B12 - IMO not worthy of release..

Jack Caviness said:

I like this new arrangement. Now, if the Dev Team would add a show/hide feature for Martha

For MJ's use. her posts or her in general???[;)]

In Christ,

Dave (who probably thinks he's funnier than he is before the first [C]

<><

I've reported your feedback -- thanks.

MJ. Smith said:

DominicM said:

Sorry maybe i was a bit emotive, but back when I was employed full-time to develop software applications, I would have been given a written warning (severely disciplined) for releasing a non working function in an application.. 

While I understand your position here, my observation of the types of bugs we find leads me to suspect  that the programmers are not backed up by good testing software and test scripts i.e. that like most IT development, testing is treated as a second class cousin to making the product. Note: I speak from 30+ years of trying to get sufficient time for sufficient testing.

I
agree with y'all.  While I can only speak based on the years that I worked
in computer development, it does appear to me that Logos 4 does not go through
thorough testing.  What Logos released as 4.0a was at best a beta
version.  With functions like printing not being part of the program, I
would not even call the program fit to be called alpha.

What
is being released as beta, let's say that I would not call it beta, or alpha,
or . . ..

The
cost of keeping a program in house until it is ready to be released is
greatly lower than the cost of repairing the program once it has left
the building.  Bob posted on his blog (http://www.bobpritchett.com/blog/2010/01/on_failing_our_customers.html)
how they have failed in providing good customer support.  While this is
my opinion, one of the reasons why they are still receiving complaints
about the software comes from the fact that the software was (and continues) to
be under tested before it goes out to the public.  Again my opinion, Bob
is now paying the cost of releasing a product that was not tested (and
continues not to be tested) thoroughly.

I don't think Logos is sending out incomplete, untested programs, but inviting us (the beta testers) into their lab to help.  We are the testers - what a treat.  Thank you Logos. (By the way, Logos does pre-test before releasing versions to us.)

As beta versions go, these aren't bad - actually pretty stable.  I've never had a system crash and it's been a while since I've had a program crash.  I have a 3 year old laptop that doesn't move as fast as I'd like, but considering what all the Logos software is doing under the keyboard I'm impressed.  Most of my problems are with the carbon unit in front of the keyboard. (Get it?  Carbon life form?  Me, the human?  Never mind.)

We need to give Logos all the feedback we can - it's their choice if and when it goes in.  Their customer service sensitivity is a refreshing change from most providers out there.  What impresses me is their ability to accommodate the needs and desires of their core users - those of us crazy enough to study, prepare and present God's Word using beta software (with the back-up of Logos 3 and hard-copy just in case but rarely used).  Even accommodating conflicting features by making them options we can choose from.  Choice is good.

I got excited when I saw the little red delete button for notes was replaced by a menu - promise/hope of cool future features!  One function at a time is fine with me! - keep 'em coming (once a week works for me).  I use notes a lot - very heavy user in Logos 3.  I used all the notes features and am looking for them in Logos 4.

Thank you Logos for the drag-and-drop from note to note - I too had been watching for but stopped trying it a few versions ago.  Glad its in. 

Clippings to Clippings would be helpful too.

Ephesians 5:20-21

Who is Job [:D]

Quote:

When I was working at Microsoft, we would never release "beta" versions that were still having new features added left and right. Beta was a stage we didn't enter until after we were feature complete. Even "alpha" was post feature complete. This is roughly the release cycle we used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

I must admit that the way Logos does things is really odd and unfortunate.

Rosie,

Just a thought:

Its' neither odd nor unfortunate in my view, but instead it's a viable stragety to the "old way" of doing things.

Bradley had posted a long explanation of why they have gone the way that they have, (and there are a lot of good reasons for doing so)....and he pointed out that many software companies are doing exactly what Logos is doing.

times change...

 From wiki on beta softare:

As the Internet has allowed for rapid and inexpensive distribution of software, companies have begun to take a more loose approach to use of the word "beta". ^[1]Netscape Communications was infamous for releasing alpha level versions of its Netscape web browser to the public and calling them "beta" releases. In February 2005, ZDNet published an article about the recent phenomenon of a beta version often staying for years and being used as if it were in production-level ^[2]. It noted that Gmail and Google News, for example, had been in beta for a long period of time and were not expected to drop the beta status despite the fact that they were widely used; however, Google News did leave beta in January 2006, followed by Google Apps, including Gmail, in July 2009.^[3]. This technique may also allow a developer to delay offering full support and/or responsibility for remaining issues. In the context of Web 2.0, people even talk of perpetual betas to signify that some software is meant to stay in beta state. Also, "beta" is sometimes used to indicate something more like a release candidate such as the LittleBigPlanet public beta.

It seems to me that with the number of pre-pub (Zondervan) about to go out Logos' virtual door it would behoove them to get 4.0b with its merge index fixes out the door or if they can't get it up to quality standards soon, roll those indexer fixes into another SR for 4.0a. The update to the Galaxie journals demonstrated the mass havoc that indexer's bugs can cause. I am anticipating another wave as the Calvin 500 collection (that's a lot of info!) triggers merge indexes in 4.0a installations.

Dave Hooton said:

Can you provide a link to Bradley's post?

Dave,

I looked and looked and can't find it.

I even checked wikipedia to see if I could remember which one it was....no dice.

Possibly Bradley could point us to it again?

Floyd Johnson said:

I suppose we could ask that Terry's post be any color we want, as long as the font is the same color.

[:P]

Dave Hooton said:

Can you provide a link to Bradley's post?

Dave & Bob,

This may be the message thread on design you are looking for:

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10026.aspx

Regards,

Scott

Kevin Becker said:

Basically, when the supplemental index reaches a certain size Logos will attempted to merge it with the main index. I get the impression that if this happens in 4.0a you are likely to experience index corruption.

Kevin,

Okay, that doesn't sound like too much trouble.  If the index becomes corrupted, I'll use L3, then rebuild the index overnight.

Thanks,

Scott

Bob Pritchett said:

Rosie Perera said:

I must admit that the way Logos does things is really odd and unfortunate. I think they are realizing this with how all the support calls are killing their response time which they used to pride themselves in. I seriously think they should reconsider their testing and release strategy for future releases. Unfortunately, I think this model is deeply engrained in their DNA.

I just want to say, for the record, that we asked Rosie to come join us more than a decade ago. She could have fixed it all before things became too ingrained in our DNA. So it's Rosie's fault. :-)

Glad Bob piped up to show you all that he and I are friends from way back. Sometimes my choice of wording is "odd and unfortunate" and I'm sorry to all of you who feel upset by how I sometimes express my constructive criticism for Logos here. But it's not really much different from how I've talked to Bob directly when we've met for lunch in the past to talk about Logos, and he has appreciated my honest, though sometimes hard-hitting, feedback (he doesn't always follow my advice, but that's his prerogative as CEO and chief program manager, and yes he is still a bit geeky [;)] but so am I). He still wanted me to work for them, even knowing that's what I'm like. It's part of my DNA from having worked at Microsoft.

Microsoft program managers were hired from among people who usually had programming/CompSci backgrounds, so they were geeky too, but their primary role was different. They were not trying to design features to be easy to implement. They were designing them to be easy to use. Sometimes that meant more headaches for us developers, and we complained about our program managers. Many of us remembered the days when "Development was king" and we could decide how the features should behave. We mourned that loss. It is an adjustment Logos will need to go through, too. Hopefully Logos never gets so big that (like Microsoft) it can't listen to its users anymore. That in my opinion is what sets Logos apart, far above the crowd.

Bob Pritchett said:

We are understaffed in testing, but getting ready to add another.

I'm glad to hear that. I recently clicked on the "we're hiring" link on Logos's latest Facebook post (also on the blog), just out of curiosity. (No, I'm still not looking for a job with Logos...[:)]) I was disappointed to see that while they had openings for all different kinds of developers and a Sys Admin and Logos Ambassador, they did not appear to be looking for any Testers. So I'm glad to hear from Bob that they are indeed addressing that.

I am sympathetic with how long it takes to find good people, and I will be praying for Logos on that front, in addition to my occasional prods from the peanut gallery. And if I hear of any good people, I will definitely send them your way...

Any of you others reading this who might be interested, Logos was recently included on BCWI's Best Christian Workplaces list for 2010. See http://www.logos.com/jobs for more info on openings. But they are missing the description for the tester they're looking for. Go for it, someone who has experience as a beta tester and is good at "breaking things"!

I stumbled upon this article about Google:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/25/google.labs.graduation/

It seems to describe the process that I am seeing in the development of LOGOS.

 Blessings,

Floyd

Floyd Johnson said:

I stumbled upon this article about Google:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/25/google.labs.graduation/

It seems to describe the process that I am seeing in the development of LOGOS.

Yeah, sort of. They let people play with features ahead of time and then if they are popular, they release them into the main version of Google. They might be releasing things to Google Labs while they are still working out the bugs, but I haven't seen any bugs in any of the Google Labs features, and I've played with a bunch of them. One of my favorite Google features, Google Sets, has been in Labs forever (several years) and has never "graduated" into the mainstream. It's not because it isn't finished yet or is buggy or anything, as far as I can tell. I just think it hasn't been particularly popular, and they don't want to clutter the main Google UI with stuff that most people aren't going to use.

There has, however, been a documented trend, which Bob and Bradley have alluded to in some other posts, of software companies moving into more of a "perpetual beta" mode. (Facebook does that. They are always rolling out new releases which have bugs in them and every user is forced to participate in the public beta where they would choose to or not. At least with Logos we have a choice.) The mantra "release early; release often" which comes from the Open Source movement is quoted in Logos circles too. See Bradley's posts in this thread. See also the long discussion on the benefits vs. drawbacks of Logos's release model in this thread; there's more in here. See also Bob Pritchett's tweet here which links to an article called Embrace the Concept of "Permanent Beta" -- so apparently Bob is at least intrigued by that if not fully in support of it.

Incidentally, I have come around somewhat in my thinking on this. In one of the above-mentioned threads, when 4.0a was in beta testing, I wrote "I can't afford the time to be in permanent beta mode all the time so I'm not going to participate in the beta for that even though I did for 4.0." But I'm back to being in the beta for 4.0b and have been all along from Beta 1 up to now (Beta 12). It has more to do with how much time I've been willing (lately) to commit to Logos -- narrowing down reproducible cases of bugs, and reporting them, etc. It has been extensive, but I'm choosing to do it because I love Logos and the people who make it, and I want to see it improve.

I still think there would be a huge benefit to having the product better tested internally before releasing it to a wide-spread beta test, because then it's only absorbing lots of hours of a few people's time rather than many. I do understand the benefits of mass collaboration, of many hands making light work, and it is applicable sometimes in software development and testing. But there's a cost/benefit tradeoff when much of the work is being done redundantly. Many of us heavy forum users are running up against the same bugs over and over, and taking time to patiently explain to other users how to get around them. I really wish I didn't have to do that. I know I don't have to -- I'm volunteering at this, but I mean the need is there and it's great. I could drop the ball and other users here would pick it up for me (and I do that from time to time when I'm busy with other things) -- Logos employees don't have time to and aren't in general doing that. It's wonderful that Logos has such a large and loyal user base who are willing to help out. But it doesn't need to be so time consuming for us all. A small investment in time up front in better testing would alleviate a lot of angst among users, and would redound to Logos's ultimate benefit in the long run as it would maintain its reputation in the hearts and minds of its users.

tom collinge said:

Bob, there is a reason why you are putting out fires, there is a reason why you have having customer support issues, there is a reason why people are comparing L4 to Microsoft Vista/ME, and you are smart enough to know what this reason is, and it is not the number of units of L4 you have sold.  Your high sales only put a huge spotlight on this issue.

Ay, there's the rub.  If the product had been properly tested and fleshed out, then Logos support wouldn't have been overwhelmed.  It's not a matter of terminology either.  A beta means "Hey, we're feature complete.  We've unit-tested.  We've regression tested.  We now need to see if there's anything we've overlooked or introduced that we didn't intend to."  It does not mean "Hey guys, it built this morning with no errors!  Let's ship and start the revenue stream!"

I wish that Bob, in his blog entry On Failing Our Customers had been more forthcoming and stated the obvious, "The product was not ready.  We apologize for the many, many headaches we've caused our customer base and the countless wasted hours due to my blunder in allowing the software to be released too early.  We will do tangible things like 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' to ensure that our customer's time in beta-testing our product will be recompensed."  It seemed an especially spurious post considering that Bob is the man who penned a book and runs a website entitled 'Fire Someone Today.'  A cynic might easily draw the conclusion that Logos has exploited the Christian character of their customer base.

I can say this:  In *general*, the support in these forums from the volunteers when contrasted with the 'official' Logos support, makes the latter look very bad indeed.  If it weren't for the support of the volunteers in these forums, Logos 4 just might have been Logos' swan song.  Mark that I said 'In general.'  I am issuing a blanket statement based upon my experience with both forms of support.  This is not meant to cast aspersions upon any one or the other individual contributors from either camp.

Matt