Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:33:45 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>>On April 01, 2001 at 22:13:01, Laurence Chen wrote: >>If we continue to accept that it's all right to buy "buggy" software, then the >>people or companies which deliver "buggy" software will continue to do so, and a >>vicious cycle continues. I remember that my company bought a piece of software, >>and it cost several thousands of dollars, the demo which was sent showed that it >>could deliver and perform all the tasks which management wanted, however, when >>the day came to use the real thing, it had so many bugs, it was not able to >>handle a large scale of users, it could only handle a maximum of 2 users, and >>these users had to be in the same segment of the the network, also it was not >>compatible with the latest version of Excel, and guess what, the salesperson >>promised that if would be. My point is we consumers should take a stand and >>refuse to support "bug" software, and hopefully within time, the quality control >>of software engineering will improve. Look at cars, would you buy a "bug" car. >>The japanese cars in the 60's and 70's used to be like that, very "buggy" and >>unreliable. Nowadays, Japanese cars are very reliable. I understand that no >>software is "bug" free, but that should not be used as an excuse. Would you >>take a trip on a "bug" airplane which is 95% reliable, would you take a chance >>on the 5% and hope that the "bug" doesn't show up? >> >>In US, congress one time wanted to pass legislation against companies which >>deliver "buggy" software, because "buggy" software can cost business a lot of >>down time and money. Too bad, they were not able to pass that legislation, it >>would certainly forced Bill Gates to deliver more solid and reliable OS. > > >I think Georg meant simply that you should have in this case apologized >to the Rebel Beta testers. You originally wrote in relation to Tiger 14 >and Gambit 2.0; > >"I think the Beta testers failed to check for bugs and they were supposed to >check for all bugs, no for chess engine strenght alone, this annoys me." > >This statement was simply wrong and should have been apologized for. >Don't know about the CM8K nor care about Excel. But I do care about the >statement you make relevant to the Rebel testers, which was the subject >noted. > >Sarah. Since I saw no reply to the above but other posts you have made since. I assume you missed this, and therefore bring it to your attention again. Sarah.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.