Board index » delphi » Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

2007-02-11 06:04:44 PM
delphi34
David Erbas-White writes:
distribution of beta programmes. I accept that this isn't much
consolation if your primary development tool is CB and you invested
plenty of time to provide feedback.
again. Despite the Doom and Gloom crowd here, Bauer and Co. have got
their heads screwed on tight this time. Hell, I would bet your job on it!
:-)
Cheers,
Mark.
 

David Erbas-White a écrit :
I've made papers for french developper site www.developpez.com.
I've made a book about Delphi 7 Studio while it was in beta test
www.eyrolles.com/Informatique/Livre/9782212111439/
I've stopped beta testing since Delphi for dotNet (and cause I have lost
my contact at Borland France :D)
And now I have to test it without never talking about it ? Event after
the release of the product ?
Best regards from FRANCE
Paul TOTH
 

Bob writes:
Theres 5 statements:
1. dont ask to test if you just wanna see whats new.
2. Please only ask to join if you are really willing to test
3. You will have to sign something legal to say you wont talk about it
4. Be into win32 coding
5. Be positive.
Hows that baroque?
How many people sign up for beta tests due to reason 1 alone.. MS
demonstrated this with the if you havent found a but you dont get a
free copy.. You shouldnt have to bribe people to write bug reports. I
write a freeware app, Ive booted off beta testers who dont send
feedback but keep downloading betas because they are of no help. Now,
it is feasable they didnt find anything, but they were all asked to
fill in a form, at the end, irrelevant of any bug reports to say "I
have tested this and I did/didnt find problems with it" .. just one
check box.. if they cant be bothered to do this, then they're only
doing it it seems for glory of saying "Im on the beta" which in this
case, they cant do by what it says.
An awful lot of companies dont like you talking of their betas, because
not all features are set in stone, bugs in the beta hopefully will be
removed so theres no point talking of them, The company itself would
rather market the new things than leave it to those on the beta test,
because it provides control and centralisation of the focus.
I just dont see why thats baroque, unless you fall into category 1 and
feel thwarted.
--
Liz the Brit
Delphi things I have released: www.xcalibur.co.uk/DelphiThings
 

Paul TOTH writes:
nothing keeps you from talking about the product once it is released.
Am I missing something?
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

In article <45ce505d$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
says...
of timeframe that would be of use to me - i.e. this year.
Being able to test the latest+greatest Win32 tool when having already
had to (90%) commit to migrating away from that tool in the near future
in order to address a need for 64-bit support, would simply be a waste
of time.
:(
I'm also not at all convinced that any application from me wouldn't
simply be rejected out of hand.
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
 

Markus.Humm writes:
Probably not. In fact, for Delphi, definitely not. For Builder, that
becomes a business decision -- will the information that I learn ahead
of product release be worth the time spent on beta-testing, and adhering
to the rules of a restrictive NDA? When/if that time occurs, I will make
a decision.
I'm pointing out that Borland has a history of not playing by the rules
(and yes, they're CodeGear now, but I will bet the legal stuff is still
being reflected to Borland).
They have every right to state, ahead of time, what the terms of the NDA
are, and folks have the right to choose whether to sign it or not. I
would urge folks to look long and hard at the document before agreeing
to it. A contract is supposed to be equitable to both parties. In this
case, CodeGear has specifically stated that they DON'T want folks
involved who simply want to 'take a look under the hood,' so to speak.
I think this is a mistake, because (IMHO) often there will be one nugget
of gold provided by the comments of folks who just may be 'looking under
the hood,' but that is CodeGear's choice to make. In this instance, if
folks feel that it is equitable to sign a very restrictive NDA, along
with a 'requirement' that they put a specific amount of 'free' (to
CodeGear, of course) time into testing the product, go right ahead.
I would also point out that this is not the only incident where Borland
has made a 'promise' and then arbitrarily and unilaterally changed it.
The other major incident was when they promised the results of a C++
survey to those who took it -- and then reneged on the promise. I would
also point out that not only did they renege on the promise, but nothing
was ever done in compensation for their claimed 'mistake'. That is an
additional item one has to consider when looking at the track record.
So, particularly with the offspring of Borland, I'd highly recommend
thoroughly reading any documentation you agree to, even though most
programmers tend to just 'click through' and ignore it...
David Erbas-White
 

Bruce McGee writes:
"You'll have to sign an NDA. That means you cannot talk to anyone about
what you learn in the field test. You can not even mention that you are
in the field test. You can not talk about being in the field test even
after it is over. You can not publicly talk about the field test process
or anything. I mention this just to be clear about what you are signing
up for before you apply."
That seems pretty clear to me. You can not talk about it, ever.
If Programmer A signs up, and Programmer B doesn't, and Programmer B has
publicly had a known problem of a certain type, Programmer A can not even
discuss it with Programmer B, in order see if the beta test 'solves' the
problem Programmer B has.
I'm at a loss, really I am, as to what CodeGear expects to get out of
such restrictive requirements. They've gone on and on about how they're
not Borland -- yet these are (to the best of my knowledge) the most
restrictive requirements for beta-testing they've ever publicly stated.
David Erbas-White
 

Jolyon Smith writes:
I've been (and continue to be) a vociferous critic of CodeGear and how
they continue to handle the product line, and I was extended, privately,
a direct invitation to participate (please note I received permission
before stating this publicly). I have declined for the reasons that
Builder is my primary platform (not Delphi), and because the
restrictions are more than I will agree to (particularly in light of the
fact that there can be no discussion after the end of the beta).
CodeGear may get folks to sign up who are either willing to
click-through the NDA without reading it, or who are actually willing to
give up their right to criticize the product by being in the 'beta', but
I won't be one of them -- and I am presuming a great deal of other
programmers will not be involved who also can not agree to such restrictions.
That makes it a lose-lose situation - CodeGear will not get the optimum
beta-testing for the product, and end-users will end up with a lower
quality product in their hands at the end -- and all because the 'suits'
are still running the company.
This, despite the fact that we keep being told that 'things are
different'...
David Erbas-White
 

Bob writes:
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

David Erbas-White writes:
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

David Erbas-White writes:
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

David Erbas-White writes:
under the hood finds that gold nugget, but keeps it to themselves. It
has no value unless returned to CodeGear, and I believe this is part of
what Nick is trying to get at.
Another issue is that CodeGear are simply not the size of Microsoft,
and MS open betas have raised expectations of what a beta program
means. If you open your beta program to thousands of testers, you also
need a way to process feedback from thousands of testers - resources
that (I suspect) would come straight from the development team,
reducing ability to move the product forward (or even respond to beta
feedback once processed) By attracting testers who want to be involved
in the processes, this is a win/win. CodeGear get people putting
effort into finding and reporting bugs, people who are motivated to do
this get the chance. Everyone else gets a better product because of
this.
You are right that we should think carefully before signing up, and
CodeGear would like us to think too. If on reflection it still seems
like a good idea, then probably you're a good match for the test
program. If not, then no-one loses either.
It is nice to see a public call for testers though, a clear step in the
right direction for CodeGear for me.
Although I sure would have liked to see another CBuilderX version
(along side BCB) ...
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
This one is more restrictive right off the bat.
Are you prepared to tell me that the NDA did not involve any of the
Borland legal team? (perhaps so -- in which case you can explain why
CodeGear is going down the path of being even more restrictive than
Borland was).
Shall we continue in this vein???
David Erbas-White
 

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
restrictive NDA gives CodeGear a club to hold over the head of anyone
who then criticizes the PRODUCT.
There are several ways this can (and does, in the real world) occur.
Something might be discussed during the field test that gets 'covered
up' prior to actual release, yet those 'in the know' can not discuss it.
Or an element that was discovered as being a bug isn't fixed, and one of
the beta-testers 'announces' that once the final version is released.
Despite the fact that the product is 'public,' and that any user could
'discover' the bug, any beta-tester would be open to liability if THEY
bring that bug to light. There is simply no way you can refute this.
And please don't say "we would never do this", because you're putting it
into a legal contract for a reason.
David Erbas-White
 

Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] writes:
the product release. To me, that is a deal-breaker.
I don't have a disagreement with their requirement that folks commit to
actually beta-testing the product -- I believe that one's a judgement call.
IMHO, it would be better to have a more 'open' beta, but not in the
sense of agreeing to answer everyone's questions about it. It amazes me
that QC works on the concept of a level of 'volunteer' sysops who
separate the wheat from the chaff, but this concept somehow isn't
workable for a beta test. But that is their call to make.
I hope I have clarified this...
David Erbas-White