At 10:14 2015-06-18, Stephen Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Gene Wirchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You don't want to complain about the rate of change, because in
>> general changes tend towards the good, although some developers view
>> of good is a bit skewed from mine. But the challenge of keeping a
> Yes, I do want to complain! I dislike churn. All too many changes
> are change for change's sake and do not add much, if anything. Make sure
> that changes actually provide something of use and quit breaking older
> stuff.
You sound just like a Luddite.
Mr. Russell, words have meanings. I am not a Luddite. They
did not want change. I am fine with change provided it serves a
useful purpose.
There is a distinction between the two even if you do not see
it or refuse to do so.
> complex app up and running when ALL of the pieces from the OS to the
>> browser are in motion is an under-appreciated one, imo.
> Very much so.
>
> If a vital piece of software is broken by a change, it will be very
> nasty. Even if the software is not vital, the time to regroup may not be
> readily available.
Somehow that EVIL vendor gets software out to those who will test their
Evil?
If you have to distort my argument to make your point, maybe
your point is not as strong as you think it is.
products on the newer version. When released drivers are updated by
thousands of vendors. Applications are tested as well and updates are
usually available for customers as well.
This method works so well that, in any given week, I never read
any articles about how another software update has troubles. That
was sarcasm in case there is any doubt. It is a rare week when I do
not see such an article.
Except in your world. You escape all of this as your not expected to
verify your stuff works on new operating systems, ever. Then you get to
That is not true.
complain to us that the big bad wolf is making your day to day world
miserable because something written 10-15-20 years ago, in DOS, is suddenly
no longer working.
When there is no good reason for removing the functionality,
yes, I do not like it. Why is it so important to you that software
10-15-20 years old be obsolete?
> It is this breakage problem why I am generally not very eager to
> change. (You can call it upgrading, but isn't that making an unwarranted
> assumption?) If I have a working installation, I would like to keep it
> that way. (This appears to be a surprise to some.) If I do not have a
> need for the new features, I am probably better off continuing with what
> works. If I do need the new features, then there is some payoff for
> changing; this does not happen nearly as often as the computer industry
> thinks is the case.
>
> I have pretty much completed my adjustments to running with Windows
> 7. I still prefer Windows XP. I could have done without a lot of the
> changes to things that had worked great for years. I would have been quite
> happy to continue with Windows XP.
Only two more operating systems to test now. Have you received any notice
about Windows 10 slated for this summer? Lucky for you they skipped Win 9
in the sequence.
If I do not need them, why should I bother with them?
Stephen Russell
Sr. Analyst
Do you ever do any analysis? You certainly have the time to
insult me for not agreeing with you. Different areas have different
requirements.
Ring Container Technology
Oakland TN
901.246-0159 cell
Is it padded?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
