chrisj@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson) (01/23/89)
GateKeeper 1.0 has been in release for twenty days now and it appears to be time to make an announcement or two. GATEKEEPER BUGS - THE TRUTH COMES OUT There are indeed bugs in GateKeeper 1.0. They cause some people no end of serious problems, while other people are blissfully unaware of them and run without any problems at all. I suspect that most people fall into this latter category, but there are cetainly quite a few in the former category with problems that can't be (and aren't) ignored. If you are having serious problems with GateKeeper, my apologies. It would probably be best if you stop using GateKeeper until the fixed version is available. If you are not having problems with GateKeeper, by all means continue using it - from everything I've learned from those people who've contacted me it will either cause you chronic and unmistakeable problems, or none at all. I, personally, fall firmly in the category of one who has had no problems at all. The fixed version of GateKeeper (1.0.1) has been in testing for several days, and I should start getting feedback from my testers soon. I don't believe in releasing software that is still in its testing stages (i.e. Alpha, Beta or Development versions), so when 1.0.1 is released, it'll mean something. IS GATEKEEPER 1.0 A BETA VERSION OR WHAT? As I stated above, I don't believe in releasing software that's still in its testing stages. GateKeeper 1.0 was a full-fledged release version. It was tested at two separate sites (actually, there were three, but the last one served primarily to confirm the results of the original two). None of the problems that have so effectively plagued some GateKeeper users were reported by those testers. In addition, I ran GateKeeper on my own machine throughout the entire development phase in the belief that if anybody was going to get bit by bugs it ought to be me. An extremely early internal development version actually did cause me some serious problems too - while I was in the process of building a newer version of GateKeeper, it caused Lightspeed C to delete all of the GateKeeper source files. I was not amused - but that bug, and every other one I encountered, were fixed. Indeed, by the time the earliest test version went out to the test sites, GateKeeper had been running trouble-free for me for some time. The long and the short of it is: It was not for lack of trying that GateKeeper 1.0 went out with bugs. My apologies and sympathies to those who have been bitten. IT'S GOT PROBLEMS. SO WHAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT IT? New and significantly more varied test sites have been chosen for version 1.0.1 of GateKeeper. Specifically, I've asked everyone who has reported problems (especially those who have reported very serious problems) to become testers. I've also asked all those who contacted me and reported that they've had no problems to become testers. This way I should get feedback from both ends of spectrum. So far I've had very favorable responses and I believe that with the help of these people, GateKeeper 1.0.1 will be an admirably stable and reliable release. When it will be available depends entirely on what I learn from the testers, and what (if any) features I decide to add. In the name of timeliness, I'm inclined to release it without additional features as soon as I get the word from my testers - In the name of steadily reducing the size of the list of features to be added without creating a senseless plethora of versions, I'm inclined to add several important new features to the upcoming release. The debate rages - only time will tell what I'll decide. For those of you wondering, the version of GateKeeper that is already in test- ing does (should?) allow privileges to be granted to INITs and cdevs. It was not forgetfullness that resulted in being unable to grant those items privi- leges in version 1.0, it was a difficult implementation problem. I've since worked out a solution that should work in the vast majority of cases, so you won't have to rename your INITs and cdevs for very much longer. REPORTING YOUR PROBLEMS WITH GATEKEEPER Two basic approaches to problem reporting have been developed by GateKeeper users: 1) Send the the author (me) email as I've repeatedly requested, or 2) Post problem reports to the newsgroups without making any attempt to contact yours truly. [There's actually a third: Find out the author's phone number and call him early on Sunday mornings to make certain he doesn't get any sleep after long nights of working on GateKeeper into the wee hours of the morning. Fortunately, this one hasn't been used very often. :-) ] I leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess which of those two approaches is most likely to accomplish something. :-) Seriously, I'm very interested in making GateKeeper as useful and reliable as possible, but if questions, comments, bug reports and whatnot don't get to me, they'll never do anyone any good. If you want to post to the newsgroups, that's fine, but send a copy of your bug reports, etc. to me as well (and if you find my reply useful, I'd appreciate it if you'd post a follow-up summary.) If it sounds like this part was aimed at you - please take it in the spirit it is intended: nothin' more than a friendly suggestion. IN CLOSING Thanks to everyone who's tried GateKeeper for better or for worse. Particular thanks to everyone who's contacted me - whether it was with problems or compliments (they all serve a useful purpose). The current problems with GateKeeper will be (have been) fixed and I hope it will go on to be a useful tool for everyone concerned. Thanks, ----Chris Johnson ----Author of GateKeeper P.S. If you haven't found the on-line help, click on the question mark above the Info/Settings sliding switch. Regrettably, this makes perfect sense to some people, while other people never do discover it. I'll find a more sensible form for the button in a future release. 'Sorry for any troubles this may have caused.