shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu (Earl Shaffer) (07/20/87)
Well, to those of you who flamed my first posting about Borland not offering free upgrades and fixes for Turbo C v1.0, here is some news: BORLAND CUSTOMER SERVICE CONFIRMS ERRORS IN THE BUG PATCH LISTINGS! Wonderful. Not only is the 1.0 stuff buggy, but even their patches have bugs! Also, without a connection to COMPUSERVE, you cannot test your patch work. I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. Have fun! ============================================================================== Earl Shaffer - University of Pennsylvania - Data Communications Department "Time was invented so that everything wouldn't happen at once." Steven Wright ==============================================================================
bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) (07/21/87)
> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed > to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' > and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big commercial software development shops?
iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) (07/22/87)
In article <555@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: >> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed >> to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' >> and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. > > You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, > terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big > commercial software development shops? I think this flame is uncalled for. Most of us don't mind a few minor bugs in a first release - its expected. Just as prompt patches are. But, Borland has really screwed up. Instead of minor bugs, floating point is so broken it's useless. To top it all off, the supplied patches are also buggy. I think that this is just cause for complaint. Also, most people here on the usenet seem to take offense at fools like you who flame while hidden behind a psuedonym. The usenet isn't a kiddie BBS where everyone uses 'handles'. If you feel the need to protect your fragil ego in such a manner, then perhaps you should go back to your local BBS, this isn't the place for such childishness. - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson
dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (07/25/87)
In article <3092@zen.berkeley.edu>, iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) writes: > In article <555@rlgvax.UUCP> bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler) writes: > >> I can expect the usual people to flame this too and say '1.0 sw is allowed > >> to be buggy', and of course the standard 'how long have you been in PC sw?' > >> and I will probably get a 'you have to wait for the patch patches'. > > > > You sure do seem to be a cynical cuss! Was there some awful, > > terrible tragedy in your childhood involving one of the big > > commercial software development shops? > > I think this flame is uncalled for. Most of us don't mind a few minor > bugs in a first release - its expected. Just as prompt patches are. > But, Borland has really screwed up. Instead of minor bugs, floating point > is so broken it's useless. To top it all off, the supplied patches are > also buggy. I think that this is just cause for complaint. > > Also, most people here on the usenet seem to take offense at fools > like you who flame while hidden behind a psuedonym. The usenet isn't > a kiddie BBS where everyone uses 'handles'. If you feel the need to > protect your fragil ego in such a manner, then perhaps you should > go back to your local BBS, this isn't the place for such childishness. > Flame? The only flame I see here is the author of the final message. While I expect the middle author should have :-)'ed it still hardly qualifies for flame. I read the second message as a commentary on the negativism of the first not as any statement on whether Borland 'screwed' up. I think most people appreciate a little mild humor so long as it is a small proportion of net traffic. Reacting to an innocuous message in such an overblown hostile fashion seems vastly more childish (or foolish if you wish) to me. What is YOUR ego problem. David Albrecht