The BDOS, however, was written in PL/M and supplied as a binary because it was invarient. Both had all the source code that DRI would supply to its OEMs. SCP for their Zebra range, MS for the Z80 Softcard for the Apple II. There are some that say that Tim copied the code of CP/M, specifically of version 1.2.īoth SCP and MS were OEM licenced for CP/M. > - MSDOS - bought from Tim Paterson (who copied the design of CP/M) If you are giving software away in exchange for help developing it - you may expect a few more bumps along the road. If you are going to charge for software, you have to make sure what you are selling works. Giving dedicated testers the boot and relying on well intentioned, but ill equipped, insiders is a recipe for disaster. How someone running a software company would fail to recognize that fundamental distinction is simply bewildering. The crowd sourced insiders have no access to the source (and 99.9% have no clue what 'cl /nologo /W3 /Ox /Foobj/ /Febin/myexe /TC list of sources and libs' begins to describe) On the other side, the users are often the ones that develop and submit the patches and additions to whatever code or desktop is at issue. but have no clue as to what broke or where and have no way to communicate about the implementation details, or help with in any way beyond saying "It's broke". Why? What can insiders do? At most they can complain about what doesn't work and provide diagnostic data, event logs, etc. ![]() You can't compare the OpenSource community involvement with Linux to crowd sourced insider QA with windows. ![]() With 10 and disbanding the dedicated testers in favor of a crowd-sourced QA, the wheels have all but fallen off. the OS and any SP's were relatively fine. Yes exploits were found/created and the evolutionary arms race between miscreant and patch have settled into a monthly battle, but overall the windows releases were largely free of QA debacles. While there have always been patch releases at some interval (the ".1" or ".1a" releases long before the "SP1,2,3" days) windows releases have always been fairly solid. After having used windows since the says of Windows 286 on DOS 3.3 (remember the 32M partition limits?) one thing is clear. The most disappointing part is the lack of ability to focus on the issue at hand - declining quality and QA problems in Redmond's release cycle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |