FW: OT: broken/useless ansi - console driver??

[John Esak]

I think you've lost me on this one... I have no idea what you are talking
about. Production machine??  This is a developer who is writing new code on
a development machine... and various connected via tcp/ip outlying clients.
How do you develop if not by compiling and re-compiling and trying the new
binary... over and over until it all works?  It's the way I do it. I don't
know any other way. :-)

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:28 PM
> To: Fplist (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: OT: broken/useless ansi - console driver??
>
>
> This public service announcement was brought to you by John Esak:
> > You all got a mistaken impression. Dave is/was not talking
> about his install
> > programs, maybe I brought that in. He is working on coding an
> app... it has
> > to be recompiled and tried again. Instead of being able to just
> copy the new
> > binaries and everything over from his workspace to the testing
> machine...
> > and getting an error about text file busy because one of the
> many clients he
> > has working, perhaps a desktop, perhaps a laptop somewhere,
> perhaps several
> > alternate logins, etc., it now just happily copies the binary and the
> > working clients crash out. What was simple before, now becomes
> a hassle....
> > different... whatever you want to say. I am the one who thinks it is
>
> That doesn't sound like a "test" machine to me.  Something I
> refrained from
> commenting on in the original when it was first posted, but it sounds at
> least semi-production.  And I personally wouldn't want to
> code/debug/compile/install time after time onto even a semi-production
> machine.  Sounds odd for a developer to be doing that, but maybe it just
> sounds worse than it is, taken out of fuller context that isn't
> my business.
> My first thought when this was brought in as an example was,
> "Yeah, but you
> shouldn't be doing -that- anyway."
>
> I agree the problematic behaviour is an issue, no matter why one
> encounters
> it, however.  It's absurd, in fact.
>
> > faster file system would appease everyone. Not me. It's kind of
> a bait and
> > switch to do these kinds of *major* changes without ANY
> indication that they
> > are there.
>
> There's -some- indication--the major number changed after damned near a
> decade of stagnation.  I don't think one can actually say there's -no-
> indication that something changes when the major changed.  Whether or not
> the "flagship" name should have been changed is going to be a matter of
> contention, probably.  Sounds like they should have, but I don't have a
> firm opinion, not having used it myself, and having only heard related
> horror stories.  I think the only two people for whom I've heard it went
> smoothly were JPR and Bob.
>
> On the flip side, when fP 6.0 comes out I'm sure there will be many that
> feel it would be more appropriately labelled 5.0.16 rather than 6.0, for
> lack of new progressive features, and additions for things that
> should have
> been there over half a decade ago (UNC's come to mind).
>
> > P.S. - A dead simple and very close analogy would be if filePro's next
> > version just blithely overwrote locked records with new data... would
> > everyone say... oh, that's just the new Unixware way of things,
> get used to
> > it. Ridiculous.
>
> I can think of a few almost-unthinking loyalists that might.  Nobody whose
> opinion I'd trust, however.
>
> I agree, ridiculous.
>
> mark->
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list