Question About Recent Update

[patmac]

Hi,
I just ran the search for updates and the following came up, along with the normal ones:
"Main Update 1.4 Main Application Update ( 275kB ) dated 6/10/2005.
Is this anything to be concerned with? It has never come up before.
Thanks for your time,
patmac

[PepiMK]

Are you using version 1.3? There were so many 1.3 users out there still that we had added this to again to persuade them to switch to 1.4

[patmac]

Thanks for subtle hint!

[rdlspybot]

Are you using version 1.3? There were so many 1.3 users out there still that we had added this to again to persuade them to switch to 1.4 ;)

Issuing an official patch for the teatimer pop-up fault would be a much more effective persuasion.

Simply directing people to use what remains an unofficial patch on a user forum won't work. Why is it still only there?

People like me will update to 1.4 when, and not before, that patch is properly official, published (not just referred to) on the main website and/or issued as a regular update.

Personally, it would damage my self respect and moral awareness to refuse to quickly address so blatent a flaw in any of my utterances whether free, optional or not. It's odd that those morals which clearly drive SpyBot are not similarly sensitive.

Please, no sycophantic remarks like "It's free, stop whining...". Just read what I wrote above. If I give someone a gift and it turns out to be faulty, I quickly put it right and I would feel diminished if I didn't. If I refused and they asked me to reconsider and I still stubbornly and willfully refused, then what would that make me? Entitled perhaps but what else?

So, now persuade me, if you really want to.

rdlspybot.

[tashi]

Hello rdlspybot.

Perhaps one could participate in the beta testing, your call.

http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=9474

[rdlspybot]

Hello rdlspybot.

Perhaps one could participate in the beta testing, your call.

http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=9474

In my day, I've done more unpaid (and often unsolicited) beta testing than I care to remember, both for others and for myself. At my reasonably advanced age I don't feel like doing that any more. So don't patronize me - ok?

In the meantime,

(a) My impression, based on the unofficial offerings, is that the patch by itself (without foolishly insisting on including the whole of 1.5 beta at the same time) would be a few bytes, to change the position and possibly the size of the buttons (?and panel?). That should require three to six people about five minutes checking each, once they'd installed 1.4 and applied the patch.

(b) That being the case, there's already been plenty of time to put things right. In my production days, I'd have quite certainly, barring fire, flood and such, had a corrected version of something like that ready within an hour of its being reported. In this case, that would have been before it was released, since I always made sure that I and, wherever possible, others saw the live issued product in use at least briefly immediately before anyone else would see it.

(c) If you put one officially espoused release candidate patch, just for that problem, (and not itself a malware suspect) up as an official beta on the site and on the understanding that, if accepted, it will be publicly and officially issued as general release within one week, then I will install 1.4 and test-apply the patch. I will also need, in the same place on the site, a simple set of exactly defined instructions for, without installing software or similar, dependably triggering the pop-up and for reversing any results of my response.

If I were you, by the time I'd produced the trappings for that, I would be thinking that I might just as well have produced and issued that patch months ago as routine maintenance - as many have already entreated you to do. Such urgent and localised fixes are normally tested by the production and support teams and probably passed first to the initial notifiers to apply for test and for their immediate relief. That would have led to a fix being released many months ago.

rdlspybot

[tashi]

Sorry you took it as patronizing.

Have a great weekend.

[rdlspybot]

Sorry you took it as patronizing.

Thanks for the apology. Accepted.

I'm not sure what your spider wants to say. I have a pet one whose web fills my kitchen window and I'm glad to have her share my territory.

(c) If you put one officially espoused release candidate patch, just for that problem, (and not itself a malware suspect) up as an official beta on the site and on the understanding that, if accepted, it will be publicly and officially issued as general release within one week, then I will install 1.4 and test-apply the patch. I will also need, in the same place on the site, a simple set of exactly defined instructions for, without installing software or similar, dependably triggering the pop-up and for reversing any results of my response.

So, do we get that patch?

rdlspybot

[bitman]

In my day, I've done more unpaid (and often unsolicited) beta testing than I care to remember, both for others and for myself. At my reasonably advanced age I don't feel like doing that any more. So don't patronize me - ok?

In the meantime,

(a) My impression, based on the unofficial offerings, is that the patch by itself (without foolishly insisting on including the whole of 1.5 beta at the same time) would be a few bytes, to change the position and possibly the size of the buttons (?and panel?). That should require three to six people about five minutes checking each, once they'd installed 1.4 and applied the patch.

(b) That being the case, there's already been plenty of time to put things right. In my production days, I'd have quite certainly, barring fire, flood and such, had a corrected version of something like that ready within an hour of its being reported. In this case, that would have been before it was released, since I always made sure that I and, wherever possible, others saw the live issued product in use at least briefly immediately before anyone else would see it.

(c) If you put one officially espoused release candidate patch, just for that problem, (and not itself a malware suspect) up as an official beta on the site and on the understanding that, if accepted, it will be publicly and officially issued as general release within one week, then I will install 1.4 and test-apply the patch. I will also need, in the same place on the site, a simple set of exactly defined instructions for, without installing software or similar, dependably triggering the pop-up and for reversing any results of my response.

If I were you, by the time I'd produced the trappings for that, I would be thinking that I might just as well have produced and issued that patch months ago as routine maintenance - as many have already entreated you to do. Such urgent and localised fixes are normally tested by the production and support teams and probably passed first to the initial notifiers to apply for test and for their immediate relief. That would have led to a fix being released many months ago.

rdlspybot

What a rant!

Though I agree completely that a simple fix for TeaTimer took way too long, if you aren't interested in the beta version that does fix AND improve the program then just wait like you have been.

I personally am happy to finally see some activity occurring that shows Spybot may have a future. I'd much rather see this beta activity continue than time wasted on a separate fix at this late date. Though some of your underlying points are well taken, they loose their value when supplied with such a condescending tone. It's you who should be apologizing to those here who spend every day actually doing something that helps others.

Do remember what you already recognized, that Spybot is supplied freely and this could simply end at any moment. If you don't wish to be an aid in the further development of the program by helping test the new abilities in the fixed version of TeaTimer, then just wait quietly on the sidelines.

This version has already had more testing in the background then previous versions and will require more to be certain that what has occured in the past isn't repeated. Anyone not helping to test this new version has no right to complain about any delays, since they're doing absolutely nothing to further that devlopment.

Bitman

[PepiMK]

Well, I guess the TeaTimer history is really a bad one. Many parts of it can be read on our website under News, and around here. It really wasn't as simple as a patch of a few bytes; in times of codesigned files, you have to replace the whole file. Combined with the bad availability of update servers (that was before we had 7 of our own, updated hardware, reduces includes size etc.)...

And it wasn't just something small to patch - actually the error multiplied with every compile due to a huge bug in our development environment - and lots of trouble with its manufacturer - which eventually lead us to change all our code to be independent of that environment (Delphi - and everyone who has developed using Delphi will probably agree that 2005 was nearly unusable).

And last the Symantec situation, where a change to the TeaTimer was part of a possible solution, which was stalled by S. for many months. And that's just the tip of the iceberg - every month we've got to fight with some AV company over a F/P. They're exagerating their heuristics that much that every second file we do not even have released is already detected as something bad. I have two new updated files available, but can't release them currently since three AV companies do detect them as something bad

I guess in your production days, you didn't have to deal with that much "politics"

Anyway, the TeaTimer + AdvCheck update would've already turned public if it wouldn't have been for the xmas factor. I hope we'll have someone around between xmas and new year to test the final installer from inside the app then