrogance, though I
> > >suppose the board of directors at Netscape would call it "efficency."
> >
> > Why do you wish to deprive me of the opportunity to use buggy beta
> > software ??? I don't wish to deprive you of the opportunity to
> > use stable production products. I want you to make your choice.
> > And, I want to make MY choice.
> >
> 
> once again, people are missing the point: If I was a programmer, wouldn't
> it be a dream to have half a million beta testers blithely take over my
> job and find all the bugs for me? How many other corporations, large and
> small, have such a resource to plunder--and are doing such a great job of
> pludering it? I used the netscape beta 2.01b for about 2 days and it was a
> complete dog--crashed constantly and predictably. 

Just because you have a buggy system is not a reason to want to deprive the
whole market of a product. I own a web development company, I have 2.0 and 
1.22 on my system, as do all my employees ( since I REQUIRE that they do ). 
I haven't had a single crash, and only one employee has reported a crash. 
When Netscape releases a version that can handle less stable systems, and can
take the product out of Beta, we will all ready be able to write for it because
we where allowed to take our chances with early releases. You couldn't pay me
enough to miss that opportunity, and I guarantee I will get clients that my
competitors won't when the time comes because I am prepared.

> This software wasn;t fit
> to be released to the alpha testers, much less let out of the company
> pool, yet they left it to me to find the bugs! I certainly remember
> reading all of the "release agreement" before i dowloaded the stuff, and
> it said lots about Netscape not being responsible for anything at all ever
> including the ozone hole, but it did't say anywhere "Sorry, this version
> is a real dog, expect to have to rebuild your system after using it for an
> hour!"  If any other company (let's use Adobe as an example) released a
> piece of software so buggy, even with a "b" on the end of the name, they
> would be chased into the fire--but not beloved Netscape.
> 

Again. I'm sorry that you, and a lot of other people, are having problems
with the software. But you have to realize that a whole lot of people have
systems that are apparently more stable than yours. The facts are simple,
same program, yours causes you to have to "rebuild your system every hour",
mine runs completely stable ( I'm using it to write this ). It's not hard 
for me to see where the problem is.

> I'm just dissapointed that a promising company is behaving so arrogantly.
> Don't believe me? wait until you get charged $45 (student or not) for the
> next version of Netscape. After that ridiculously inflated public sale of
> stock, they are under pretty severe pressure to make big bucks this
> year...
> 

You need to re-check your financial paper. They are profitable _now_. They
make their money selling advertising on their site and server software. Does
it hurt that they agressively add features that their competitors don't? Of
course not. I for one am happy to see most of them.

> Yes, caveat downloader and all that--if I use beta software, I should
> expect a crash or two. I guess my problem is with the attitude expressed
> by their premature releases... I don't want to *deprive* anyone of the
> bility to do this, I just want to see people recognize this practice for
> the corporate monolithic behavior that it is.
> 

That is one man's opinion.

Ken

-- 
Ken Mugrage			The Internet AdVenture Company
ken@netadventure.com		Director of Operations
http://www.netadventure.com/