On 8/17/04 1:20 PM, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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. No, you get one hour from the time you open the source listing until the installer's built. That's what you claimed. That's what you get. One hour. >> 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. Then stop claiming deception and unethical behavior. That's just insulting. I suppose it makes you feel better to make those claims, but it's ridiculous to do so. > >> 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. Define in a way that will generate absolutely no complaints from anyone who might ever use the software: Solid Fairly priced Reasonably delivered with reasonable goals. Remember, if one person's unhappy, you've failed to deliver a quality product at a fair price in a reasonable amount of time, with reasonable goals. <I do have a point here. If you can't do it, then why should you expect anyone else to do it. Claims that "you can do it better" are really easy to make, far harder to prove.> > > 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. That is truly a shame. I will of course, eagerly await your return. > >> 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. It buys you one. One feature per bug. Nine to go. > 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. Well, your opinion of it is rather immaterial now, since you just gave it up. I eagerly await your next nine. john -- "This machine is a piece of GAGH! �I need dual G5 processors if I am to do battle with this code!" - 11th most commonly uttered Klingon programmer phrase -- 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/>
