TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
From: johnclif@ix.netcom.com (John Clifford)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:27:06 -0700
[Note: A correspondent informed me that Ten-Tec's firmware is now outsourced
to a company called RFSquared... so while I am using "Ten-Tec" in this post,
RFSquared should certainly be getting the heat -- from Ten-Tec.  As per my
last post on this subject, even though RFSquared is doing the development,
the responsibility for quality is Ten-Tec's... they can delegate authority
("you guys work on this and we'll pay you... here's the source") but they
can't delegate responsibility.]

Re concern about quality control reflecting a "lack of forward thinking"...
I must say that this comment made me speechless for a moment.  With all due
respect... hogwash!

Picture, if you will, a company like Microsoft telling it's customers that a
new Windows release that is so buggy it can't handle mouse clicks is merely
an expression of "forward thinking."  How many milliseconds would it take
for a vast cry of outrage to happen, and deservedly so!  Picture them
issuing THREE versions of Windows in a week... and none of the three work!
Would/should they get a pat on the back for effort?  Why should Ten-Tec be
any different?

Re 'jumping thru hoops'... in my experience, the group most responsible for
getting low quality to the customer is MARKETING (or those responsible for
monitoring the development schedule) rather than Development or Quality
Control.  Re Ten-Tec's "responsiveness"... who cares if a company can
quickly get three releases out in a week, if all three have defects so that
they can't be used?

Remember... work equals force times distance.  If the stuff doesn't work,
then regardless of how hard the developers have pushed the software isn't
going anywhere... so no real 'work' was accomplished!  My experience has
shown that it's far better to cut a buggy feature (or delay an upgrade
release) unless/until it passes the necessary QC tests.  If you don't have
the time to do it right, when will you have the time to do it again?  How
much labor/payroll was expended doing the same job three times when it
should only have been done once, and what new features DIDN'T get created
because time was spent fixing and refixing and refixing?

Re excusing firmware update bugs by comparing firmware release quality to
the level of quality found in many shareware or otherwise not-professionally
developed amateur radio software products... hopefully the standard of
quality that Ten-Tec offers in its firmware releases is well above the
average one-person hack shop (not to denigrate small developers... while
many are outstanding, many others have no understanding of software
engineering or software quality control).  We marvel at the outstanding
quality put out by some small developers because it IS the exception that
proves the rule.

Software 'engineering' is a combination of art and science.  The art is in
figuring out how to do something and doing it elegantly.  The science is in
applying methodologies during development AND testing that detect invalid
assumptions and/or conditions so that as many bugs can be eliminated as
possible.  I remember only one 'bug' that was hardware related... a
defective 386/33 chip that drove us nuts... EVERY OTHER BUG that I have run
into as a software developer (my own and others') was caused by an invalid
assumption (sometimes reflecting incredible stupidity) by the programmer
(boundary condition exceeded, variable not initialized, etc.).

I applaud Ten-Tec for taking a bold step by offering radios that can be
updated 'on the fly'.  I cringe when I see them stepping on their crank by
offering THREE update releases in a week, when only one should have been
released (the others should have been internal releases that were rejected
during testing).

If I had to choose between a company with great support and average quality
control, or great quality control and average support... I'd take the
latter.  If I owned such a company (great support, average QC), I'd start
kicking and screaming until QC was highest priority.  Support costs money...
QC saves it and increases profitability.  "A stitch in time saves nine... "
or, in other words, build a product with enough quality and your support
costs go WAY down (meaning that you can still offer great support at lower
cost because far fewer people need it).

It's not about beating the dog.  It's about liking the dog, and wanting to
see the dog continue to live because enough people like it to keep on
feeding it.

 - jgc

John Clifford KD7KGX

Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100
Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1

email: kd7kgx@arrl.net


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... ), John Clifford <=