ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/24/89)
In article <569.24C7A4A4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us writes: >In article <26557@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >I'm going to take some time with you, Earl, because it seems that you have >the intelligence to comprehend what I'm going to say. Give me a break. If you want to disagree with me, just say so, don't wrap your response in condescending jargon. You sound some like some Afrikaaner talking to a Black and explaining why white rule is really good for me. >Do you know what a version number means? Do you know what it means No. Do you? Is this standardized? I'm a regular reader of trade papers pertaining to computing and have been involved with computers since 1968 (CDC, Univac, IBM, etc). Use of version numbers varies among companies and products. >(or upgrade to) the new version. You don't sit around and bitch about >how bad the old version was, or complain about the bug (that has been >fixed). Now, admittedly, Borland probably should have tested TC 1.0 I have TC 2.0. Is there something newer then this? Do you want proof of purchase? Give me your fax number. I have my invoice. >a little more thoroughly before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public. >However, if you looked through the manual, tried compiling a few programs, >and discovered the bugs in the compiler -- I'm sure that Borland would >have been willing to either send you a fix or take back your compiler. Give me a break, number two. I sent Borland a list of bugs noticed in the first go rounds with TC 1.0. After two months, I received a mush mouthed letter to the effect that they recognized there were bugs and were working on them. When I first wrote them, they did NOT have fixes for some of the bugs, and these were not trivial problems. For example, there were bugs in the floating point that essentially prevented perfectly legal C programs from EVER compiling correctly under Turbo C 1.0. >However, sitting around, *after the bug has been fixed*, and complaining >about it, doesn't do anybody any good. You apparently have different standards for product quality than I do. Let me take an extreme example, the Ford Pinto. Would you argue that because Ford eventually fixed the gas tank so it did not explode on impact, the fact of a later fix precludes criticism of the earlier failings? That's what you seem to be saying here! As I see it, Borland took nearly $100 from me for a product that did not perform as documented. I then had to spend another $60 to get a revision that did (almost) what was originally claimed. >Why is it that, when a user has trouble with a PD/freeware/shareware >program, they are always told to upgrade to the most recent version... >But when a user has trouble with a piece of commercial software, >they just sit around and flame away, even though their copy is several >versions out of date? Before you make claims, get your facts straight. I bought TC 1.0. I bought TC 2.0. I have the receipts. Give me your fax number, and I'll prove it. If Borland brings out a significant revision, I'll be one of the first to buy it. >Followups directed to alt.flame, where they belong. 'Fraid not bunky. I don't remember a declaration appointing you Gawd. If you want a more philosophical justification, we can get into Rousseau and the notion of a social contract. For the moment, let's leave it at: I don't take ad hominem attacks lightly, especially when they are based on willful disregard of fact. Moreover, despite the flaming rhetoric here, there is still an important technical issue involved (or several of them) -- (a) what sort of quality control can be expected of a company with sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars; (b) what sort of attention to detail can be expected of reviewers in technical and semi-technical journals; I'm an historian specializing on Japan. If I can take a computer related product and within an hour or two demonstrate major and crippling deviations from accepted norms for such a product, WHAT THE VENDOR HAS CLAIMED IN ITS DOCUMENTATION AND ADVERTISING, etc., I think I have a reasonable right to piss and moan, especially if I've bought the product out of pocket. I think I have a reasonable right to piss and moan if allegedly reputable journals review the product and do not catch gross errors that show up in the first 15 minutes of use! If I, as a total amateur, can find fundamental technical problems (recognized as such, since the vendor did eventually fix them), you have to wonder (or at least I have to wonder) what was wrong with the high priced professionals who designed the system. It would be one thing if we were talking about ultra obscure features of the language, but in point of fact TC 1.0 could not be relied upon to handle ordinary floating point operations in a number of contexts. Maybe you are satisfied taking your socks off to count over ten. For me the bugs in the floating point in TC 1.0 rendered it next to worthless for several major applications. You are entitled to your opinions and to ~suggest~ that this debate be moved to alt.flames. I do not see you as entitled to make that decision on an arbitrary basis. Before you consign future debate to the black-hole of alt.flames, (a) get your facts right; and (b) argue the technical issues up front. Do you have any financial stake in Borland? You certainly sound as though you're worried about the value of your stock. Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis 916-752-1636 (voice, fax [2300-0800 PDT]) 916-752-0776 secretary (bitnet) ehkinmonth@ucdavis.edu (uucp) ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (telnet or 916-752-7920) cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251] request ucdked, login as guest, no password
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (07/25/89)
In article <26600@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >In article <569.24C7A4A4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us >writes: >>Do you know what a version number means? Do you know what it means > >No. Do you? Is this standardized? I'm a regular reader of trade papers >pertaining to computing and have been involved with computers since >1968 (CDC, Univac, IBM, etc). Use of version numbers varies among >companies and products. Yes, I admit that there is no hard-and-fast standard for version numbers. However, when you have version 1.0 of a product and the company has just released version 2.0 of that product, it stands to reason that version 2.0 will be more advanced than version 1.0, and perhaps even have some of version 1.0's bugs fixed. >>(or upgrade to) the new version. You don't sit around and bitch about >>how bad the old version was, or complain about the bug (that has been >>fixed). Now, admittedly, Borland probably should have tested TC 1.0 > >I have TC 2.0. Is there something newer then this? Do you want proof >of purchase? Give me your fax number. I have my invoice. I haven't had any problems with Turbo C v2.0's floating-point handling. (I don't use floating-point all that often, however, the few times it's been used it hasn't given me any problems.) >>However, sitting around, *after the bug has been fixed*, and complaining >>about it, doesn't do anybody any good. > >You apparently have different standards for product quality than I do. >Let me take an extreme example, the Ford Pinto. Would you argue that >because Ford eventually fixed the gas tank so it did not explode on >impact, the fact of a later fix precludes criticism of the earlier >failings? That's what you seem to be saying here! No, I'm not saying that Ford should not be criticized for their problem with gas tanks, impacts, and explosions. However, you should not drive around in a Pinto that hasn't been fixed, moaning and groaning about how the tank will explode if you hit something. Similarly, when Borland issues an upgrade to their software that affects you, you should attempt to get that upgrade. I'm still using Lotus 1-2-3 Release 1A. However, I don't go around complaining about how 1A doesn't support all those neat things that 2.01 does, like add-ins and VGAs. I don't use those things enough to make it worth upgrading. However, if I did, you can bet that I would have been one of the first people lining up for the upgrade. There is a fairly important difference between Borland and Ford: Ford issues a recall and does the fix for free, while Borland *sells* you Version 2.0. However, there's still no excuse for complaining about bugs in a program that have been fixed in later versions. >Maybe you are satisfied taking your socks off to count over ten. For me >the bugs in the floating point in TC 1.0 rendered it next to worthless >for several major applications. I don't take my socks off to count over ten, and I don't drop my pants to count over 20 ( :-) ). Neither do I get out my pocketknife and start carving up my fingers when I need to use fractions. >Do you have any financial stake in Borland? You certainly sound as >though you're worried about the value of your stock. No, I don't own any Borland stock. I don't even own any stock in any of Borland's competitors. -- Marc Unangst UUCP smart : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us UUCP dumb : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju UUCP dumb alt.: ...!{ames,rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju Internet : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us