Re: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched versions!

rebuttal Time --- ;-) >Subject: Re: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched versions! >From: Daniel Wright <dw420@airmail.net> >They want it fixed and 90% of the time, if you give them a fix and they >test it to see whether or not the fix fixed the problem at hand, they'll >be happy, even though there may be unwanted (possibly worse) side >effects.If Informix (and other software vendors), were more >straightforward about fixing problems and offered upgrades at no (or >insignificant) cost when major problems were found, and additionally >informed everyone of the fact that the full QA process was not done on >'patches', then noone would want a patch, unless they needed it NOW and >the next release was 2-3 months off Daniel, The current interim release plan allows for a maximan of 6 weeks from the request of the patch into the interim to the delivery, if the patch has already been coded. If the patch has not been coded, then, of course, we have to do a patch if there is no possible work-arround. >I know nothing is perfect and software will always contain bugs, but we >as users and/or programmers must always continuously demand perfection, >and be satisfied with nothing less.In the case of our customer who has >accepted a patch, but will probably eventually upgrade once the newer >Informix release is certified by our own QA department for use with our >product, they were faced with the possibility of losing lots of money >while hundreds of users sat helplessly while the database was restored. >These users would not only be paid for the downtime, but would then be >paid time and a half (or whatever the union rate is) to complete the >work they should have been able to during their regular working hours, >but couldn't due to Informix bugs (which in their eyes is our fault). > > I realize this is difficult for the third party vendors, but which makes more sense for the customer, to have a patch that has not been through Informix's QA testing and has not been certified by the third party software, or to have an interim which has gone through QA testing but has not been certified by the third party vendor? Which is going to put the customer at greater risk? Madison Pruet