🚀 go-pugleaf

I understand that bugs are probably inevitable in large programs but
when I read that such and such a commercially sold program is 'full of
bugs' I get very annoyed.

Now for the flame:


{utzoo, ihnp4, decvax}!hcr!hugh (Hugh Redelmeier) writes:

>I use Flash (the program) and am quite happy with it.  But: I know
>(and like) the developers.  Whenever I have had a problem, they have
>fixed it.

>        On COMPUSERE, there is a bug list & fix file: in atari16
>sig, data library 2 (telecom), brouse with keyword "flash".


I'm glad Mr Redelmeier knows (and likes) the developers of Flash.  For
him a bug fix probably means calling the developers up one evening and
then getting a disk with the fixed program the next evening.  Other
folks, I'm afraid, don't have it so easy.

In addition to having to subscribe to COMPUSERVE, one has to spend ~$20
to get all the bug fixes.  That, of course, increases the overall price
of the software.

When an end user can find 'lots of bugs' after a short period of time
using the product it could only mean that the program wasn't
sufficiently beta tested.  I won't be suprised that in some cases the
process of beta testing goes like:

    Day 1, developer to friend : 

        "Hey Joe, would you like to try this program?  I'm thinking 
         of marketing it."

    Day 2, developer to friend :

        "Hey Joe, I'm shipping the program already; did you have any 
         problems with the program?"

I'm suprised that the people who purchase these software are so
tolerant.  I frequently read reviews like:

    "... there were several bugs but on the whole, I like the XXX..."

Me? I'm still cursing the writers of 'Thunder' because it trashed one
of my files.

This was not meant to be a personal attack on Mr. Redelmeier; I'm just
tired of PAYING to BE a beta tester.

- Robert Ling  <rling@uw-june.arpa>