Quote
Atle,
I'm not surprised that your statements are provoking argument<g>. You
use such inflammatory language! For example: "That means that their
testing team did a *terrible* job" (emphasis added). I have no idea,
I agree, this was to inflammatory.
Quote
and I am sure you do not either, whether the testing team did a good job,
mediocre job, or terrible job given the time and resources that they
had. If the entire testing team consisted of one person, then I would
say that they did a terrific job! Borland management, on the other
hand, would not have done an adequate job! But we simply don't know the
details, do we?
And I did not add enough extra solutions. This is just one cenario.. As you
say Borland management could be responsible. Still, the testers should be
able to inform that the product was not good enough yet. But if they did,
and management still descided to release it, that would be very bad. So I
hope that this is a case where the testers did a bad job.
Quote
Again, calling us *betatesters* is simply an inflammatory judgement on
your part. Betatesters are normally individuals enrolled under a formal
program to find bugs that the in-house testers cannot find because of
limited resources. The fact that D2005 was released with more than an
acceptable number of bugs does not turn us into *betatesters* because,
as you point out, the normal communication link for reporting is not
present. I certainly understand the point that you are trying to make,
but the inflammatory language does get in the way of constructive
discussion.
I would not call this inflammatory judgement. Because when it was released
in this state, that is exactly what they did. It is not acceptable at all for
us to be treated like that, and they do deserve to get this kind of
feedback. If they can handle it, I don't know. But it is still exactly what
they should expect. No posts by TeamB will make it different. The only thing
they could do is say sorry on behalf of Borland, and hope that it will not
happen again. And instead they say that these customers are obligated to
post QC reports for all the bugs they find. That is a hit right in the face
for some people.
I want Borland to have a good product, so I post QC reports. But TeamB
should understand that some people do not want to do this because of the
current situation. I think that TeamB needs to be more customer related, and
work as a buffer instead of a brick wall.
Quote
Again, no one is suggesting that an individual spend "weeks" reporting a
bug. But it seems to me that most of the objectors are objecting to
spending more than 10 minutes, if that. So once again, inflammatory
exaggeration turns discussion into debate and argument.
You have some significant points to make, it just seems a shame to me
that you use language that provokes argument rather than constructive
discussion.
Some have been a little over the edge. Still most is because of the feedback
from TeamB and the fact that I still cannot use D2005 the way I want to.
Actually, the only thing TeamB has achieved, is making me more annoyed with
the situation.
Luckily I attended the internet chat about the updates. There I got good
answers on my questions, and now I am less annoyed and looking towards the
next version with hopes that it will meet quality requirements. Delphi is
great for development and I really do want to continue using it. Delphi 7 is king
of the hill, and many features inside D2005 is very good.
-Atle
