Netbeans failure mode

[Arved Sandstrom]

Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.

No, it is not. It's not even remotely *the* standard - that terminology
implies one versioning system that everyone uses.

All the x.y.x system is, is a versioning system that's fairly common.
However, the meaning of 'x' and 'y' and 'z' in an x.y.z versioning system is
not standardized, and moreover, even where 2 teams both use x=major,
y=minor, z=maintenance, their definitions of what constitute major and minor
changes may be quite different.

You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.

No, I don't get to decide what you assume. I expect that you get corrected a
lot when you join a new programming team, though.

How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it is
an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make a
liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there were
none.

Not really. It's been explained to you that some things in NetBeans can be
updated, and some things cannot. If you cannot proceed from NB 6.1 to NB 6.5
by means of updates, then the message makes sense. Yes, further on you're
going to jump all over the fact that the progression from NB 6.1 to 6.5 is
also referred to as an update, but that can't be helped.

That was clearly an error on Sun's part, one they've since rectified with
Java 5, Java 6, and similar names. Java "1.6.0_10" is really Java 6.0.10
by any sensible reckoning, and the phrase "Java 6" indicates Sun's
acknowledgement of that fact.

Consider that the official version as reported by "java -version" still _is_
1.5.x or 1.6.x. The Java 5, Java 6 is for marketing.

So yours, too, is mistaken (or even lying). Interesting. Whatever is wrong
is apparently reproducible. That increases the odds it can be fixed. Heck,
maybe 6.5 has fixed it and will correctly claim to no longer be up to date
when 6.6 or 7.0 or whatever comes out.


No, it isn't. How can you possibly say that? "No updates" means no
updates. 6.5 is an update. It even says so right on the release notes
page: "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE 6.1..."
(http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html).


Nonsense. See above.

You may wish to consider that an update available through the "Check for
Updates" feature is not quite the same thing as a completely general use of
the word "update". To keep you happy I guess the NB team should have used
the word "improvement" or "feature add" or something.

Irrelevant. The problem is that the "check for updates" feature is NOT.
People expect that if there is a new version out, a feature named "check
for updates" will tell them this. If it does not, that feature is failing
to live up to its name and is, at best, being misleading.

Let's clear the developing thicket of red herrings, irrelevant asides, and
pointless hair-splitting before it gets any worse.

Nobody else actually is hair-splitting, boss. Everyone else managed to
adjust to the NetBeans way of doing things.

I'll bet you're a real treat when someone throws a curveball your way.

NB web site says "NetBeans IDE 6.5 is a significant update to NetBeans IDE
6.1".

NB 6.1, when told to check for updates, says "Your IDE is up to date!
There are no updates available."

These two assertions directly and explicitly contradict one another.

Citation for first item:
http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html

Citation for second: start NB 6.1, "Help" menu, "Check For Updates"

Well, get on the horn to the NB team and tell them that the jump from 6.1 to
6.5 should not be referred to as an update. It's an "advance", or a
"expanded feature suite" or a "service pack".

AHS

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.

There's no major difference between, say, Linux 2.4 and 2.6, then. Or
glib 2.10 and glib 2.16. Or Windows 5.0 and 5.2 (or Windows 6.0 and
6.1). Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 3.1.

How major an update 6.5 is is entirely beside the point anyway. That it
is an update of any magnitude, rather than a downgrade, suffices to make
a liar out of the NB "check for updates" feature when it claimed there
were none.

Many products do not bug you to update between major version changes.
This is generally because changes in products may involve breakage.
Anything with extensions or plugins is extremely sensitive to major
version changes.

For example, many kernel modules would not survive a 2.4->2.6 upgrade.
Windows programs would run afoul of an XP->Vista update. Firefox 2.0
compatibility does not necessity imply Firefox 3.0 compatibility.

Essentially, a major update is roughly equivalent to a new product
altogether. Just ask the Microsoft IE development team.

 

[secret decoder ring]

re-plonk

This response appears to be hostile and childish. Furthermore it appears
to have nothing whatsoever to do with Java, or with what I'd said.

 

[secret decoder ring]

No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

It's not even remotely *the* standard - that terminology
implies one versioning system that everyone uses.

No, it implies one versioning system that most people use.

The convention is for the first digit to denote major versions and each
successive digit less-major changes.

This is a simple and inarguable fact.

No, I don't get to decide what you assume.

I'm glad you now realize that.

I expect that you get corrected a lot when you join a new programming team,
though.

Then you expect wrong.

Also, I'll thank you to stop making gratuitous personal attacks. I have
done nothing to deserve such treatment. Your above statement suggests
something insulting about my programming competence. Furthermore, the
suggested insult is factually incorrect.

Not really.

Yes really. "Your IDE is up to date!" when it's actually four minor
versions behind "up to date" is quite clearly an incorrect statement.

Ask any random twelve people off the street and they will all, or almost
all, tell you the same thing.

It's been explained to you

Various incorrect things have been "explained to me". That I do not
believe them does not mean that I am hard of hearing, or an idiot.
Rather the reverse -- I would be an idiot if I *did* believe some of the
things you've said.

some things in NetBeans can be updated, and some things cannot

This has no bearing on the mere NOTIFICATION of the user of the
existence of an update.

A feature named "Check For Updates" should not falsely report that there
ARE NO UPDATES when there ARE UPDATES, even if they are not updates that
can be automatically downloaded and installed.

To claim that there are none at all, rather than that there are some but
none that will be automatically downloaded and installed, is to be in error.

Any randomly-selected fifth-grader would understand this.

How old are you, Arved, and what is your highest completed education?

the message makes sense.

It is well-formed and semantically meaningful, so yes, technically it
"makes sense". However the sense that it makes is a false statement in
this particular case.

Yes, further on you're
going to jump all over the fact that the progression from NB 6.1 to 6.5 is
also referred to as an update, but that can't be helped.

Of course it can't be helped, because it proves that I am right!

You apparently don't like this.

Tough.

You insulted me and attacked me for making true and reasonable
statements. You get to reap the whirlwind.

Them's the breaks.

Next time, think twice before picking on random people on Usenet.

Consider that the official version as reported by "java -version" still _is_
1.5.x or 1.6.x. The Java 5, Java 6 is for marketing.

In other words, the code, under the hood, maintains backwards
compatibility with the old, deprecated system, but the system they
actually use when communicating with actual human beings is the
corrected one.

This no more indicates that the old system is somehow "better" than the
persistence of old, deprecated methods littering the API indicate that
those older methods are "better" than their replacements. They are just
retained for backwards compatibility.

You may wish to consider that an update available through the "Check for
Updates" feature is not quite the same thing as a completely general use of
the word "update".

But that is not correct. An "update" is an "update" is an "update". If
the "Check For Updates" feature is really intended to be a "Check For A
Specific Subset Of Updates" feature, then it has been incorrectly
labeled. Likewise if the message "Your IDE is up to date!" is supposed
to mean something other than the literal meaning of the phrase "Your IDE
is up to date!", then that message is incorrect and should be different.

A bug exists, whether you like it or not. I have proven it logically.

That you continue to argue in the face of irrefutable reasoning can only
indicate that your objections stem from *un*reason, from emotion of some
kind. Attachment, creating a will to defend NB from all criticisms
however valid, perhaps. Or maybe defending a dogma.

Please let us know when you're ready to renounce your membership in the
Flat Earth Society, Arved. That way we'll know when to start maybe
taking you seriously again.

To keep you happy I guess the NB team

This isn't about keeping me happy; it is about not making inaccurate
statements to the entire user base.

Nobody else actually is hair-splitting, boss.

I am not hair-splitting. I am pointing out what really should be obvious
to any random fifth-grader.

Everyone else managed to
adjust to the NetBeans way of doing things.

There is no "NetBeans way of doing things" when it comes to the meanings
of commonplace English words!

I'll bet you're a real treat when someone throws a curveball your way.

I can only assume that this is meant as some sort of a personal attack
irrelevant to the question of NB's behavior, and irrelevant to Java in
general.

This kind of childish behavior also does not give us any reason to take
you seriously.

Well, get on the horn to the NB team and tell them that the jump from 6.1 to
6.5 should not be referred to as an update.

But it is an update.

What is incorrect is the behavior of the "Check For Updates" feature,
not the web site's statement. The web site's statement is 100% accurate.

The "Check For Updates" feature's correct behavior is to discover if
there are any updates, notify the user if so, and if any nonempty subset
of those are of the "may be downloaded and installed through the
interface" type, prompt the user whether it should do so.

This is also something that any fifth-grader should agree with. That you
apparently do not is frankly astonishing to me.

 

[secret decoder ring]

There's no major difference between, say, Linux 2.4 and 2.6, then. Or
glib 2.10 and glib 2.16. Or Windows 5.0 and 5.2 (or Windows 6.0 and
6.1). Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 3.1.

Entirely irrelevant. The primary point is that the NB UI and the NB Web
site contain a pair of mutually exclusive statements -- it is logically
impossible for both to be true -- and the one on the Web site appears to
be accurate.

Many products do not bug you to update between major version changes.

NetBeans does; it bugs you to update even for fairly minor changes.

Did you have some sort of a point here?

This is generally because changes in products may involve breakage.
Anything with extensions or plugins is extremely sensitive to major
version changes.

This is an argument against automatically downloading and installing
such. It is neither an argument against prompting the user whether to
download and install such nor an argument against merely notifying the user.

It is certainly not an argument in favor of displaying blatantly
incorrect information in the software's user interface.

 

[secret decoder ring]

Except for meaning different things.

But they do not. Look up "synonymous" in the dictionary, Lew. It means
they mean the same thing!

Apparently yours is.

But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from
visiting the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can
argue in the face of such clear evidence.

But then, I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a reasonable person,
Lew.

Whatever you say.

I'm glad you're beginning to show some signs of absorbing some sense.
Let us hope that this process, once begun, continues with alacrity and
is completed soon, transforming you into a normal, educated adult human
being.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Arved Sandstrom wrote: [ SNIP ]
Any randomly-selected fifth-grader would understand this.

How old are you, Arved, and what is your highest completed education?

[ SNIP ]

Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning with
you. I knew it was a lost cause when you dug in your heels about x.y.x
versioning. My original comment was that you cannot assume that x=major,
y=minor, z=maintenance in x.y.z versioning systems, and you stated that you
can, because it's the STANDARD.

Try Googling on "software versioning". No shortage of links. Every article
says that the *most common* versioning schemes are numeric. Not the only,
the most common. The *most common* _numeric_ versioning scheme is a form of
x.y.z. Not the only, the most common. And the *usual* interpretation of the
latter is major.minor.something.

You understand the difference between that and "the STANDARD?"

Incidentally, how do you explain Linux kernel versioning? That uses (to
borrow from Wikipedia, so you have something to refer to) A.B.C[.D]. A and B
work quite differently from 'x' in your picture of z.y.z. A is so major that
it barely ever changes. B is a match for 'x' in your picture, and C for 'y',
and D more or less matches your idea of 'z'.

But I guess Linux kernel versioning is non-standard.

I could trot out any number of programs that version according to x.y, and
'y' gets incremented on every routinely scheduled build, each of the latter
incorporating both feature changes and bug fixes. Would you dismiss those
versioning schemes as non-standard?

A couple of major government systems that I am working on right now are in
production, have been for a while, and the development, test and production
builds have a very simple numerical scheme, namely, the Subversion revision
number. An 'x' scheme, so to speak. When a new production build gets
approved every few months, that's a major version; new test builds
correspond roughly to minor versions. Would you call this non-standard?

And I can think of dozens of programs that do have a x.y.z scheme with a
purported correspondence of x=major, y=minor, and z=maintenance, but the
actual mapping of functionality changes to version changes is so tenuous as
to make the versioning somewhat useless. But I guess it's ok, because
they're speaking your language, eh?

Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their system
clearly caused you lots of difficulties. Most of us have had no issues.
Enough said.

AHS

 

[John W Kennedy]

Perhaps because you are posting from his machine?

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
disguise himself.

"Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
understand that there is a lunatic by that name who posts here under a
dozen different aliases, which he frequently changes. I'm afraid that he
has this entire group rather on edge -- not that we're seriously
bothered about him, but when someone keeps jumping into technical
conversations yelling, "I don't exist, and you can't prove that I do!"
or says that he is personally insulted because someone quoted
Christopher Marlowe, it gets /very/ annoying, after a while.

So we get nervous around strangers.

 

[Lew]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
disguise himself.

They do share a propensity to say nasty, actually downright abusive
things about people who disagree with them, for no sin worse than not
agreeing.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

[ SNIP ]

But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from visiting
the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue in
the face of such clear evidence.

[ SNIP ]

6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times,
because that would mean that NetBeans uses a versioning system where the 'y'
in x.y gets incremented by one for each "minor" release. Here you go
thinking that everyone uses this supposed STANDARD system of yours. There
isn't and won't be a 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4. There probably won't be a 6.6, 6.7,
6.8 or 6.9 either.

AHS

 

[Lew]

[ SNIP ]

But it isn't! 6.5 is up to date. 6.1 is now four minor version number
points behind the times. This should be immediately apparent from visiting
the NB Web site, Lew. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue in
the face of such clear evidence.

[ SNIP ]

It doesn't do any good to address comments to me, "secret decoder ring", on
account of I've already plonked you. If it weren't for Arved, who has
answered your point definitively /infra/, I wouldn't know you were even
posting, much less addressing me. Besides, this is a public forum, not just a
conversation between two people.

6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times,
because that would mean that NetBeans uses a versioning system where the 'y'
in x.y gets incremented by one for each "minor" release. Here you go
thinking that everyone uses this supposed STANDARD system of yours. There
isn't and won't be a 6.2, 6.3 or 6.4. There probably won't be a 6.6, 6.7,
6.8 or 6.9 either.

Note, "secret decoder ring", that despite your attempt to impose an
idiosyncratic so-called "standard" on NetBeans, that they aren't doing it your
way.

 

[secret decoder ring]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire.

Indeed that is not my name.

"Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
understand that there is a lunatic by that name who posts here

Ah. I see. There is some kind of feud going on here, and for some reason
one side or the other is trying to drag me into it.

Sorry, not interested.

 

[secret decoder ring]

They do share a propensity to say nasty, actually downright abusive
things about people who disagree with them, for no sin worse than not
agreeing.

I have not said anything that I'd characterize as "nasty, actually
downright abusive" in response to mere disagreement.

 

[secret decoder ring]

Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning with
you. [rest deleted]

Your personal insults and general rudeness are uncalled-for. We had been
having a perfectly civil debate about NetBeans versioning. Then when I
managed to produce incontrovertible proof in support of my side of our
argument, you began to make snide remarks. When I called you on that,
you responded with this ... trash-talking nonsense.

I think we're through here.

I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
loser such as yourself.

Absolutely no point in discussing NetBeans updates with you. Their system
clearly caused you lots of difficulties.

Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine. So
this is just another fairly transparent attempt to make things personal
when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, and facts come
to light that support the other side.

Shame on you.

 

[secret decoder ring]

6.1 is most definitely not 4 minor version number points behind the times

Yet quite clearly it is, since their Web site announces proudly the
release of a shiny new version, and that version is 6.5.

Five minus one is four, as almost any child with passable grades in
arithmetic will be willing to confirm for you.

Whether there were actually three intermediate versions or not is
immaterial, since I said it is four minor version number POINTS, rather
than four VERSIONS, behind. They jumped by more than one presumably
because the changes from 6.1 to 6.5 are somewhat greater than those from
6.0 to 6.1 were. Which suggests that 6.1 is "more behind" than if the
changes were less significant, of course.

Quibbling over what exactly a change of four minor points actually
"means" is entirely beside the point anyways. Really, it suffices that
6.1 is merely no longer the most current version for my point to be
made; if 6.5's only change from 6.1 had been to fix a single typo in a
three-levels-deep dialog box label somewhere in the NB GUI, it would
STILL suffice to make the statement "Your IDE is up to date!", when
still emitted by NB 6.1, an erroneous one.

That you're still trying to find excuses for 6.1's error, even in the
face of such overwhelming evidence that it has no excuse, is a sign that
you are arguing from emotion rather than reason.

 

[secret decoder ring]

It doesn't do any good to address comments to me, "secret decoder ring",
on account of I've already plonked you.

I don't know what you mean here, but I have the distinct impression that
it is a) unfriendly and b) utterly unrelated to NetBeans.

Please keep your opinions on unrelated topics to yourself, especially if
you don't have anything nice to say.

Besides, this is a public forum, not just a conversation between two
people.

This is a newsgroup, and furthermore it is a newsgroup with a specific
topic, that of Java programming. Moreover, this particular thread also
has a specific topic, NetBeans. Your remarks here do not seem to be
related to either.

Note, "secret decoder ring", that despite your attempt to impose an
idiosyncratic so-called "standard" on NetBeans, that they aren't doing
it your way.

My stating a desire that it not produce messages like "Your IDE is up to
date!" when such a message, interpreted according to the nominal English
meaning of the phrase, would be in error, constitutes /imposing an
idiosyncratic so-called "standard"/? How interesting. But I doubt that
most people would agree.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I think we're through here.

I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
loser such as yourself.

So you will stop posting in this thread ??

Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you do have not
understood NetBeans versioning and updating. And worse - that you do
not seem interested in understanding it when we explain it to you.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Yet quite clearly it is, since their Web site announces proudly the
release of a shiny new version, and that version is 6.5.

Five minus one is four, as almost any child with passable grades in
arithmetic will be willing to confirm for you.

Whether there were actually three intermediate versions or not is
immaterial, since I said it is four minor version number POINTS, rather
than four VERSIONS, behind.

That is being stupid by being clever.

There are indeed 0.4 in difference between NB 6.1 and NB 6.5, but that
is not particular relevant for anything.

There is 3.6 between Java 1.4 and Java 5. And 4.0 between MSO 2003
and MSO 2007.

Arved just made the big mistake of assuming that you posted something
relevant.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is usually very sloppy in his attempts to
disguise himself.

Paul is sometimes trying harder to disguise himself.

But the "I am always correct" attitude even when pointed to
evidence showing otherwise is very characteristic.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I couldn't help noticing how busy you were posting to this subject so I
did a quick read of your material. I may have missed it, but what
response did you receive from the NB folks about this "omission"? Seeing
how you claim to exercise due diligence and have failed at nothing, you
surely have addressed this problem with the people who might actually
resolve the matter. So, what *was* their response? IMWTK.

You seem to be assuming that he is actually interested in learning
and understanding what and why.

That is not the case.

And never has been.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/carleton.general/browse_frm/thread/107c44a6274df3a6

Arne