On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:38, Dave wrote:
On 20 Mar 2007, at 20:44, Stephen Barncard wrote:
Dave wrote:
RunRev can help by having Beta cycles whose length is more in
keeping with industry norms, but the actual testing can't be done
by them; there are just too many possibilities.
I'd be happy to test it for them. How much are they paying?
Unless you are trying to be funny, that sounds like you still don't
get what Rev and this support community is about. Of course they
can't pay you - why are you saying this? You know they only have x
amount of resources - for me this support model really rocks - much
better than other methods...
Ok, if they don't have enough money to pay me now, then they can owe
it to me, and, *if* and when they do make lots of money they can pay
me then. How does that sound? I would charge £15.00 per hour, that's a
lot cheaper than they are advertising their consultancy services for!
Presumably the people at RunRev are getting paid a good salary or if
not are being rewarded in terms of shares and/or the promise of money
if and when they hit the big time.
I do agree with Dave's general direction (if not with the way he
expresses it). We all pay RunRev money so they can produce a good
product. It's not our duty nor our responsibility to do any testing on
their behave. Actually it should be the other way around. If there's a
bug we should get an easy accessible list of workarounds, until the bug
is fixed with the next release of Rev, of course in addition to every
Feature anyone requested.
On the other hand there's the open source approach. Users don't pay to
use software, they commit time and effort to make the product better,
so their own stuff based on the open source software gets better. Every
user always puts equal effort into the open source foundation as into
his own project. Bugs are fixed within minutes of their discovery, and
every feature a user needs is implemented by that same user within even
less time.
But alas this world is not perfection wonderland, bugs are hard to find
and to track down, feature additions make a product complicated, and
aggravate people who are used to the old way. RunRev is walking a
middle ground here. In my opinion, it's crucial for their future to not
adopt the worst of both the commercial way and the open source way, but
to work out a methodic to get the strengths of both worlds. That is not
easy for such a small company, but if they have a clear vision about
how they want to interact with their customers, then it is possible.
Specifically, Bugzilla is a workaround for having no clue where bugs
come from. Customers that find a bug are asked to make an effort to
increase the product they paid for, and these bugs could linger for
years due to time constrains. Unfortunately for everyone involved,
that's how RunRev's software currently works.
The existing system does not rock in any way. It's a patch on reality
forced upon everyone by legacy, money and priority management, not more
and not less.
In hopes for a constructive discussion
Björnke von Gierke
--
official ChatRev page:
http://chatrev.bjoernke.com
Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://homepage.mac.com/bvg/chatrev1.3.rev";
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
