Re: Follow-up to listfiles bug report ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 54207
interpreted = N
texte = We face the same issues of maintenance versus new feature development as anysoftware company, and I'd venture many of you on this list that develop andmarket your own solutions face similar decisions. This is never a black andwhite decision point, i.e., fix every bug possible in old versions at thecost of new features that would expand the market and customer base for theproduct, or focus solely on new features but sacrifice the credibility withyour installed base with a lack of bug fixes.It is always a cost/benefit tradeoff that has to be looked at on a case bycase basis, i.e., the severity of the bug, the cross-section of customerspotentially affected, the amount of effort required to fix it, theavailability of work-arounds, and what other projects, whether new featuresor other maintenance items, would be impacted by redirecting resources to aparticular problem.In this case, the bug is specific to 4.5 running on a Classic Macenvironment, which is less than 10% of the installed base running 4.X. It'salso a bug that has been inherent in [listfiles] on Mac Classic for wellover five years. So is it worthwhile to apply resources to a difficult fixon an obsolete OS platform for < 10% of our 4.X user base for a problem mostpeople have lived with for five years? Is it an appropriate application ofmanpower, when that manpower could be applied to other defects orenhancements that benefit a broader spectrum of platforms, applications, andcustomers? We have decided that working on this bug fix for 4.5.X is not aworthwhile investment of resources ... at this time ... versus otherprojects and bug fixes we are working on.I understand that certain people may not see sufficient value in upgradingto 5.0 for their specific application needs. But it is a simple fact ofcost effectiveness for us to make bug fixes to the current source code basewhile we are already knee-deep working in that source base adding newfeatures. So, whether you see value in the additional 5.0 product featuresor not, it's inevitable that better performance and quantitatively more bugfixes are going to show up in 5.X going forward. This doesn't mean we won'tsupport 4.X into the future, it's just a reflection of economic reality forany software product that you will get fewer and more selective bug fixes ifyou are on a less than current revision of a product. Some people choose toupgrade just so they are at a revision level where they can be assured ofbroader general maintenance updates, some because they have an applicationthat requires the new features. Others choose not to upgrade to the currentrevision solely for support reasons, but their expectations should be thatthere will be fewer and more selective fixes available for 4.X goingforward.Phil B. -----Original Message-----From: WebDna @ [mailto:webdna@inkblotmedia.com] Sent:Monday, November 17, 2003 9:53 PMTo:WebDNA TalkSubject:Re: Follow-up to listfiles bug report ...:) absolutely. Upgrading to 5.x to get a new feature set is one thing.Though upgrading to 5.x to fix a bug that is in 4.5 seems a like usingdynamite to extract a tooth. I do not think Ken was asking for the [tables]feature to be added to 4.5, but rather he wants the feature set he purchasedto work.Again, I am all for evolution of software. It is a great thing. Though so ishaving a product work the way it was advertised. :) If I had seen an "asseen on TV" icon on the product I would understand. hehe.I feel a need to say that this email is sent light-hearted. Do not take thelack of tone in email to mean I am trying to be argumentative.That is my 2 cents,Ron----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Proudman"
To: "WebDNA Talk" Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:27 PMSubject: Re: Follow-up to listfiles bug report ...>> On Nov 17, 2003, at 9:37 PM, WebDna @ wrote:>> > Why ask why? So in order to use a product the way it was meant to be> > used we> > should be forced to upgrade? Hmm ... sounds like a Microsoft model to> > me.>> Only reason I asked is because software is inherently flawed and always> will be. I don't expect developers to fix everything for free. Bug> fixes, yes, but other things, no. That's why I bought a copy of 5,> because I wanted the new features and the patches to old ones. But> that's just my POV.>> -- > Jesse Williams-Proudman> Blue Box Development :: Custom Web Solutions> +1.206.778.8777 :: jesse@blueboxdev.com>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail toWeb Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
We face the same issues of maintenance versus new feature development as anysoftware company, and I'd venture many of you on this list that develop andmarket your own solutions face similar decisions. This is never a black andwhite decision point, i.e., fix every bug possible in old versions at thecost of new features that would expand the market and customer base for theproduct, or focus solely on new features but sacrifice the credibility withyour installed base with a lack of bug fixes.It is always a cost/benefit tradeoff that has to be looked at on a case bycase basis, i.e., the severity of the bug, the cross-section of customerspotentially affected, the amount of effort required to fix it, theavailability of work-arounds, and what other projects, whether new featuresor other maintenance items, would be impacted by redirecting resources to aparticular problem.In this case, the bug is specific to 4.5 running on a Classic Macenvironment, which is less than 10% of the installed base running 4.X. It'salso a bug that has been inherent in [listfiles] on Mac Classic for wellover five years. So is it worthwhile to apply resources to a difficult fixon an obsolete OS platform for < 10% of our 4.X user base for a problem mostpeople have lived with for five years? Is it an appropriate application ofmanpower, when that manpower could be applied to other defects orenhancements that benefit a broader spectrum of platforms, applications, andcustomers? We have decided that working on this bug fix for 4.5.X is not aworthwhile investment of resources ... at this time ... versus otherprojects and bug fixes we are working on.I understand that certain people may not see sufficient value in upgradingto 5.0 for their specific application needs. But it is a simple fact ofcost effectiveness for us to make bug fixes to the current source code basewhile we are already knee-deep working in that source base adding newfeatures. So, whether you see value in the additional 5.0 product featuresor not, it's inevitable that better performance and quantitatively more bugfixes are going to show up in 5.X going forward. This doesn't mean we won'tsupport 4.X into the future, it's just a reflection of economic reality forany software product that you will get fewer and more selective bug fixes ifyou are on a less than current revision of a product. Some people choose toupgrade just so they are at a revision level where they can be assured ofbroader general maintenance updates, some because they have an applicationthat requires the new features. Others choose not to upgrade to the currentrevision solely for support reasons, but their expectations should be thatthere will be fewer and more selective fixes available for 4.X goingforward.Phil B. -----Original Message-----From: WebDna @ [mailto:webdna@inkblotmedia.com] Sent:Monday, November 17, 2003 9:53 PMTo:WebDNA TalkSubject:Re: Follow-up to listfiles bug report ...:) absolutely. Upgrading to 5.x to get a new feature set is one thing.Though upgrading to 5.x to fix a bug that is in 4.5 seems a like usingdynamite to extract a tooth. I do not think Ken was asking for the [tables]feature to be added to 4.5, but rather he wants the feature set he purchasedto work.Again, I am all for evolution of software. It is a great thing. Though so ishaving a product work the way it was advertised. :) If I had seen an "asseen on TV" icon on the product I would understand. hehe.I feel a need to say that this email is sent light-hearted. Do not take thelack of tone in email to mean I am trying to be argumentative.That is my 2 cents,Ron----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Proudman" To: "WebDNA Talk" Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:27 PMSubject: Re: Follow-up to listfiles bug report ...>> On Nov 17, 2003, at 9:37 PM, WebDna @ wrote:>> > Why ask why? So in order to use a product the way it was meant to be> > used we> > should be forced to upgrade? Hmm ... sounds like a Microsoft model to> > me.>> Only reason I asked is because software is inherently flawed and always> will be. I don't expect developers to fix everything for free. Bug> fixes, yes, but other things, no. That's why I bought a copy of 5,> because I wanted the new features and the patches to old ones. But> that's just my POV.>> -- > Jesse Williams-Proudman> Blue Box Development :: Custom Web Solutions> +1.206.778.8777 :: jesse@blueboxdev.com>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail toWeb Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Phillip Bonesteele
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Search for starts with and ends with? (2003)
Re1000001: Setting up shop (1997)
Updated EditPlus Tags (2004)
Just made store and move file from webcatalog......... (2000)
URGENT - CPU usage OSXS (2001)
Emailer Set Up (1997)
problems with 2 tags (1997)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
[WebDNA] What file needs to be edited in apache to server html (2008)
WebDNA security (2004)
Server slowing down. (1997)
Need Sample Template - just purchased (1997)
carriage returns in data (1997)
Nested tags count question (1997)
Unexpected error (1997)
Running 2 two WebCatalog.acgi's (1996)
do you have a webcatalog tool you want to sell? (1999)
emailer settings and control questions (1997)
Monthly Help File (1999)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)