While it's possible that vendors have occasional patches and minor releases, I'm puzzled that one hears so little about them. Further, I seriously doubt there are daily builds to fix problems reported by users.

Last weekend, my wife and I had dinner with a few friends, and I learned that one of them had a software tool he'd been using for years, from which, in the latest release, one feature, a feature on which he often heavily relied, had been removed. The vendor representative told him it would be "fixed in the next release." However, the next release was slated for some time in 2013.

My complaint isn't about too few releases. It's about too few fixes within those releases. I did mention that the bugs I complained about in release 4 of XILINX' "webpack" still persist, and they're major bugs. XILINX isn't alone in this, nor is KEIL, if they do that. I don't monitor KEIL because I don't use 'em. There are several software tools I do use fairly often, and I do notice that their producers behave as I described. I also know some people inside those vendors, and know it's, in fact, the case. I can't generalize over the entire software industry, but, for the most part, software from big companies is written by people who, while they can do their jobs, don't have to do their jobs by using what they produce. As a result, over the years, fewer and fewer of them have felt a need to concern themselves with what the end-user needs. They simply concern themselves with getting the boss of their backs, and he's not concerned with quality either. For the boss, it's just schedule and budget.

You said and, in that, I think you're misquoting me.

I did say, at one point, that there's a stereotype of a software guy as a very casually dressed longhair holding a caffeinated beverage. I also said that people who play loud music on via their poorly-fitting earbuds disturb people around them. I've also said that using cellphones in the office disturbs others and interferes with productivity, as they generally tend to speak too loudly, owing the absence of a sidetone. I did also indicate that I made a practice of dismissing people who brought the cellphone into the office for that reason. It was an employment condition that they refrain from doing so. I never said they were stupid. They'd never have been hired if I'd perceived them as stupid. I might, however, have said that I thought that it was stupid for someone wanting to work to turn down a job paying as much as I generally did, just because he couldn't bring his cellphone into the workplace.

You also attributed the following assertion to me. What I said was that they're trying to make money and not just trying to produce good product, and THAT, or the result of it, isn't pretty.

I believe you're reading what you want to read into what I've written, just to give yourself a point of argument. I don't think it serves you well.

RE