Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 32995
interpreted = N
texte = > >> >> I identified a significant bug in the version 4 beta on June 6, 2000 >>> >> --the day before SM released it to the general public. I tried >>> >> reporting this bug to SM directly via email, but they failed to >>> >> respond to my email message as requested. The next day, they released >>> >> version 4 to the public, bug and all. This bug causes syntactically >>> >> correct webcat 2.x and 3.x templates to fail when certain contexts >>> >> are nested. >>> > >>> >I cannot find any evidence that you reported any bug on June 6, either >>> >on the Beta list or this one. Put up or shut up... >>> >>> My quote above *specifically* says I reported this issue to SM >>> directly via email. Since I never reported this on either talk >>> list, and in fact I never claimed to have reported this on the talk >>> lists, it seems like it is your false assumption that is causing you >>> to look for evidence where it clearly does not exist. >> >>And you are keeping the contents of you e-mail secret. What an asshole! > > >Thanks for your opinion, but maybe it would be more productive to >direct your anger towards SM instead of me. I am simply the messenger >here ... if you want resolution, go to the source. > >SM is 100% responsible for this bug, not me. SM created this bug in >themselves, and SM is responsible for ignoring my email message and >releasing this bug to the general public -- instead of squashing it >first. > >Now that I see how little value they place on my bug discoveries, I >feel it is time for me to re-evaluate my bug-finding efforts. After >all, if they continue to ignore me as they have been, then why should >I bother?Huh. I find that SM is incredibly receptive to our bug finds. Quite often, Grant fixes the bug in a day or two. So, yeah, I guess it is you. Maybe if you cut down on your extraneous postings and actually had a better attitude (which recently makes you seem like you work for some SM competitor), Grant and the rest would actually read the stuff you report.For example, what's the point of posting comments about a significant bug if you're not going to tell the rest of us what it is? How does that help anyone? It just makes you seem like a 2nd grader who's telling on a classmate. Don't get all high-and-mighty and make it seem like you're the WebCat guru (as registering webdna.net implies) or part of SM. You're just some guy who uses the product, like the rest of us. It's clear that you're upset about being ignored but posts like the above don't help your case. They make you appear passive-agressive and needy for attention, like a spoiled 4 year old. Maybe you just had a bad day at the office, but this isn't the place to resolve your inner demons.And did they release WC4 with bugs? You bet! Name a software company that hasn't done that. If they don't release it, they don't make money. No money=no SM = No webcat.Should you re-evaluate your bug-finding efforts? Only if you're going to keep your current attitude. A better attitude may actually get you removed from the kill-files of half the people in my department (and probably at SM's, too). Bug finding is something you do because you want to help the product. Your posts do just the opposite.Michael -- Derek Chauran Web Developer, Dark Horse Comics derekc@darkhorse.com http://www.darkhorse.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://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
> >> >> I identified a significant bug in the version 4 beta on June 6, 2000 >>> >> --the day before SM released it to the general public. I tried >>> >> reporting this bug to SM directly via email, but they failed to >>> >> respond to my email message as requested. The next day, they released >>> >> version 4 to the public, bug and all. This bug causes syntactically >>> >> correct webcat 2.x and 3.x templates to fail when certain contexts >>> >> are nested. >>> > >>> >I cannot find any evidence that you reported any bug on June 6, either >>> >on the Beta list or this one. Put up or shut up... >>> >>> My quote above *specifically* says I reported this issue to SM >>> directly via email. Since I never reported this on either talk >>> list, and in fact I never claimed to have reported this on the talk >>> lists, it seems like it is your false assumption that is causing you >>> to look for evidence where it clearly does not exist. >> >>And you are keeping the contents of you e-mail secret. What an asshole! > > >Thanks for your opinion, but maybe it would be more productive to >direct your anger towards SM instead of me. I am simply the messenger >here ... if you want resolution, go to the source. > >SM is 100% responsible for this bug, not me. SM created this bug in >themselves, and SM is responsible for ignoring my email message and >releasing this bug to the general public -- instead of squashing it >first. > >Now that I see how little value they place on my bug discoveries, I >feel it is time for me to re-evaluate my bug-finding efforts. After >all, if they continue to ignore me as they have been, then why should >I bother?Huh. I find that SM is incredibly receptive to our bug finds. Quite often, Grant fixes the bug in a day or two. So, yeah, I guess it is you. Maybe if you cut down on your extraneous postings and actually had a better attitude (which recently makes you seem like you work for some SM competitor), Grant and the rest would actually read the stuff you report.For example, what's the point of posting comments about a significant bug if you're not going to tell the rest of us what it is? How does that help anyone? It just makes you seem like a 2nd grader who's telling on a classmate. Don't get all high-and-mighty and make it seem like you're the WebCat guru (as registering webdna.net implies) or part of SM. You're just some guy who uses the product, like the rest of us. It's clear that you're upset about being ignored but posts like the above don't help your case. They make you appear passive-agressive and needy for attention, like a spoiled 4 year old. Maybe you just had a bad day at the office, but this isn't the place to resolve your inner demons.And did they release WC4 with bugs? You bet! Name a software company that hasn't done that. If they don't release it, they don't make money. No money=no SM = No webcat.Should you re-evaluate your bug-finding efforts? Only if you're going to keep your current attitude. A better attitude may actually get you removed from the kill-files of half the people in my department (and probably at SM's, too). Bug finding is something you do because you want to help the product. Your posts do just the opposite.Michael -- Derek Chauran Web Developer, Dark Horse Comics derekc@darkhorse.com http://www.darkhorse.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://search.smithmicro.com/
Michael Winston
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:
update on wn searching (1997)
Document contains no data... (1999)
Where is the secure setting for text variables? (2003)
Shopping Cart variation... (1997)
Showif for mulitple variations (1997)
form crasehes server (1997)
Help with database strategy (1998)
Attention SMSI - DOCS Error (2004)
RE:It just Does't add up!!! (1997)
StoreBuilder v4.0.2 Question (2001)
[Announce] WebCatalog 3.0 Beta Program (1998)
WebCat b15 Mac plug-in (1997)
Emailer (1997)
Old Topic - [OT] - server speeds. (2002)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997)
Emailer pref's won't save (2005)
Version f1 status (1997)
Encrypt question. (2000)
Need relative path explanation (1997)
I got caught! (2003)