On 10/23/2013 12:33 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
The program I filed the bugs with is one that wishes to take on a
commercial program in the marketplace. And they add new features,
some of which are inevitable buggy. But the attitude exhibited by not
fixing existing bugs is very unprofessional. If you are a business,
with competition, you want tools that work, not tools you spend a lot
of time finding work arounds.
3. When the new version comes out, and the developers have broken
something, they say it's a "regression". Oh, BS!! That's just
political spin for not saying they screwed up and didn't catch it. I
would appreciate the pure honesty of admitting a mistake than
political spin.
4. My impression is, for most open source software I've tried over a
period of time, the quality assurance/testing program to look for and
find bugs is seriously flawed. Some bugs are blatant, and I ask
myself, "How did they miss that?"
I look at those complaints, and wonder that you don't see such issues,
and worse, with commercial software as well. For me, the difference
between commercial software and open-source is that, when you do have a
problem, you have a chance, with open-source software, to actually ask
for help from the person who wrote it. For example, this list is
well-populated by the actual developers of LyX, who are very helpful.
Commercial support will connect you with a call center full of people
reading from scripts.
--
David L. Johnson
Let's be straight here. If we find something we can't understand we
like to call it something you can't understand, or indeed even
pronounce.
-- Douglas Adams
