I'd certainly like to see more communication from CA about what they're up to and what they intend to do. But for reasons best known to themselves, they choose not to operate this way.

I don't know. We've just had a patch that fixed some old problems and introduced some new ones - in spite of supposed QA. What guarantee is there that the next patch might not introduce some even worse problems?

I think if CA put one or two programmers working fulltime on patches, which could be released to the community as is, without any QA which seems to be useless anyhow, but just a warning to install at your own risk, that might be a great way of involving the community in an ongoing exchange. But it's hard to see how CA would make any money that way, unless they charged a subscription or something, so realistically I don't think it's going to happen.

I don't see myself as complacent at all! On the contrary, what I want to see is radical surgery rather than cosmetic makeovers. My main concern with the idea of ongoing patches is that all the resources will end up going into incremental servicing instead of the major overhaul that I'd like to see.

Not that I really think I'll get what I want in the XP either, but I do think it gives them the opportunity to tackle at least some of the bigger issues which would be hard to address in a patch.

Not at all! I like an exchange of ideas, that's part of why I come to these forums

Reply