Re: (ASCEND) [Fwd: Ticket #793610]

[Robert Fournerat <robert@netin.com>]

Jim Howard wrote:
> 
> >From: support@ascend.com
> >This is a known issue which was clearly stated in the 7.0.0 release notes
> >(page 2).  The problem here is that the Base Ch Count is incoreectly read as
> 
> At 20:47 1998/11/30 -0600, Steven T. Pierce wrote:
> >Hmmm.... So it wasn't broke in 7.0b6, it broke in 7.0b7 and they didn't
> >fix it for the 7.0.0 release... seems as though they should have FIXED
> >it before they RELEASED IT....
> 
> Agreed, there should _NEVER_ have been a known issue like this
> in the software when it was released.
> (or the other "Known Issues" listed in release notes)
> 
> An issue that comes up after the release is one thing,
> but this one was apparantly known before hand and _SHOULD_ have
> caused the code to go to another beta release first.
> 
> I don't care how FAST the code gets built,
> I care how WELL it gets built, and I'd like to think I'm not alone.

Well Jim, I don't think you're alone from the customers
side of this problem.  But getting Ascend to write bug
free, stable, secure code is about like asking Matt to 
be polite - it just isn't in his nature.  I believe that
Ascend has adopted a Microsoft like approach to developing
software - and they think this is a good thing.  I
believe that there will have to be fundamental changes
made to that process in order to produce what most other
software professionals consider to be GA grade code.

Jim, as you know, this is not a new topic.  I expect
that many will not reply to your email because we get
tired of saying the same thing, over and over again,
to Ascend and ultimately being ignored.  I know I'm
rather jaded, but have we missed suggesting or trying
something to properly motivate Ascend?

Robert
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>