Yikes thats a bit rich!

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Apr 16 2007, 07:10 PM)

None of the bugs I cared about were fixed in 8.2.1. as indicated from the NI buglist. So NI has dissapointed me with the 8.2.1 release. Am I being selfish? Of course I am... I'm a customer.

...Some bugs are fixed but not listed under the same CAR #...

[robijn]

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Apr 13 2007, 08:37 PM)

We are entering a world where the definition of "computer", "user", "software", and "operating system" are becoming blurred due to our highly connected, networked world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization' target="_blank">Virtualization makes computers more like software and multi-cores (and multi-processors) makes the definition of "1 computer/user" rather meaningless.

Well, these kinds of statements have been made before about other things. Some of them turned out to be true. For example the mobile phone changed a lot in the way we manage our time. We don't need to find a phone somewhere (and maybe pay actual $) to be able to change an appointment or whatever. With the Web 3.0 thought, in which your apps are located on a server and you only have the user interface locally, a lot of things will become different. Your word processor would not run on your PC anymore. You would not need to install it and you don't need to update it. You could pay for CPU use. These kind of services will be updated without the user noticing.

But when it comes to data acquisition and specialized software, we will need the software with the hardware. Also we want full control over the software version that is used. There are not (like with the centralized services) many users using the program but only 1 or a few. Apart from that it will take ages before LabVIEW can be run somewhere else on the Net while your data is being acquired locally. And only at that point you could speak of an actual service. I would not worry too much about LV being 'virtualized'.

I hope NI does not make the error to think that users want automatic updates in LabVIEW. Because as programmers we know how difficult it is to fix a big without creating a new one. LV should be stable. We need reliable scientific data and that can only be generated with a reliable tool, not an unverifyable virtual "something".

Joris

[Tomi Maila]

QUOTE(robijn @ Apr 17 2007, 02:18 PM)

I hope NI does not make the error to think that users want automatic updates in LabVIEW. Because as programmers we know how difficult it is to fix a big without creating a new one. LV should be stable. We need reliable scientific data and that can only be generated with a reliable tool, not an unverifyable virtual "something".

I hope NI realizes that customers want bug fixes and not feature updates to maintain their existing software. They want feature updates for new projects. These are two distinct things that should be separate but which coinside in LabVIEW release process. Many software vendors such as our friend Microsoft in Windows product line support old versions of their software for certain amount of time. I'd love to see NI to move to this model as well. It's not an orthogonal model to service programs and continous money flow. Indeed I suspect many of us developers would see more value in a service program that would also support old versions of LabVIEW and not just the latest version.

[hooovahh]

QUOTE(crelf @ Apr 14 2007, 01:37 PM)

Whoa - that's a bit strong! Sure, they're a company that needs to make money (otherwise they won't be around for very long), but I've seen many many many examples of NI giving a hoot about their customers.

I'm hoping that you wrote your post in an emotive state (as your "raw nerve" comments says). I strongly suggest you do some resaerch to find out why NI has opted for the SSP-only progam before you jump to conclusions like that...

Oh you're only saying that because you work for some big hot shot company that NI cares about. Me speaking from no experience what so ever of course.

//Yes I know, I know

[crelf]

QUOTE(hooovahh @ Apr 18 2007, 01:20 AM)

Oh you're only saying that because you work for some big hot shot company that NI cares about. Me speaking from no experience what so ever of course.

Since you work for the same "big hot shot company" that I do, I know that you're saying that with your tongue firmly in your cheek - but, in future, you might want to make it more obvious to other members of the list, otherwise your statements might be taken as sarcastic or belligerent as opposed to that of a dry wit.