A question to the SciFace GmbH leaders/owners from the #1 world CAS QA engineer
Vladimir Bondarenko
Today it is safe to claim, in terms of total distinct bugs discovered
in Axiom, Derive, Maple, Maxima, Mathematica, MuPAD, and
TI-Nspire, I am the #1 human CAS quality assurance engineer.
For those who still do not know me, a couple of outdated links,
my old resume and a short bio sketch
http://www.cas-testing.org/index.php?list=3
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/msg/d47024ab371f09c6?hl=en&
On Mar 2, 2007, I downloaded MuPAD 4.0.2.
http://www.mupad.de/download/data/mupadpro4/mupad-4.0.2-1-win32-i386.exe
Today is Mar 6, 2007.
My question is, how many QA engineers tested MuPAD 4?
This is NOT a question for Herr Creutzig or Dr Wehmeier.
My question is for the top SciFace GmbH officers/co-owners:
Dr Oliver Kluge
Prof Dr Walter Oevel
Prof Dr Benno Fuchssteiner.
Best wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko, MuPAD Beta Contest First Prize winner
http://www.cas-testing.org/SciFace.phtml
VM and GEMM architect
Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester, LLC
http://maple.bug-list.org/ Maple Bugs Encyclopaedia
http://www.CAS-testing.org/ CAS Testing
Vladimir Bondarenko
Prof Dr Benno Fuchssteiner,
Another appropriate wording would be,
How many man-hours, approximately, have SciFace invested
before releasing its commercial product, MuPAD 4?
You see, the code of MuPAD is getting larger and larger,
and our analysis reveals that SciFace GmbH's MuPAD is
closer and closer to the MACSYMA situation. Which would
be a real pity.
The points of our request is to give an estimation of
efficiency of your human based QA process as compared
to the efficiency of the Cyber Tester's VM machine.
After all, isn't the end customers' satisfaction
an important goal of the SciFace GmbH, it is?
Vladimir Bondarenko
While awaiting patiently a reply to our above questions from
the SciFace GmbH leaders/owners, let's consider what could be
the main reasons to deliver software applications inflicted
with a wide spectrum of various defects?
Vladimir Bondarenko
We know each other, and I'd run small risk to say, have
a fellow feeling for each other since 2002, the year we
got acquainted at the MuPAD beta contest. You know, I
have frazzled *both* my autographed MuPAD T-shirts, which
I see as my military orders, far beyond the minimal level
of decency... as I kept wearing now one of them now other
daily... now I feel I could earn some money having putting
it on and begging ;)
But today, Herr Creutzig, I am feeling very upset, I am
feeling worried about what's going with MuPAD, and with
you and with my enfant cheri Prof Dr Walter Oevel, and
Dr Stefan Wehmeier, and many MuPAD folks, and with the
company I do adore, and invested a solid fraction of my
time & soul & computational gift into, beyond any regret.
I am feeling really anxious as I am afraid I still have
no answer to my response of Mar 6, 2006...
You are both an active participant of sci.math.symbolic
and a SciFace GmbH worker at the same time.
I was wondering if you could please convey my question
to the SciFace GmbH owners/leaders, namely,
Dr Oliver Kluge
Prof Dr Walter Oevel
Prof Dr Benno Fuchssteiner
with whom you stay in a close contact, okay?
Explain them, this is like a game of chess, with a strong
position at the customers and the Cyber Tester's side. If
your bosses are going to keep silence, and do not want to
consider win-win ideas, the SciFace's customers and the
SciFace, and you personally would lose. This would be a pity,
as there are some good ideas in MuPAD, and the painstaking
toil of the SciFace workers is obvious... say a new nice
Help... but unfortunately all your efforts are eroded because
of CAPITAL problems in quality assurance, and alas, now,
brings the SciFace GmbH more questionable fame and less
money than it could be, systematically driving you towards
the very brim of the symbolic computation marketplace... as
it was the last year.
MuPAD quality keeps deteriorating tangibly, and something
should be done with this until it is not too late, until
the SciFace GmbH, the company you work for, is not out of
symbolic computation market yet.
[Cyber Tester: MuPAD bugs *publicly* available]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/msg/133c7325ad213e14?hl=en&
I am writing to the general public because my numerous
attempts of direct contacts were ignored by SciFace GmbH...
[VM: A new high-performance engine for MuPAD quality assurance]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/msg/a763dd3961b493ce?hl=en&
then we fully stopped contacts with SciFace GmbH and simply
had no time to help you (again!) for free as Cyber Tester
was involved heavily in some other tasks... and what we all
have now with MuPAD 4.0.2 quality... it's shocking, I'd say...
It looks like we all the parties involved, the SciFace
GmbH, the SciFace's customers, and the Cyber Tester
should do something, should consider the situation, and
come up with a solution.
Cyber Tester knows how to increase MuPAD's quality while
REDUCING the SciFace GmbH budget (sic), so why do not
discuss this in Germany to the common benefit?
Thank you in advance, Herr Creutzig.
Best wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko, MuPAD Beta Contest First Prize winner
http://www.cas-testing.org/SciFace.phtml
VM and GEMM architect
Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester, LLC
http://maple.bug-list.org/ Maple Bugs Encyclopaedia
http://www.CAS-testing.org/ CAS Testing
On Mar 16, 11:03 am, "Vladimir Bondarenko" <v...@cybertester.com>
wrote:
> Hello all SciFace actual and potential customers worldwide,
>
> While awaiting patiently a reply to our above questions from
> the SciFace GmbH leaders/owners, let's consider what could be
> the main reasons to deliver software applications inflicted
> with a wide spectrum of various defects?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Vladimir Bondarenko, MuPAD Beta Contest First Prize winnerhttp://www.cas-testing.org/SciFace.phtml
Christopher Creutzig
> But today, Herr Creutzig, I am feeling very upset, I am
> feeling worried about what's going with MuPAD, and with
There is a good reason we are staying with MuPAD and SciFace, and it's
certainly not that any of us would have problems finding jobs someplace
else. (Obviously, we might have problems finding the exact job we might
be looking for, but finding any job at all is as much a matter of
qualification and personal attitude in this business as everywhere else,
and I'm confident that every SciFace member has what it takes in these
areas to get a job. Obviously, the younger you try, the better you can
control the kind of job you get.)
On the other hand, I am not and have never been (nor wanted to be) in
a position to speculate publicly on the future of MuPAD as an economic
product and will continue to remain silent on everything bordering that.
Neither will I misuse this group to discuss issues of software
engineering and how they are handled in the company I work for – there
is a reason why I am using a private mail address in my postings here.
If those whose job is running SciFace decide to remain silent, this may
have any number of reasons, but addressing me personally won't change
any of them. Neither will sending mails to those individuals.
> I am writing to the general public because my numerous
> attempts of direct contacts were ignored by SciFace GmbH...
Without any reference to SciFace in particular, just speaking as an
individual: I don't think this course of action would help w.r.t. any
self-respecting company or other addressee.
Regards,
Christopher Creutzig
PS: Please don't use cross-postings without a Followup-to header. It
violates basic usenet etiquette.
Vladimir Bondarenko
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Still, from your message to Cyber Tester's request is it not
clear if you have already shared or will share soon with your
employers (say, SciFace GmbH CEO Dr Oliver Kluge) this link,
which was the main point of my letter to you?
Could you please just state, Yes or No?
Please note, it is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT if the SciFace GmbH's
owners/top officers will reply us in public or in private; we
here in Cyber Tester just want to make sure both for us and the
SciFace GmbH's existent and potential customers the position of
the SciFace GmbH about quality of MuPAD 4.
Thank you once more.
Best wishes,
Vladimir Bondarenko, MuPAD Beta Contest First Prize winner
http://www.cas-testing.org/SciFace.phtml
VM and GEMM architect
Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director
http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester, LLC
http://maple.bug-list.org/ Maple Bugs Encyclopaedia
http://www.CAS-testing.org/ CAS Testing
On Mar 22, 2:23 pm, Christopher Creutzig <christop...@creutzig.de>
wrote:
> Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:
> > But today, Herr Creutzig, I am feeling very upset, I am
> > feeling worried about what's going with MuPAD, and with
>
> There is a good reason we are staying with MuPAD and SciFace, and it's
> certainly not that any of us would have problems finding jobs someplace
> else. (Obviously, we might have problems finding the exact job we might
> be looking for, but finding any job at all is as much a matter of
> qualification and personal attitude in this business as everywhere else,
> and I'm confident that every SciFace member has what it takes in these
> areas to get a job. Obviously, the younger you try, the better you can
> control the kind of job you get.)
>
> On the other hand, I am not and have never been (nor wanted to be) in
> a position to speculate publicly on the future of MuPAD as an economic
> product and will continue to remain silent on everything bordering that.
> Neither will I misuse this group to discuss issues of software
> engineering and how they are handled in the company I work for - there
Walter Roberson
Vladimir Bondarenko <v...@cybertester.com> wrote:
>Still, from your message to Cyber Tester's request is it not
>clear if you have already shared or will share soon with your
>employers (say, SciFace GmbH CEO Dr Oliver Kluge) this link,
>which was the main point of my letter to you?
>Could you please just state, Yes or No?
He already said clearly that he will not comment on how software
quality is handled in the company. You are trying the "camel's nose"
approach of getting him to "just" answer a question on that topic.
Any way you look at it, SciFace has not chosen to enter into
QA discussions with you. He does not choose to enter into discussions
about -why- they have not entered into discussions with you. And
he will not (I predict) choose to enter into discussions about
why he does not choose to enter into discussions about why they
have not entered into discussions with you.
Leave it at "they have not chosen to respond" and drop the speculations
about why that is so.
There are a lot of different reasons possible. Including possibly that
they are under a non-disclosure agreement, or that they are working on
a Top Secret contract that answering your questions would implicitly
reveal, or that they are in financial negotiations for purchasing and
are prohibitted by securities laws from making any material statement
that could reveal the existance of the negotiations or that could
change the value of the company.
--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers
Vladimir Bondarenko
Thanks for your detailed comment! By the way, I learnt from it, with
pleasure, about "camel's nose" metaphor (the whole parable is here)
http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html
But actually, for me, and Cyber Tester and the SciFace GmbH current
and
potential customers is hardly much important what EXACTLY Herr
Creutzig
will reply us.
Coming back to MuPAD 4.0, after a long pause, me, a SciFace's
customer,
see that THERE IS MORE GARBAGE in MuPAD 4 than it was in MuPAD 3.
And this HEAVY pack of NEW bugs in NOT shown - in the least - at the
official SciFace's GmbH bug database here
http://www.mupad.de/trac/query
So in this case, for us the SciFace GmbH's customers is NOT important
a concrete answer of Herr Creutzig; what is really important is the
SciFace GmbH's position on account of how to deliver a quality MuPAD
to the world's community.
Now please see, if they would choose to keep silence... this would be
ALSO a position.
A dangerous position for the SciFace GmbH. A position of frustration
for the SciFace GmbH's customers being unable to reach their goals.
Are you personally willing to go to their store
https://www.mupad.org/shop/products.php/cPath/20?muSHOP=83076df2f75cc85bad388b3febd34d52
and pay 500 EUR for an application which yields ridiculous answers or
hangs at the simplest math inputs?
Vladimir
On Mar 23, 7:49 am, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
> In article <1174632279.952722.139...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Walter Roberson
Vladimir Bondarenko <v...@cybertester.com> wrote:
>So in this case, for us the SciFace GmbH's customers is NOT important
>a concrete answer of Herr Creutzig; what is really important is the
>SciFace GmbH's position on account of how to deliver a quality MuPAD
>to the world's community.
That's not what you said before. What you said before, in this thread,
is,
The points of our request is to give an estimation of
efficiency of your human based QA process as compared
to the efficiency of the Cyber Tester's VM machine.
That's not a question about their QA process: that's a question about
why they haven't engaged -you-, the self-proclaimed best CAS QA tester
on the planet.
If you are the best in the world, then any CAS company that doesn't use
your services is, by definition, not engaging the best QA in the world,
and thus, again by definition, must not have the world's best QA. If
that company has bugs outstanding, then any "position on account of how
to deliver a quality" product that does not include engaging the
world's best CAS QA is not (by definition) as good as it would be if
they engaged the world's best CAS QA, namely you. And you want such
companies to publically state that Yes, they are aware of you, and No,
their testing plan doesn't include engaging you, and to explain how
they expect to deliver a top quality product without using your
services.
It is doubtful that any European or North American company would state
publically why they do not choose to engage a particular individual --
not unless the individual has a criminal record or an unquestionable
history of bad morals, or has scored poorly on some kind of objective
test. Any official statements of explanation based upon other grounds
leaves the company open to libel lawsuits. And the more the
individual persists in asking for a public explanation, the more the
company has to clam-up and refrain from saying *anything* that could
be remotely construed as commentary upon the individual involved.
--
"It is important to remember that when it comes to law, computers
never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given
commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission."
-- Brad Templeton
Vladimir Bondarenko
writes:
A question for you, are you a SciFace customer?
WR> That's not a question about their QA process: that's a question
about
WR> why they haven't engaged -you-, the self-proclaimed best CAS QA
tester
WR> on the planet.
Hell no. First of all I never had an idea to be hired by SciFace, or
asked
it on account of becoming their team member. I simply do not need
this.
This is a question why SciFace release such a CRIPPLED version as
MuPAD 4.0.2?
This is a question why SciFace neither can handle their QA process by
itself
(on a painfully slow/fallible HUMAN basis) nor EVEN want to GET into
ANY
negotiations on using a high performance AUTOMATED environment?
> In article <1174718780.254225.253...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Walter Roberson
Vladimir Bondarenko <v...@cybertester.com> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 10:55 am, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>writes:
>A question for you, are you a SciFace customer?
I've never dealt with the company or any of its products, at all.
I haven't even looked at their web site.
To the best of my knowledge, the only person I have ever communicated
with who has used their products is you; but it is possible that
I have exchanged a letter or two with someone else who didn't happen
to mention their use of the products.
>
>WR> That's not a question about their QA process: that's a question
>about
>WR> why they haven't engaged -you-, the self-proclaimed best CAS QA
>tester
>WR> on the planet.
>Hell no. First of all I never had an idea to be hired by SciFace, or
>asked
>it on account of becoming their team member.
I find that claim very difficult to reconcile with your previous
statement in this thread, that:
>>> The points of our request is to give an estimation of
>>> efficiency of your human based QA process as compared
>>> to the efficiency of the Cyber Tester's VM machine.
I also find it very difficult to reconcile with the latter part
of your statement,
>This is a question why SciFace neither can handle their QA process by
>itself
>(on a painfully slow/fallible HUMAN basis) nor EVEN want to GET into ANY
>negotiations on using a high performance AUTOMATED environment?
I am having difficulty finding any English interpretation of those
statements that does not imply that you were indeed actively thinking
that SciFace should have engaged your expertise.
Note, by the way, that in my posting, I used the word "engaged",
not "hired", as "engaged" includes service contracts whereas
"hired" usually implies employer/employee status.
>I simply do not need this.
My personal assessment is that a reasonable person might summarize your
communications in this thread as, "SciFace, you are having QA problems;
either say outright that you (SciFace) don't care about the quality of
your product, or else explain publically why you (SciFace) haven't been
negotiating with me (CyberTester)". That might not have been your
intention, but I believe that reasonable people might well have
understood your communications in that way.
For example, re-examine part of your most recent posting:
>nor EVEN want to GET into ANY
>negotiations on using a high performance AUTOMATED environment?
Few people, I suspect, would be likely to construe that (in context)
as referring to any automated testing environment other than
your own.
>I simply do not need this.
You knowingly posted public challenges to SciFace and to
some of its employees to explain themselves; is it unfair for
the public to attempt to understand the implications and motivations
of your postings? You were not really addressing just SciFace:
you were addressing the public at large, expecting the public to
be drawn into your interpetation of SciFace's responses; you should
not be surprised if the public responds.
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
Vladimir Bondarenko
writes:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.symbolic/msg/ec55f864cf4c8383?hl=en&
[ ... ]
WR> is it unfair for the public to attempt to understand
WR> the implications and motivations of your postings?
[ ... ]
Sure, there is an emotional & business component there.
Having dedicated much effort to MuPAD improvement via
identification various bugs in it, I am feeling sadly
that now there is a solid chance that MuPAD will gradually
become too unusable to be sold at any success at all,
and SciFace will leave the market.
For me, it is painful to see what MuPAD 4.0.2 has become.
On a business note, I claim that we the Cyber Tester can,
via the VM machine, make SciFace's QA process streamlined
while REDUCING their budget expenses thus making SciFace
more competitive it the market.
In other words, SciFace's customers would enjoy more
powerful and stable MuPAD, is this a wrong goal?
The very first what is necessary to do for this is to
start negotiations.
[ ... ]
WR> My personal assessment is that a reasonable person
WR> might summarize your communications in this thread as,
WR>
WR> "SciFace, you are having QA problems; either say
WR> outright that you (SciFace) don't care about the
WR> quality of your product, or else explain publicly
WR> why you (SciFace) haven't been negotiating with me
WR> (CyberTester)".
[ ... ]
Your wording is perfect.
The only little bit I'd modify:
"SciFace, you are having increasing QA problems; MuPAD 4
development is getting too fragile and unstable"
Walter Roberson
Vladimir Bondarenko <v...@cybertester.com> wrote:
>Having dedicated much effort to MuPAD improvement via
>identification various bugs in it, I am feeling sadly
>that now there is a solid chance that MuPAD will gradually
>become too unusable to be sold at any success at all,
>and SciFace will leave the market.
>For me, it is painful to see what MuPAD 4.0.2 has become.
I can identify with and respect that sadness and disappointment.
>On a business note, I claim that we the Cyber Tester can,
>via the VM machine, make SciFace's QA process streamlined
>while REDUCING their budget expenses thus making SciFace
>more competitive it the market.
I accept that as being plausible. I have not studied your methods,
or the quality of your results, or your prices, so I have to reserve
judgement on your ability to deliver.
>In other words, SciFace's customers would enjoy more
>powerful and stable MuPAD, is this a wrong goal?
>The very first what is necessary to do for this is to
>start negotiations.
I've never (to my knowledge) communicated with anyone from SciFace,
so I can only generalize rather than speak from any concrete knowledge.
My first generalization would be to point out that people seldom
like be publically challenged to explain themselves. A person who
takes someone publically to task for a perceived failing, and then says,
"But I can fix this for you" is often not welcomed. The targets
often distrust the person's discretion, and often come to suspect
that the person might prove hard to communicate with in a positive
productive manner. People who sincerely believe in what they are
doing and work hard at it can -sometimes- be the hardest kind of
people to communicate with, as their mind might be bound into the
intellectual task rather than into communicating their ideas or
adjusting their communications to take into account people's feelings.
--
I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim.
-- Christopher Priest
Vladimir Bondarenko
wrote:
[ Many things I agree with. ]
There are different persons & attitudes.
But there is the ultimate argument.
The customers.
Do they want to buy, or do not.
> In article <1175931529.442887.60...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Vladimir Bondarenko
WHO has done all of this?