• ASiegel
    Posts: 1349 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:

    the pre-release version of the Pegasos mainboard was primarily a tool for testing MorphOS.

    But this kind of opposes the idea that the Betatester was "combinations of pre-release versions of the Pegasos as well as pre-release versions of MorphOS", doesn't it?

    Not at all. Acknowledging that a piece of hardware required for testing software is not ready to be sold to end consumers (because of known bugs in the included Northbridge chip, for instance) does not automatically imply that there is any expectation that having it evaluated and tested by external parties would yield any new insights of notable value.


    Either the tester is the Pegasos board that is used to test the testee MorphOS OR the tester is the combination of Pegasos board and MorphOS (which begs the question what the testee is) ;-)

    The tester was the hardware, which, as previously explained, was a complete system initially.



    there was no general expectation that testers would have the required capabilities to correctly identify and report hardware bugs

    Testers would report bugs (e.g. data corruption) by describing the observable end result and what they did to get this result, so that it's repeatable for the receiver of the report. They wouldn't have to know whether it's a software bug or a hardware bug in order to file that report.

    In order to be any real help, they would have had to know that and report to the appropriate parties in a very timely manner. It can take many months to figure out that cases of data corruption were not caused by software, especially if it is under heavy development, but by hardware instead.

    You make the proper reporting of bugs and confirmation of issues sound completely trivial, which they are not.
  • »19.11.15 - 15:14