Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Who's Fault is Fastback
Message-ID: <1238@looking.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 87 19:38:42 GMT
References: <1907@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 54

In article <1907@cup.portal.com> Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes:
>what are a software publisher's
>responsibilities?  And what does the word "standard" mean?  If you think
>this sort of argument is out of place in this newsgroup, by all means
>flame me.

Not out of place yet.  If comp.industry or comp.industry.pc or whatever
is created to provide a forum for non-technical computer related discussions,
then that would be the place.

Now, on to compatability rules:

If you're a non-major software vendor (I am), then this is a very tough issue.
There's no way in the world you can test on even a fraction of the
configurations out there.  Even companies as large as Microsoft have trouble
doing this.  You try as many machines as are available to you, and then you
count on beta testers.

But beware, for beta testing is harder than people think.  You will really only
have a small number of good beta testers.  Particularly if you're making a
specialty product in a niche market.

If you're making hardware configuration dependent software like a special
device driver, you do what you can.  But in the end the best a small company
can do is try it on the major computers in their standard configurations and
say, "For use with IBM-compatible computers."

Unfortunately, tons of things are not in the realm called IBM-compatible.
If your dealer sells you a machine, saying it's compatible, and a program
doesn't work on it, your dealer was wrong.

Which is not to say that software vendors don't try to run on as many machines
as they can.  If they don't run on your clone, they lose a sale.  But you
must understand that there *is* a reason why IBM gets to sell for more, and
if you decide to buy something cheaper, you should fully expect to not
get some things.
> 
>I simply point out that RLL is a *very*
>commonly used technology, sufficient to justify documenting Fastback's
>incompatibility with it.

Was it that common at the time your copy of FastBack was written?  Here's
where larger companies get in trouble -- they can't make a new release with
every new hardware change.  They release once or twice a year, if they're
very efficient.  Lotus 123, the most successful software ever, releases once
every 2 years.

Believe me, it's not a matter of "edit the hardware page to say don't use
RLL".  These manuals are printed in 10,000 copy lots, and new releases
and print runs must be coordinated to avoid inventory wastage.  RLL was
not that common a year ago.  Don't be so surprised.

-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473