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 any software company, and I'd venture many of you on this list that develop and market your own solutions face similar decisions. This is never a black and white decision point, i.e., fix every bug possible in old versions at the cost of new features that would expand the market and customer base for the product, or focus solely on new features but sacrifice the credibility with your installed base with a lack of bug fixes. It is always a cost/benefit tradeoff that has to be looked at on a case by case basis, i.e., the severity of the bug, the cross-section of customers potentially affected, the amount of effort required to fix it, the availability of work-arounds, and what other projects, whether new features or other maintenance items, would be impacted by redirecting resources to a particular problem. In this case, the bug is specific to 4.5 running on a Classic Mac environment, which is less than 10% of the installed base running 4.X. It's also a bug that has been inherent in [listfiles] on Mac Classic for well over five years. So is it worthwhile to apply resources to a difficult fix on an obsolete OS platform for < 10% of our 4.X user base for a problem most people have lived with for five years? Is it an appropriate application of manpower, when that manpower could be applied to other defects or enhancements that benefit a broader spectrum of platforms, applications, and customers? We have decided that working on this bug fix for 4.5.X is not a worthwhile investment of resources ... at this time ... versus other projects and bug fixes we are working on. I understand that certain people may not see sufficient value in upgrading to 5.0 for their specific application needs. But it is a simple fact of cost effectiveness for us to make bug fixes to the current source code base while we are already knee-deep working in that source base adding new features. So, whether you see value in the additional 5.0 product features or not, it's inevitable that better performance and quantitatively more bug fixes are going to show up in 5.X going forward. This doesn't mean we won't support 4.X into the future, it's just a reflection of economic reality for any software product that you will get fewer and more selective bug fixes if you are on a less than current revision of a product. Some people choose to upgrade just so they are at a revision level where they can be assured of broader general maintenance updates, some because they have an application that requires the new features. Others choose not to upgrade to the current revision solely for support reasons, but their expectations should be that there will be fewer and more selective fixes available for 4.X going forward. Phil B. -----Original Message----- From: WebDna @ [mailto:webdna@inkblotmedia.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:53 PM To: WebDNA Talk Subject: 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 using dynamite 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 purchased to work. Again, I am all for evolution of software. It is a great thing. Though so is having a product work the way it was advertised. :) If I had seen an "as seen 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 the lack 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 PM Subject: 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 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 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 any software company, and I'd venture many of you on this list that develop and market your own solutions face similar decisions. This is never a black and white decision point, i.e., fix every bug possible in old versions at the cost of new features that would expand the market and customer base for the product, or focus solely on new features but sacrifice the credibility with your installed base with a lack of bug fixes. It is always a cost/benefit tradeoff that has to be looked at on a case by case basis, i.e., the severity of the bug, the cross-section of customers potentially affected, the amount of effort required to fix it, the availability of work-arounds, and what other projects, whether new features or other maintenance items, would be impacted by redirecting resources to a particular problem. In this case, the bug is specific to 4.5 running on a Classic Mac environment, which is less than 10% of the installed base running 4.X. It's also a bug that has been inherent in [listfiles] on Mac Classic for well over five years. So is it worthwhile to apply resources to a difficult fix on an obsolete OS platform for < 10% of our 4.X user base for a problem most people have lived with for five years? Is it an appropriate application of manpower, when that manpower could be applied to other defects or enhancements that benefit a broader spectrum of platforms, applications, and customers? We have decided that working on this bug fix for 4.5.X is not a worthwhile investment of resources ... at this time ... versus other projects and bug fixes we are working on. I understand that certain people may not see sufficient value in upgrading to 5.0 for their specific application needs. But it is a simple fact of cost effectiveness for us to make bug fixes to the current source code base while we are already knee-deep working in that source base adding new features. So, whether you see value in the additional 5.0 product features or not, it's inevitable that better performance and quantitatively more bug fixes are going to show up in 5.X going forward. This doesn't mean we won't support 4.X into the future, it's just a reflection of economic reality for any software product that you will get fewer and more selective bug fixes if you are on a less than current revision of a product. Some people choose to upgrade just so they are at a revision level where they can be assured of broader general maintenance updates, some because they have an application that requires the new features. Others choose not to upgrade to the current revision solely for support reasons, but their expectations should be that there will be fewer and more selective fixes available for 4.X going forward. Phil B. -----Original Message----- From: WebDna @ [mailto:webdna@inkblotmedia.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:53 PM To: WebDNA Talk Subject: 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 using dynamite 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 purchased to work. Again, I am all for evolution of software. It is a great thing. Though so is having a product work the way it was advertised. :) If I had seen an "as seen 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 the lack 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 PM Subject: 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 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 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:
categorys (1998)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Web requests in que... (2007)
RE: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
Multiple serial numbers (1997)
A quickie question (1997)
Classified (1999)
[protect] on NT? (1997)
WebCat cannot handle compatible search parameters? (1997)
[include] affect on filepaths for links? (1997)
New random discoveries? (2005)
Proper file locations (1997)
Re:Emailer and encryption (1997)
Show shoppingcart after remove last item (1997)
SiteGuard Use Question (1997)
[ShowNext] feature in 2.0 (1997)
Multiple prices (1997)
Something wrong with this list? (2006)
Group Updates (1998)
system crashes, event log (1997)