Hello All,
I have not received any mails lately but I can see them on the glug site. This is in response to Kenneth Gonsalves's mail quoted below.
"I am not laughing. What exactly is a bug? When, for example, in kword I save a file in OOo format and OOo is unable to open it, is that a bug? Or is it a failure of software - just bad software? As far as I know, the approach to writing software is to first write a use case, or all possible use cases that you can think of. Then write the software. Then write tests to cover all the above use cases, and release the software when it passes the tests. There will be unusual use cases and edge cases which are not anticipated and for which tests havent been written. Failure in these cases are bugs. But no failure in the main use-case.
In the case of saving in OOo format and OOo not opening it, this is not a bug. Because it is the main usecase of the particular feature. A simple test - open an OOo file, save it in OOo format and open it in OOo would have detected this, and the feature should not have been released. Yes, bugs will be there - but when a main/common use case fails - I dont think it can be called a bug and it is no laughing matter either. I havent gone into kword code to find if there are test suites, I hope there are ..."
Kenneth has echoed my thoughts exactly and put it nicely in words. Having bugs in a software is possible but after more than 5 years if a software behaves as if it was a beta and released just yesterday for the first time, then this is a flaw in the software not some mistake or attitude problem of the installing person. There is nothing hilarious about a person complaining about such grave issues in the software. The cell colour problem I had highlighted was not even connected to any proprietary file formats. It happens in Open formats.
M$ softwares may have more bugs, be less stable than nix based ones but when they are in the stable working mode, at least they do the job they are intended to do. And if FOSS fans feel it is below dignity to compare libre software with M$ ones, then why is it that whenever a problem is pointed out in the libre software, they start counting the bugs in M$ ones. Why can't they except that the particular software has serious flaws that need to be corrected.
Free software is no longer the free blood donation camp. Today major libre software and distro development is taking place through huge sponsorship and donations and by corporate participation. The programmers are compensated for their efforts, so while the institution is giving away the software for free, the developer is not doing any charity. Then why not expect quality work instead of a 'Fix it yourself' community kit.
This is in response to Krish's reply to JTD's mail and I quote...
"actually the entire problem is that people don't realise the values of running a script. and by the way running a script is "nothing to do " with programming. I think clicking on next next finish etc is not a real good way of software setup."
Simplifying a procedure means that one can do more work instead of wasting time running scripts. How would we feel if we got a mobile phone where instead of pressing buttons, we had to create and run scripts every time we wanted to dial a number or access the phone directory or any other function. The same process is happening in the background but the programmers have provided a beautiful interface to simply press a button. If scripting is so important, why don't we start doing all our home and office work in assembly language or machine code? This will give us better control of the hardware. It is up to the programmer to make software intuitive and easy to handle. It has no relation with scripting skills of the vendor or user. Let each one do his job properly.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:59:46 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk said:
Kenneth has echoed my thoughts exactly and put it nicely in words. Having bugs in a software is possible but after more than 5 years if a software behaves as if it was a beta and released just yesterday for the first time, then this is a flaw in the software not some mistake or attitude problem of the installing person. There is nothing hilarious about a person complaining about such grave issues in the software. The cell colour problem I had highlighted was not even connected to any proprietary file formats. It happens in Open formats.
I, like some others on the list, have been unable to reproduce it. Have you filed a bug with the distribution you are using?
M$ softwares may have more bugs, be less stable than nix based ones but when they are in the stable working mode, at least they do the job they are intended to do.
This does not match my experience. I have been using Linux since '86, and VMS since '83; and windows since, umm, '91. I can't say I can agree with that statement.
And if FOSS fans feel it is below dignity to compare libre software with M$ ones, then why is it that whenever a problem is pointed out in the libre software, they start counting the bugs in M$ ones.
This seems to be a mischaracterization of what actually happened. A statement was made extolling the virtues of a non--free application, and a free one was stated to be worse; people just pointed out that their experience does not match. The non-free application is not as bug free as it was being represented to be; and the free applications bugs were not universally reproducible.
Why can't they except that the particular software has serious flaws that need to be corrected.
Oh, sure, any application can have bugs. However, if I can not reproduce them, I can't help debug the problem; and I also can't say I can see the serious flaws in the application; which is not to say you are not seeing the bugs.
I just can't see them.
Free software is no longer the free blood donation camp.
It never was one, as far as I can tell.
Today major libre software and distro development is taking place through huge sponsorship and donations and by corporate participation.
Heh. How come none of the money comes my way?
In any case, if you feel these corporate money bags owe you something, you ought to go complain to them directly, neh?
The programmers are compensated for their efforts, so while the institution is giving away the software for free, the developer is not doing any charity. Then why not expect quality work instead of a 'Fix it yourself' community kit.
Hmm. Which programmers are these? Perhaps you should try complaining to their supervisors?
As far as this free software developer is concerned, I have never been given a farthing for any of the work I do, so I am wondering how accurate your characterization of free software development is, really.
Simplifying a procedure means that one can do more work instead of wasting time running scripts. How would we feel if we got a mobile phone where instead of pressing buttons, we had to create and run scripts every time we wanted to dial a number or access the phone directory or any other function. The same process is happening in the background but the programmers have provided a beautiful interface to simply press a button. If scripting is so important, why don't we start doing all our home and office work in assembly language or machine code? This will give us better control of the hardware. It is up to the programmer to make software intuitive and easy to handle. It has no relation with scripting skills of the vendor or user. Let each one do his job properly.
Frankly, I do find scripting to be an important aspect; I find gui's too hard (I never can remember which button in which menu to press); so I prefer the simplicity of writing scripts to do tasks for me. I think I might not be the only one.
manoj
H! Manoj,
On 9/13/07, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This does not match my experience. I have been using Linux since'86, and VMS since '83; and windows since, umm, '91.
^^^ Am I seeing this correctly? you were using Linux even before it was conceived? :)
With regards,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:15 +0530, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com said:
H! Manoj, On 9/13/07, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This does not match my experience. I have been using Linux since '86, and VMS since '83; and windows since, umm, '91.
^^^Am I seeing this correctly? you were using Linux even before it was conceived? :)
I meant to say Unix. AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix -- mostly Ultrix.
manoj
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 21:59, Rony wrote:
Kenneth has echoed my thoughts exactly and put it nicely in words. Having bugs in a software is possible but after more than 5 years if a software behaves as if it was a beta and released just yesterday for the first time, then this is a flaw in the software not some mistake or attitude problem of the installing person.
OO is not ready for use IS an attitude problem. Especially when it is contrary to my (and hughe number of other people's) experience in using both Msorifice and OO
There is nothing hilarious about a person complaining about such grave issues in the software. The cell colour problem I had highlighted was not even connected to any proprietary file formats. It happens in Open formats.
M$ softwares may have more bugs, be less stable than nix based ones but when they are in the stable working mode, at least they do the job they are intended to do.
Utter nonsense unless u include Msoriffice and Xpee crashing 10 times a day and using antivirus as great features and part of HM BG's grand architecture.
And if FOSS fans feel it is below dignity to compare libre software with M$ ones, then why is it that whenever a problem is pointed out in the libre software, they start counting the bugs in M$ ones. Why can't they except that the particular software has serious flaws that need to be corrected.
Read point 1
Free software is no longer the free blood donation camp. Today major libre software and distro development is taking place through huge sponsorship and donations and by corporate participation. The programmers are compensated for their efforts, so while the institution is giving away the software for free, the developer is not doing any charity. Then why not expect quality work instead of a 'Fix it yourself' community kit.
If it's a bug say it's a bug and file a report, rather than make comments that are opposite to our daily experience. I have often asked about some problem or the other about various packages and ALWAYS it's the developer (amongst others) who have responded, usually within a few hrs. and Never later than 24 hrs. So what are u yakking about?
This is in response to Krish's reply to JTD's mail and I quote...
"actually the entire problem is that people don't realise the values of running a script. and by the way running a script is "nothing to do " with programming. I think clicking on next next finish etc is not a real good way of software setup."
Simplifying a procedure means that one can do more work instead of wasting time running scripts. How would we feel if we got a mobile phone where instead of pressing buttons, we had to create and run scripts every time we wanted to dial a number
U are thouroughly confused between setting up and using. If u are setting up the phone, that is precisely what you sorely miss. If i were selling 50 phones to a courier company, imagine what a pain in the ass it would be to click innumerable buttons to setup the phone book which would be 90% common to all.
or access the phone directory or any other function. The same process is happening in the background but the programmers have provided a beautiful interface to simply press a button.
For the unbelievably simple task of clicking a button there is a script (software) running. When u customise (like the courier company case) u script. when you annotate a schematic, the annotation is different for every schematic, but the process is exactly the same, so you script. When u perform repetititive tasks in a spread sheet you macro (which is a script). And once u create a script u can reuse it forever. Without sitting in front of a machine clicking "Beautiful Buttons".
If scripting is so important, why don't we start doing all our home and office work in assembly language or machine code?
You are.
This will give us better control of the hardware. It is up to the programmer to make software intuitive and easy to handle. It has no relation with scripting skills of the vendor or user. Let each one do his job properly.
You could not be more wrong. While there is nothing wrong in controlling pcs with thought or hand waves or clicks, doing so repetitively is a pain. If you feel differently good for you. Just dont pretend that your subjective preferences are god's ordained rules and hence some piece of code is not ready for this or that. As you can see my subjective preferences are most definetly holier than yours.
in the last mail JTD echoed my thoughts very well. even I mentioned that installing a software once in a few months (not like in a few days needed under m$) is a totally different issue than using it daily. I don't claim that every one will directly use or should use assembly language for their daily work, even I don't. but the point is that my customer has paied me enough money and expects the best possible solution which is definately not M$ except for accounting and extreme gaiming. and I know even the tally accounting software has so many buggs but no one has come ahead to test the turbo cash software which roni pointed out long back. I did check it out and it is really very much suited for indian markets. unfortunately it has been developed in delfi and may not be easy to port to gnu/linux. but the interface and functionality can be studied never the ness. coming back to the point, I had said long back on this thread that there are some difference in functionality of free software which are better replacements for propriatory softwares. and that has exactly happened the same way as far as open office is concerned. we now know that the option from the menu does the work which roni expected so that's not a bug. it is just that the same functionality is interface wise done differently. and guess what? not a single person except roni clicked the toolbar button for sorting. probably this proves the fact that free softwares like open office are done with huge amount of research about human interface and design. may be most people sort data from that option in the menu and only quick sorts are made by the toolbar and this is the way majority of the people did. this is not to say that roni is stupid. but just to say that open office in this case implemented a feature and kept it in a place where most people are likely to search. and that is why most people got it right and could never reproduce the same effect as roni had. regards, Krishnakant.
-
Dinesh Shah -
jtd -
krishnakant Mane -
Manoj Srivastava -
Rony