[CQ-Contest] "Ken Wolff" : Re: Humor - software

[Fred Hopengarten]

I forward the following exchange to the CT reflector without further
comment.

Fred Hopengarten, K1VR
Six Willarch Road; Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
617/259-0088; e-mail:  k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com or k1vr at juno.com

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Ken Wolff" 
To: k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten)
Subject: Re: Humor - software
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 97 07:49:33 est

     It's the story of my life...


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Humor - software
Author:  k1vr at juno.com (Fred Hopengarten) at internet
Date:    4/5/97 11:51 PM


Sound familiar?
     
Fred Hopengarten, K1VR
Six Willarch Road; Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
617/259-0088; e-mail:  k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com or k1vr at juno.com
     
     
Once you start playing with software you quickly become aware that each 
software package has a revision code attached to it. It is obvious that 
this revision code gives the sequence of changes to the product, but in 
reality there's substantially more information available through the 
rev-code than that. This article provides a guide for interpreting the 
meaning of the revision codes and what they actually signify.
     
1.0:
Also known as "one point uh-oh", or "barely out of beta". We had to 
release because the lab guys had reached a point of exhaustion and the 
marketing guys were in a cold sweat of terror. We're praying that you'll 
find it more functional than, say, a computer virus and that its 
operation has some resemblance to that specified in the marketing copy.
     
1.1:
We fixed all the killer bugs ...
     
1.2:
Uh, we introduced a few new bugs fixing the killer bugs and so we had to 
fix them, too.
     
2.0:
We did the product we really wanted to do to begin with. Mind you, it's 
really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it.
     
2.1:
Well, not surprisingly, we broke some things in making major changes so 
we had to fix them. But we did a really good job of testing this time, 
so
we don't think we introduced any new bugs while we were fixing these 
bugs.
     
2.2:
Uh, sorry, one slipped through. One lousy typo error and you won't 
believe how much trouble it caused!
     
2.3:
Some jerk found a deep-seated bug that's been there since 1.0 and 
wouldn't stop nagging until we fixed it!!
     
3.0:
Hey, we finally think we've got it right! Most of the customers are 
really happy with this.
     
3.1:
Of course, we did break a few little things.
     
4.0:
More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need 
to get more memory and a faster processor ...
     
4.1:
Just one or two bugs this time... Honest!
     
5.0:
We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base 
out there to protect. We're cutting the staffing after this.
     
6.0:
We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not very many, but it's been 
so long since we looked at this thing we might as well call it a major 
upgrade.  Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could 
justify the major upgrade number.
     
6.1:
Since I'm leaving the company and I'm the last guy left in the lab who 
works on the product, I wanted to make sure that all the changes I've 
made are incorporated before I go. I added some cute demos, too, since 
I was getting pretty bored back here in my dark little corner (I kept 
complaining about the lighting but they wouldn't do anything). They're 
talking about obsolescence planning but they'll try to keep selling it 
for as long as there's a buck or two to be made. I'm leaving the bits 
in as good a shape as I can in case somebody has to tweak them, but 
it'll be sheer luck if no one loses them.
     
     


--------- End forwarded message ----------

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com