On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:04:20 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>I know that. I'm talking about their new versions of Agent.

Well, I must admit that I don't use every single feature in Forte
Agent. Still, what I use works well enough.

>My bugs still exist as of the last time I tested.
>Likewise the sluggish performance.

Well, ok. I don't notice any sluggish performance on my systems which
are certainly not state-o-de-art.

>The point is that framing in <>, while a good idea in general, is not
>any sort of assurance that bad wrapping won't occur.

There is a line length limit where things autowrap. I don't mean the
configurable limit that's usually set to 75 characters. I mean the
255 or so character limit probably caused by a fixed length buffer
somewhere in Agent. That is sometimes a problem with Linksys URL's,
which tend to be rediculously long. Otherwise, <> non-wrapping has
worked just fine when I've used it in the last 3 or so versions.

>>All things come to he who upgrades.
>
>Really?! Whatever happened to:
>
> The effect is also self-perpetuating. Features get added faster than
> bugs get fixed. It's a natural law or something. This effect
> eventually results in a bloated monster ...

Yep. I said that, I believe that, I even practice that. Give me
features or give me death (of the product). Does the world really
need MS Vista?

> So, there we have the logic:
> In order to sell upgrades, it has to be noticeably buggy.
> In order to be sufficiently buggy, it has to be big and bloated.
> In order to look like an improvement, it has to have new features.

Yep. I said that. I won't go so far as to suggest that vendors
intentionally introduce bugs in order to sell future upgrades.
However, I will suggest that bugs are often ignored in favor of adding
features, where time is limited. I gave up joining beta test ordeals
after my bug reports were ignored, but my feature requests got their
attention.

> Software tends to grow faster than the bugs can be fixed. Bloat is
> in, quality is out. Eventually, reliability and scaleability will
> suffer. Bigger is better or at least sells better.

Yep. I said that. I don't think Forte Agent qualifies. There have
been features added, but there have also be releases that are
overwhelmingly bug fixes (i.e. version 4.1). There was a big leap in
code size from 1.9x to 2.x, which I guess qualifies. However, as I
understand it, the changes in architecture and design were required to
supply new added features.

> Few users would upgrade to the latest version just for the new and
> wonderful features that nobody really needs. They upgrade because
> there's a small hope that the new and improved release will have
> fewer bugs. This never really happens because features and functions
> get added faster than bugs get fixed resulting in a bloated
> application that's full of known bugs.

Yep. I said that. I think Vista might become a good example of this.
Lots of features that nobody wants or is willing to pay for. Most of
the customers that are bugging me about Vista are the ones that are
having reliability problems with some part of Vista.

> My conspiracy theory is that all software manufactories,
> intentionally leave bugs unfixed, so that the customer has an
> incentive to purchase upgrades and support. If the stuff actually
> worked out of the box, people would simply use the last version
> forever, and the software manufactory will go otto biz. Therefore,
> bugs are permanent and a good thing.

Yep. I said that. If the stuff worked, nobody would be asking
questions in the newsgroups, nobody would need to read the manual,
nobody would be upgrading to later firmware, and few would upgrade to
the latest versions unless they needed the features.

> On a similar note, if some company accidentally produces something
> that actually works, an incentive to upgrade must be found.
> Manufacturing groups, consortia, and industry committees, meet in the
> inevitable smoke filled room, and conspire to introduce new
> technology, new acronyms, and standards in copious quantities. Soon,
> everything you own that actually works, is obsolete, incompatible, or
> unsupported. This is called progress.

Yep. I said that. Progress is measured in sales and stock prices.
Those don't go up unless the company releases new products or upgrades
on an almost continuous basis. Want to pump up the stock price? Just
issue a press release announcing something new and/or improved. Know
any company that has been selling the same version for a long time?

> Since the sales of MS NT4 have shown that the customers are
> unconcerned about reliability, stability, and performance, companies
> are forced to sell their products on the basis of features and
> support acronyms. Unfortunately, acronyms an features are added
> faster than bugs get fixed, resulting in bloated, oversided, feature
> infested, and buggy software. When the feature bloat grows to the
> point of non-functionality, a totally new product is invented to fill
> the product niche.

Yep. I said that. It's evolution in action. There's a good reason
that the dinosaurs tended toward titanic growth. Being big is very
defensible. Same with software. Want to avoid being eaten by the
competition? Easy, grow big.

>I've got a lean mean stable release with very few bugs. Tell me again
>why I should upgrade? ;)

So you can have <> quoted URL's that don't wrap.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS