On 04/08/16 9:44 PM, "John C. Welch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm giving your name PRECISELY the same courtesy you give mine. On the contrary, I never once took an unfamiliar liberty by addressing you as anything other than your given name. If you are eluding to my use of your monogram, that was a case of referring to you as 'JCW', like one refers to MLK or GWB (neither in the least disrespectful), and not addressing you as such. A subtle, but distinct, difference, John, that is perfectly acceptable conversational shorthand, and completely courteous by majority standards, and is demonstrated in this very sentence by the distinction of a preceding and succeeding comma surrounding the address -- not reference -- to you, John, personally. You yourself demonstrate the acceptable practice and difference of respectable reference and address here: > Dude, you went on a multi page rant and along the way insulted the hell out > of Paul B, me, and [...] While true you use an easily misinterpreted vernacular term when addressing me as 'Dude', the distinction between your address to me, and your reference to 'Paul B' is clearly defined. Would you address Mr. Berkowitz, e.g., as 'Hey, Paul B, I need..."? I think not; but while less an offensive liberty than others might be (e.g.: "Hey, P Boy!"), it is still just that when used in that context, but not at all in your actual use as reference. That said, I did not presume malice with your address to me as 'Fred', but instead assumed laziness that is more typical of those who incessantly shorten other's names to save a few keystrokes; hence my good natured response to it. Now, to your other point above, if you are "insulted to hell" at the carefully worded and properly annotated (by emoticons) language I have used previously in this debate, you have as thin a skin as you accuse others of having almost daily on lists across the web. From one who regularly demonstrates abrasive, abusive, inciting language, and just as regularly advises people to [paraphrased] "get over it" and "tend to their own self-esteem", and further defends such behavior as what you expect to be taken purely as an endearing, "curmudgeonly" manner, a necessity of your busy schedule and the price of your advice and commentary, you have little room here to be chastising others on what is, and is not offensive and insulting. As for Paul Berkowitz, if he is truly offended, given that I repeatedly praised his talents and efforts, and made clear that my ire was not for him or his freely provided efforts towards best possible third party solutions, but for a need for said same that was not of his doing, then he is, too, a victim of his own medicine, in that his own tone (also common of late on this list and others) was met with none greater, and overall certainly less verve. If he is unable to make that distinction, I offer him my further issuance of genuine respect and admiration, and he is welcome to take the matter up with me in private. Your input on the issue is no longer required by either of us. As to the MacBU, I will not apologize to a faceless, emotionless entity for any perceived or intentional sleight. This is business. As you have stated before [paraphrased], "I do not have to like the people I work with." If the big, poor MacBU can't take some harsh criticism for valid issues they are responsible for; issues that have existed for years; issues they have been repeatedly notified about, and still have not fixed, then they should give up selling software and start a hugging and esteem validation service. > <more lame attempts at wit snipped, since they have little to do with > E'rage> Since they do have so little to do with Entourage, why do *you* continue to make direct personal attacks such as this? I made considerable effort, honest commentary on your own manners notwithstanding, in my last missive to redirect this thread towards productive debate, and reduce the odds of this turning it into a flame war no one wants (except perhaps you). > The other folks have pointed out they'd like things changed, and left it at > that. They didn't decide to insult a lot of people while doing it. I guess that just leaves you and me tossing around the perceived insults at this point. I've apologized and offered to make greater effort, how about you? I implore you, let's focus on the issues, and leave the personal attacks out. For any prior perceived offense found in what was intended as good-natured debate, I assure you that it is all it was, perceived, and yet I sincerely offer my apologies and request that you forgive and move on. No need to respond, and no need to further lecture by either party. > I understand you position. I just think you're completely blowing it our of > proportion, and think that fixing things like this take no time at all. Fair enough. You've made your case in general as to quality and value and fairness on the whole (specific exceptions discussed further below), and I've made mine; we shall leave it to the gallery to decide its worth. > You're right. You didn't say you can fix some of these problems in two days. > You actually said hours, and I quote: > > "I can nextKeyView away more than a few problems (read: existing features > that are incompletely implemented) in short order, and I think they can, if > they wanted, as well, in a very short period of time, costing very, very > little money comparative to genuine "new features". If I couldn't resolve > the Accounts popup access in less than an hour, and the responsible > programmer, but for it not being on his approved to-do list, couldn't do it > in a third or a sixth less than I, I'd be extremely surprised. " > > Of course, this hour includes all necessary QA testing and regression > testing to ensure that no additional bugs are introduced, installer > packaging, etc. Why am I not seeing this happening. I don't know why, John. I know exactly how long (give or take 1-2 minutes) it takes me to apply nextKeyView rotation and assign key values to a single window's interface widgets; to add rotation value and assign a key set to just one widget, assuming it is not some MS-invented API that is completely contrary in behavior to the Apple API, would surely take well under a few minutes to apply for the programmer responsible and familiar with the feature. It would take me the full hour or so to dig around looking for the window, verify I've got the right nib, and explain to the project manager what I want to do and execute. As for the QA and bug testing, that too would only take a but an additional few minutes in this simplistic example, IMO; and as for installer packaging, it's unfair to account for that, as you make it out that this would be the one and only issue addressed by myself or anyone else; that time overhead is not a collective expense and is instead assessed as a penalty to just one bug fix, even though many would exist for any new compile and distro. So, as you can clearly see from the quote you conveniently provided, I maintain that the single instance reference, the outgoing message window's account popup menu, I firmly maintain my challenge, offer and assessment. If you have access to the code and can offer authority to the contrary, please do. Since that is not likely the case, and MS is unlikely to chime in here in favor of either of us, we should again conclude that we have both made our cases and further debate about it is unproductive. To the real authority here, whether or not I am correct in the amount of time it takes to fix it, please, please, please do. I again offer whatever I can to make that happen. > You said one hour. So, you could walk into the MacBU, and sit down at a Mac, > and from a cold start on the code, no meetings, no briefings, you could fix > that and do so in a manner that would QA and test PERFECT within an hour. See above. One instance. One specific feature. One hour. I stand by it for the reasons expressed. Again, I would spend as many weeks as they would allow me working directly with each programmer or group as appropriate (C'mon, John, I don't think for an instant they would actually let me at a keyboard), to point to direct HI behavior issues that need be addressed. The cumulative value of such changes could easily be incorporated into a single compile and QA very efficiently. > In a product as complex as E'rage, there are NO simple code changes. Anyone > who knows programming on a large scale knows this. Again I disagree. The code change itself can be as simple as correcting a spelling error in a UI widget. There is extremely minimal danger in changing one character to another in an otherwise qualified piece of software. Adding a key value to a foreground window that has the entire application key value priority is little more risk than that. That all such trivial changes would be wrapped into a larger version update or upgrade is just cumulative overhead that is barely on the radar compared to the whole of the project and all the other changes submitted by various groups. The real time wasted in any of this is arguing with management about getting authority to unfreeze that part of the code tree long enough to get it done, and justify the cost and time compared to adding some whiz-bang new feature defined by marketing. > We are of course talking about the same NASA that missed a planet because > they couldn't convert English to Metric correctly. That really did suck, didn't it? I was very disappointed that day, and I happen to be acquainted with a number of engineers and their families at MM in Boulder where the fault is purported to lie. Their collective shame was painful to see. The good news is, that like most humans, they took a valuable, albeit expensive lesson away, and you can bet your bottom it will never happen again (at least not there, by them). They have a huge amount of pride in their work, and I only wish that every programmer and management team allowed for the same pride to show in every product we buy. Mistakes will never stop happening, but when they do, it is pride and honor that will see them fixed, and not ignored for marketing purposes. > Prove that they have a contract with you to define such features to your > satisfaction. The pertinent paragraphs will do. Never made such a statement. No point in taking your bait here; my point of implied suitability in the specific example given was demonstrably clear to the gallery, at least, and you know it. > Good > Cheap > Fast > > I can give you any two. Good and Solid Fairly Priced Reasonably Delivered with Reasonable Goals I can give you all three. Give me even more time, and I can make it excellence. The market is what we define it at any given time; not what commonality, ignorance and apathy appear to dictate. > Well, that would require me to work for MS, which I don't. So you present a > totally impossible challenge. Nice tactic, but it's silly. No, I'm serious. > What features would you *remove* to get the ten things you want. No > weasiling. For ever item you get, you have to yank something else. I'm > curious. > > The "Well then someone else gets screwed" is a given. "Feature Bloat" is > always defined as "What that person who isn't me wants that I don't, so > screw him" "Feature Bloat" is the ultimate expression of cognitive > dissonance in the software world. OK, I'll risk that you're not baiting me, and are genuinely curious as to what I value as productive, and are not going to attack me for answering the question. I regret, however, that I do not have time to give it the serious consideration required to meet your quota of ten, as I, sadly, must travel starting today on pressing family business. > Fine...which feature are you PERSONALLY willing to give up for what bug? At the outset, I will say that I am likely to trade the new three pane view, which surely cost quite a chunk of development dollars, for as many of my HI complaints as it would buy. Without having a chance to actually use the new view for enough time to perhaps learn I can't live without it, I'm apt to believe that what I have now is adequate, as I have been content with it for many years now, and I don't see it, as a whole, detracting from my productivity, compared to many another simple feature lacking HI adherence or demonstrating bugs. More on this next week sometime. Regards, Frederico -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
