My 2cents:
Icfu ecpects obviously is the bazaar style of development, while TC is being developed definitely in the cathedral style. Unfortunately the bazaar style is applied almost exclusively in free, mostly open source developments, where it is easy to say "no warranty", you get what you paid for. Christian on the contrary has some bigger responsibilities, because if he expects us to pay, then it is not so easy to say "hey this stuff is free, be glad that i do something, so dont complain" (this is just a theoretical example, most open source developers are not this rude, on the contrary, its amazing how fast they react on bug reports... if the project is active). Fact is, that most commercial products are just as buggy as the open source betas (TC being an exception!), but bugfixes come in the cathedral style, meaning, after a long time, along with plenty of new bugs (TC being an exception!). So I agree with Icfu, I also would like to download new bugfix versions of TC. The leaked 6.54 shows this kind of thrill of the users very well. We love our toys, and frequent updates make us happy Those serious managers who are afraid of the so called beta versions, should stick to the stable version, especially if business data relies on TC. But on the other hand, it is always a pure trust in the developer and testers, that they is careful enough with coding and testing. After all if something goes wrong, the reputation is spreading on the internet fast, resulting in loss of reveue
[OT] TC development
Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2
- SanskritFritz
- Power Member
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: 2003-07-24, 09:25 UTC
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
2icfu
2SanskritFritz
So the question is what is more important a new version or a bugfix release? Are there really so many serious bugs in 6.53? I think not.
It is important to know that 6.54 delays 7.0.
My consclusion is that bazar or cathedral isn't really important in case of TC. The problem is somewhere else. The problem is in analysis and design of interactive parts of the software.
That means instead of developing a technical preview user-centred design methods should be applied to get information on user requirements. After that the design of the new version should be done followed by a usability test - maybe in multiple iterations.
Then we could think about starting development on a bezar or in a cathedral or wherever.
This linux guys just have a developer perspective but this is not enough - by far not.
2SanskritFritz
This question is strange because 6.54 is a bugfix release and 7.0 will bring new features, new bugs and includes the bugfixes.
It wasn't in the past.As parallel development is the only way anyway
If the are hold back for one year they all must have been detected and and fixed one year ago. Actually they have been found using the not so unstable 6.53 and fixed not so long ago.I really don't care which one delays what, but I definetely know that fixes that are hold back for one year is the wrong way.
If this is right and TC is not one of the buggy software products why releasing a bugfix version one year after 6.53 instead of inclusing it into the next major release which is delayed because of 6.54.new bugs (TC being an exception!)
So the question is what is more important a new version or a bugfix release? Are there really so many serious bugs in 6.53? I think not.
It is important to know that 6.54 delays 7.0.
That doesn't sound really healthy.I am a software junkie.
When only new major versions are developed but no bugfix releases it means development has stoppedThis is true, but it's not really a compliment because it effectively means that development has stopped.
Your point of view is more than understandable.I have no interest to wait six months or even longer till I am allowed to find the bugs in features I never wanted (at least THAT way) and to know that my influence on the features of the final release is nearly at 0K(elvin).
I don't like being exploited and as soon as a developer just needs me for bug testing he should ask someone else, not me.
My consclusion is that bazar or cathedral isn't really important in case of TC. The problem is somewhere else. The problem is in analysis and design of interactive parts of the software.
That means instead of developing a technical preview user-centred design methods should be applied to get information on user requirements. After that the design of the new version should be done followed by a usability test - maybe in multiple iterations.
Then we could think about starting development on a bezar or in a cathedral or wherever.
This linux guys just have a developer perspective but this is not enough - by far not.
- ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 48088
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Indeed each release delays my work by at least one month! Also many people (including myself) prefer not to update a running program every few weeks, because many things could be broken due to interactions with other programs.Let me answer with a question. Do you think 6.54 has delayed 7.0 yes or no? What would happen to new major releases when he would do that constantly?
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
- majkinetor
- Senior Member
- Posts: 369
- Joined: 2005-11-20, 10:36 UTC
- Location: Belgrade, Serbia
- Contact:
This is artifical story people. Those things does not exist.
Those are artificial lines, false dualism similar to questions like "where is the line between software and hardware". What charachterise transition from alpha to beta, from 1.01 to 1.02 etc.....beta testers ? subjective authors choice ? How much testing is enough?
Many things you rised here can be sucesufully solved with authors intention to do such things.
Like, I don't see why TC wouldn't have some secret flag for silent automatic updates (option one: major version, option two: minor version,option three: direct connection to compiler output [for icfu desease] ).
I don't sugest this, of course, this is only a thought.
Chaos theory people.... U tend to sort thigs out, to organise them.. but, at the end... entropy will show its ugly face making TC 7.0 waiting another month, and another.
Those are the rules of this system we are living in.
Those are artificial lines, false dualism similar to questions like "where is the line between software and hardware". What charachterise transition from alpha to beta, from 1.01 to 1.02 etc.....beta testers ? subjective authors choice ? How much testing is enough?
Many things you rised here can be sucesufully solved with authors intention to do such things.
Like, I don't see why TC wouldn't have some secret flag for silent automatic updates (option one: major version, option two: minor version,option three: direct connection to compiler output [for icfu desease] ).
I don't sugest this, of course, this is only a thought.
Chaos theory people.... U tend to sort thigs out, to organise them.. but, at the end... entropy will show its ugly face making TC 7.0 waiting another month, and another.
Those are the rules of this system we are living in.
Last edited by majkinetor on 2006-01-12, 15:08 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I have uploaded the the files as zip in case you don't have installed my SQX plug-in
http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=9151
ZIP (1.319 KB)
SQX (264 KB)
http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=9151
ZIP (1.319 KB)
SQX (264 KB)