The right thing to do

[handrawn]

yes Paul I appreciate all of that but at the risk of repeating myself... if something that works in version A is then broken by version B, and it is something as important as PDF export is, it should be fixed before version C...

[pauland]

If I understand correctly, you are referring to a specific current bug. I'm not sure what that has to do with a comment about how licences handle subscription lapses.

[browj2]

yes Paul I appreciate all of that but at the risk of repeating myself... if something that works in version A is then broken by version B, and it is something as important as PDF export is, it should be fixed before version C...

… so that whatever version one has at whatever point during the 365 days, if one does not update, then one should get any and all bug patches - for that version.

It seems that new features bring new bugs, but sometimes bug patches mess up something else, requiring another patch with the potential to mess up something else, and so on. Given all of that, we never seem to get a fully patched version; some bugs are left for the next version, unfortunately. This seems to be all too prevalent in this industry, not just with Xara.

Sorry for my uncharacteristic pessimism.

[pauland]

… so that whatever version one has at whatever point during the 365 days, if one does not update, then one should get any and all bug patches - for that version.

Well what is a version is something that is subjective. If we talk full point releases, then OK, but often there are sub-point releases adding new features.

It seems that new features bring new bugs, but sometimes bug patches mess up something else, requiring another patch with the potential to mess up something else, and so on.

Absolutely, and even a bug fix can introduce a new bug.

Given all of that, we never seem to get a fully patched version; some bugs are left for the next version, unfortunately. This seems to be all too prevalent in this industry, not just with Xara.

It is. But that's because we are human and because we only pay enough money to companies to support a finite amount of bug fixing and product development. Xara could fix lots more bugs but would the user base be happy with a much higher subscription charge?

Sorry for my uncharacteristic pessimism.

I can feel the frustration. Every software developer ends up fixing bugs (and creating them).

I have worked for large corporations developing software (much bigger than Xara, with a subscription cost that would buy a house) and on one occasion worked specifically in a patch team - building product patches in response to customer bug reports. That was many years ago. I can say that we squashed a lot of bugs and sometimes added new ones. We also had the complication of working across multiple operating systems.

That software (which still had bugs, like every other bit of software) has continued to be developed since then and I belong to a group where people report their problems (I don't work for the manufacturer anymore, nor do I still use the software) and often I think why are people still reporting these kinds of issues after all this time? Sometimes I wonder why the software still has such primitive ways of doing things all these years later.

So while I still get surprised by all this, I know the answer - the software is complex, it's been around for a very long time so the codebase is like a mysterious beast - lots of people have worked on it and everyone is very wary of what happens to it for fear of breaking it because of some unexpected side-effect of a change. The development and bug fixing teams have a finite size and a finite amount of effort available. I am pretty certain that code that I wrote over 20 years ago will still be in the product and I know that then there were sections of the code that only a few people would consider touching because of the high complexity and I'm also certain that the people who originally wrote that code and those that I knew that followed them are no longer in the company.

So you can be paying thousands (per month even) and still be using software with buggy code - because it's only mission-critical software that is tested to extremes to eradicate all the bugs humanely possible. That software is very expensive. Testing is very expensive and that mission critical software does not evolve at any great speed and is limited in features to reduce the complexity wherever possible.

My story is not about Xara, but it could be. The codebase is old, the development and bug fixing capacity limited.

The PDF bug is going to be a real issue for some people and of little consequence for many. I can understand how it might have been fixed but then reintroduced. Developers are human beings, working under pressure and we make mistakes.

Don't be surprised at how this works - it's a consequence of fallible people, like yourself writing software. It's not just about the failings of people it's about the failure of entire systems at times (we all know the rules of driving, we can do the right thing and follow them but a brake failure can still make us crash).

I'm sorry, but I think you're wasting your time wanting entirely bug-free software and railing at Xara about it.

[handrawn]

Paul I was using the PDF as an example of a bug fix that users [not all I'll grant] think critical and xara apparently does not; this in the context of comparing xara's approach to bug fixes with that staed in the second part of the Sketch statement you posted, which implies no such restriction - all part of the update services being compared

btw - is sketch purely cloud based or does it have desktop as well? delivery mechanisms for bug-fixes/updates differ desktop/cloud

Given all of that, we never seem to get a fully patched version; some bugs are left for the next version, unfortunately. This seems to be all too prevalent in this industry, not just with Xara

a cynic might say this is good for maximising compasny revenue - no matter which version you have there will always be something you need in the next

there again it could just be there is never enough time to get everything right - but hey that still means the second part of the above sentance pertains [if you are a cynic... ]

[handrawn]

Paul

we cross posted

I'm sorry, but I think you're wasting your time wanting entirely bug-free software and railing at Xara about it.

I don't have an issue with never having bug-free - my issue is with the company not seeming bothered about what is critical to a sector of it's user base..

... and I understand all you say about the legacy coding - one reason serif/affinty started again; if they could do it, why not xara?

[pauland]

my issue is with the company not seeming bothered about what is critical to a sector of it's user base..

Then go at Xara about specific problems rather than the generalities of my thread.

serif/affinty started again; if they could do it, why not xara?

Well they kinda did, but didn't get as far as they hoped, with the online version.

As for Serif, I hated their software until they went for the affinity products. I actually didn't trust them because of their marketing tactics. I guess they had a pot of money to go for the rewrite and a realisation that their existing products were falling behind. Brave decision that is paying off big time.

Xara used to have command of it's own destiny (let's forget the Corel diversion), but now Magix are in control. Rightly or wrongly I regard Magix as a company that picks up products that are profitable but have a questionable long-term future. Xara derivatives are just part of a wider portfolio of products to bring in revenue to Magix, so I am a pessimist about that relationship and where Xara can go forward. Xara as part of Corel seemed to hold back development way back when.

This is all rather off-topic now.

[pauland]

is sketch purely cloud based or does it have desktop as well? delivery mechanisms for bug-fixes/updates differ desktop/cloud

It's a desktop program but offers cloud based features for documents ( mostly to do with collaborations between people ). It's hugely popular in web design - feature-wise Xara does way more than sketch, but because it is oriented towards a specific goal - software/website design - it doesn't have 1,000 features you don't need and five that you do. It doesn't try and be a photoshop/illustrator/inDesign/Dreamweaver amalgam like Xara. It does one job really well. Anyone using Xara could tell me 50 things Xara does that Sketch doesn't. I would agree with them and say it's better to do some things really well and be fast and easy to work with than have 50 extra things there that get in the way.

I make a lot of design stuff in Sketch and use the assets created using Sketch in other software. I have an eco-system of software that forms my development pipeline.

[handrawn]

Xara used to have command of it's own destiny (let's forget the Corel diversion), but now Magix are in control. Rightly or wrongly I regard Magix as a company that picks up products that are profitable but have a questionable long-term future. Xara derivatives are just part of a wider portfolio of products to bring in revenue to Magix, so I am a pessimist about that relationship and where Xara can go forward. Xara as part of Corel seemed to hold back development way back when.

This is all rather off-topic now.

off topic or not that is something I can agree with

Then go at Xara about specific problems rather than the generalities of my thread.

that has been done in three threads, two now closed; mentioned here merely as an example like I said...

first I get queried for specifics, and now for generalities; firgive me for trying to explain

but which ever way you look at it bug fixing is relevant to the licences and therefore this thread...

thanks for the info re sketch

[Acorn]

I believe the relevance of this ongoing discussion is still around the Update Service and the relapse back to the original purchase version, losing all bug fixes for the year of cover unless Xara has issued a point release, of which we know of one.
I have not seen point releases at every version release. These would not be required if the silly reversion strategy was abandoned.

Acorn