compressor stopped, and then power came back on while there was still comp ressed Freon between the compressor and the expansion valve, and the unit t urned off to avoid having the compressor try to start against the existing back pressure?
That would explain a 10 min delay in starting, not a permanent one.
Wow. I would try to recreate that issue by putting the unit on a power strip and varying the times you leave it off for. If you CAN reliably recreate it, I think you have legal recourse in terms of an implied warranty and it being unfit when compared to the industry standard.
And you have damages and outright denial on top of it. The rude treatment in my experience often comes when a company thinks it has potential exposure. Egghead denied they had been hacked for quite a while before they fessed up (and went out of business).
Control software written in house is usually pretty sloppy as is evidenced by how easily hackers get into things like car and even aircraft computer systems.
You probably have the makings of a national news item on your hands. (-: Ask not for whom the bell tolls . . .
Or his cat or dog was sitting on the keyboard. Google just spit out an error message about such an incident that echoed back the long string of nonsense characters that says, simply: "Malformed request."
I once had an operator who consistently missed the shift key and hit CTRL. Took the installation of a keystroke recorder to figure that out because as you might imagine, CTRL plus any number of other keys can cause real havoc.
$$$ - Bug free SW, if it exists, tends to be very, very expensive because of all the testing and code reviews it entails.
Compare your choice in vehicles to your choice in OS's and that becomes one reason people tolerated the Blue Screen of Death and so many other lockup problems. Sadly I've had to reboot my electronics heavy car more than once recently and I have no confidence the dealer would be able to fix the problem (open door buzzer sounds when key is withdrawn).
Lack of choices. My friend switched to a chromebook which locks up at least once a day. Currently PC systems are way too complex to ever be considered bug-free. Even Apple, with its notorious tight control of everything, put out a very buggy Quicktime for Windows that's bad enough to rank as a national security threat.
The point is, you don't let a user decide what *you* will accept. You make allowances for what you would reasonably expect. Then,
*enforce* those limits -- rather than letting the user exceed them and wreak havoc on your UNSUSPECTING software.A colleague was just about finished with a project he'd been working on for more than a year. I looked over his shoulder, in passing, and asked what he was working on, at that instant. Then, typed in and hit ENTER -- crashing his program instantly! (keep in mind, he thinks he's pretty much DONE) "What the hell did you just do???" "I typed !" "But, you're not supposed to do that!" "Then why did your program LET ME?"
A "potential client" flew me out to look at a system they were developing. Basically, an electronic "lock" (for hotels, etc.). Gave me the grand tour which ended with a presentation of their prototype.
My host gave me a two or three minute demo of how the system worked. I asked if I could play with it; "Go right ahead!"
(keep in mind I have never seen this before two or three minutes earlier)
Standing sideways (so my host could see everything that I was doing), I proceeded to instruct the system to make me a "Grand Master" key (one that would allow me into any lock). I'm sure my host thought this was just the sort of thing someone "playing" might want to do...
I went through all the steps, mimicking what he'd shown me a few minutes earlier. Then, just before actually MAKING the key, I unplugged one particular connector. My host was suddenly nervous. I just smiled...
...and made a Grand Master key.
Then, proudcly held it up for him to see.
And kept smiling as I made two more!
Then, plugged in the connector and hit CANCEL. Stood aside for him to read the message on the screen: "Operation canceled. 0 keys made" as I held the three keys out for him.
"You're not supposed to do that!" "Then why did IT let me?"
People get too focused on trying to make something sort-of work and ignore how it *should* work. And, because they RARELY sit down and write a specification that they (and others) could review BEFORE implementation, they leave these sorts of gaping holes all over!
That's not true. The costs are only high because people keep RE-writing the same software over and over again and never thoroughly test ANY of it! So, each rewrite reintroduces many of the same bugs (which incurs many of the same test and repair costs)
Instead, if you write something *for* reuse, you have an incentive to test it, automate that testing (so you can REtest it to reassure yourself that it's still working at a later date) AND completely document how it works and the conditions under which it is GUARANTEED to work.
When I build/design something, I include a clause in my contract that essentially says: "I'll fix any mistakes, for free". No time limit or other weasel words. So, any of MY mistakes cut into my profit. As a result, I don't let mistakes creep into my finished product!
A client might complain that it doesn't do something that they had HOPED or IMAGINED it would do. In which case, I point to the specification that WE jointly wrote and agreed to and ask why he didn't put those requirements into the specification -- if he truly WANTED those things? How can he expect me to come up with a price and completion schedule WITHOUT knowing what he wants? (i.e., the specification DECLARES his needs and my obligations).
Like asking a builder to build you a home -- then complaining because you'd expected it to have a swimming pool, jacuzzi, 3 car garage and sunken living room! ("Where does it call out those things in the contract? Clearly they would increase the cost of building the house so why would you EXPECT them to be given to you if not explicitly required??")
But, employers (and clients) either don't know how to specify what they want ("I'll know what I *don't* want, after you've SHOWN it to me!"); or are afraid to do so out of fear of what it might cost or otherwise entail; or want the freedom to be able to change their mind -- right up until the very last instant (and expect those changes to have no consequences on the cost, schedule, reliability, etc.)
Once you start formalizing "software components" -- much like any OTHER components you encounter in life (we all know what to expect from a #2-56x3/4 inch PHMS!) -- then you can make those components more reliable. And *prove* their reliability with one-time testing!
Unlike real-world components, software has the delightful characteristic that it can be PERFECTLY reproduced in infinite quantities. You don't have to test every (identical) copy of a program like you would have to test every SCREW that you produced!
PC's represent a TINY, INSIGNIFCANT portion of the software that is out there.
Think of all the "computerized things" that you interact with, daily. First, forget the software that's *on* your PC's disk (or in your PC's RAM). Instead, consider the software INSIDE your:
- keyboard
- mouse
- CD/DVD drive
- hard disk drive
- monitor, etc.
Your microwave oven, refrigerator, washer, dryer, dishwasher, furnace, thermostat, doorbells, toasters, irrigation timer, swimming pool controller, stereo, TV, VCR/DVD player, DVR, satellite box, cable converter, cordless phone, cell phone (forget "apps"), PMP, "home weather station" (or remote thermometer), garage door opener, clock radio, bathroom scale, water meter, electric meter, etc.
If you've been in a doctor's office, the temple thermometer, sphygmomanometer, scale (designed for greater accuracy and reliability than your bathroom scale), portable EKG, AED, and countless other "specialized" devices, etc.
Your car probably has 30 processors in it -- not counting any aftermarket devices you may have added/installed. The gas pump where you fill up. Even the tire inflator, tire balancer, nitrogen generator, OBD reader, etc. that are used on your behalf!
And, we've not really ventured beyond what a "typical" person encounters in day to day living! I.e., those of us with bits of electronic test equipment would include soldering iron, device programmer, oscilloscope/DSO, frequency counter, waveform generator, LRC meter, DMM, etc.
The thing that all of these appliances have in common (for the most part) is that they can't be easily/inexpensively/compassionately "updated"! You can't just "turn on automatic updates" and magically expect bugs to be patched. So, there needs to be extra care up front to ensure problems/bugs don't get out "into the wild".
Again, you're just thinking about desktops/PC's. Not "refrigerators" (like the OP)
As MS had about 15 years to fix the bugs in Win XP and never did seem to get them all, then mentionthat it was going to quit suporting it and to go to a new operating system, makes one wonder how bad Win 10 is going to be.
I remember when the calculator in WFWG or so had a big bug in it. Maybe it was Dos 6.x instead, long time and I don't recall, but you could put in something like 6.1 and substract 6.0, whatever the numbers were you got zero instead of .01 . It stayed that way for a long time.
Look through the descriptions of each patch ("update"). Dig deeper to see the actual underlying causes. Invariably, buffer overrun errors (or something similar).
Jeez, how many times do you have to get bitten by this same problem before you do *something* to prevent it from happening again? How many times are you going to get kicked in the nuts before you start wearing a cup?
(s.b., 0.1)
Exactly. They'll rewrite the same software (functionality) over (and over!) again and make the same mistakes over (and over!) again. Quality never improves. Because they start digging each hole *fresh* instead of finishing off the one they started, previously!
It's like having a serious illness and switching doctors after he's run countless tests -- and ruled out many potential problems -- just to start all over again with a new doctor and the same tests! (and dumping THAT doctor at the same point that you dumped the previous)
Disagree VERY STRONGLY. Of course something that requires careful planning and lots of testing will be more expensive unless you live in an alternate dimension. I am not sure you've ever worked on any truly large coding projects if you actual believe what you just wrote.
And they do that to keep development costs down. Change that paradigm and as I said, costs go up. Sometimes way up. We have someone here who designed fault tolerant systems. They are *always* way more expensive than COTS because of the increased development and testing time. Besides, you can't be seriously trying to tell me that starting from scratch is going to cost the same as reusing (perhaps) buggy code that works "well enough?"
And magic elves that work for free do that kind of work? Not in my dimension/membrane/universe. (-:
"We perfect people", as my old MD friend used to chide me when I said something like "I don't make mistakes."
Anyone who's ever upgraded their OS to see programs that didn't make the jump knows that you can control your little corner of the world, but not the whole thing. I bet I can break any piece of software you've ever written in some fashion because of all the other people *you* have to rely on to make your code work. There's always a weak link somewhere. If I recall my CMSC prof correctly, it's virtually impossible to certify any non-trivial program as error free. Just too much complexity. Maybe things have changed since then, but I doubt it.
Well, my ~40 years of experience designing high reliability, mission critical systems says otherwise. No lawsuits, dead patients, bankrupt casinos, etc. chasing me down!
You seem to have swallowed the "we don't have time to do it right -- but we'll have time to do it OVER" pill.
Agreed!
Not only does M$ have more holes than Swiss cheese, now they are a bunch of sneaky bastards.
KB3035583 - Just say NO!
Sorry to be blunt but the coding experience of a totally anonymous person has to be evaluated in those terms. I could tell in about five minutes looking at your code, pseudo-code and design plan what kind of a coder you are. Not so via self-report data on the web.
What I can do remotely is challenge the assertion that writing totally bulletproof code is just a matter of caring and not of money. I say it's almost ALL money and can cite quite a few studies that examine all the factors that lead into software purchasing decisions.
You sound very much like a lone cowboy programmer. What works on a small scale often does not work on a large scale. Do you have a colleague that knows all your projects, contacts, guarantees made and has the ability to execute repairs in case you're incapacitated? If not, your clients probably don't have much experience or have never been "keymanned" - i.e. suffered the loss of a critical, irreplaceable employee.
Structured walk-throughs, code reviews, automated testing, beta testing, bug hunting all cost money, especially when done at the scale of say Google (who offers $100,000 to hackers who can break into their browser) all cost money. Setting aside the time to properly assess the requirements, put project management into place and then test, test and test cost money, money and more money. And more importantly time. Big companies don't want to hear you're still bug hunting when it's time to roll out a new corporate HR system.
I haven't swallowed anything. I just don't think you have much real world experience in developing large >1000 user software systems. And when we're talking Windows bugs, that the scale we're discussing. My opinion is also shaped by the discussion of the rather antique PCs you used for something - don't recall - I just recall thinking when I read that the further you get from COTS hardware, the more nervous your client *should* become. I'm old enough to remember neXT and neXT cube computers. (-:
Without seeing one shred of code, documentation or list of clients or projects, things are whatever you say they are re: your qualifications. It's like judging a photo contest over the radio.
However, your writings speak some things very clearly, especially when you seem to be claiming that bug free software shouldn't cost any more than standard "bug here and there" software.
That's just a no-sale based on what it takes to develop plain old "good enough" Microsoft quality code. I've been through a very fair share of testing at corporate levels. I know how sausage is made.
Most non-trivial software is too complex to fully test - ever - and release into the wild means many people will be actively pounding every routine they can reach.
So what if SW gets patched now and then as long as it does get patched? That's why I am so confident I could breach your systems or your code if I could actually access them instead of just taking your word that they're "Yuge!" (-;
Unlike some others here, I believe the fact that Windows and everything that runs on it *mostly* works is a miracle of our time and one that's almost over. Do you know how many different types of motherboards and board configurations something like XP is expected to run on?
As long as you allow someone to install software (in the guises of "updates") on your computer, you are entirely at their mercy. They could choose to install all of the "features" of W10 on your machine -- and still let it report the name of the OS as YOU last remember it!
(Hey, you should be thankful! You're getting all this NEW TECHNOLOGY without having to DO anything to get it! :> ]
So, its obviously not worth a moment of my time to respond, here.
Thanks!
Clearly you've not worked on a large team programming effort. It's easy to spot because of how you say "I design, I program, I etc." I would NEVER hire you because of that. If you get sick, who fills in for you?
What you describe keeps happening because folks like MS *have* to reuse code. To fix some of the problems that have occurred in Windows or Linux often requires patching because starting from scratch would be prohibitively expensive. Change something in the kernel and everything dependent on the old structure could break.
That's certainly NOT true. Even though code size increases dramatically, major companies like Google, MS and Oracle keep very close track of the number of bugs they have to fix. We both know that buffer exploits are becoming more and more rare as coders learn to pay more attention to parsing input effectively. They learn that by looking at bug reports and trying to insure they DON'T make the same mistakes.
claims that "traditional style overflow [have] become more and more rare" and that tracks with the exploit reports that I see from sites like:
Remote code execution and privilege elevation seem to be the winners nowadays because coders have finally learned to parse input correctly.
This article from Wikipedia notes that adding protection, especially via software, can add significant overhead - translation: there are real costs associated with armoring programs.
So it's not only coders that have to up their game, it's machine makers, too.
Hmmm. Seems like we're talking OS's now and not just refrigerator firmware. (-: It doesn't really matter for the points I've been trying to make, chief among them that taking extra care means taking extra time and costs extra money and corporations and most clients have resource and time constraints.
I've written lots of SW and managed lots of coders. Perfect software isn't a matter of just trying harder, it's like anything else in the world - a tradeoff between cost and time that is bound to affect the quality of the finished project. Did people stop using WFWG because of a calculator bug? Doubtful.
Just had this happen to me. The first CAT scan didn't reveal a problem but the second did. Sometimes a new doctor and the same tests can find a problem that the old doctor couldn't.
Which is why the idea that someone like MS will throw away less than perfect code to try again for perfection from scratch just doesn't fly. Once an OS is released, a lot of other programs depend on it being consistent. Every change or bug fix is likely (and often does) create a host of unexpected interactions. Who here *hasn't* been hosed by an update at one time or another?
It doesn't sound like much of the code you create gets exposed to legions of hackers (or even users) like IOS, Windows and Linux. Code you *think* is perfect (like the old Army adage about battle plans) rarely survives contact with the enemy.
That's why I make the claim I can break anything you've written (that's non-trivial), especially with access to the source code. Especially if it has to "face" the net. I've never seen a perfect coder. I've seen some very good ones, and that could be you, but I've also seen far more coders who *think* they are top-notch. However, a super-smart, super-careful and super-efficient coder is rare and if he becomes "unavailable" for any reason, it's hell on wheels to find anyone whose smart enough to understand it.
Never mind MS and Oracle. It's not true even for embedded applications, like the fridge or a piece of communications gear. Unless the existing code is a total wreck because it was done by amateurs or there is some specific need to redo the whole thing, the existing software is typically what's used as a starting point. Being able to keep, reuse that existing code is usually the top priority, over anything else. For example, hardware engineers might want to switch to a different microprocessor based on performance, cost, power, etc. Software managers, project managers, engineering management will overrule them because the cost and investment on new software, starting from scratch, exceeds those other considerations by an order of magnitude. Sure, there are exceptions, if it's some simple design, where the software is no big deal. But even for a fridge, the natural starting point would likely be the existing code, not start with new code.
+1 For all the anti-Windows talk, nobody has come up *their* replacement. Not even close.
Have you heard of iOS and Android? Together, they represent 93% of the mobile market. "Windows Phone" accounts for all of 2.5% of that market.
Do you understand that desktop sales are (and have been) in decline? To the tune of 5-10% annually? And, that in many countries, mobile devices now exceed the number of desktop devices? I.e., those old copies of Windows have been dispatched to the bitbucket -- along with the hardware on which they ran.
In Gartner's current forecast, Windows will dip 3.4% in 2016 to 283 million devices shipped while Apple's OS X/iOS will climb 2.1% to 303 million. By the end of the forecast window -- the calendar year 2018 -- Windows will be even farther behind, shipping 298 million devices compared to Apple's 334 million.
(Note the use of the units "Million")
"Overall, Gartner's latest forecast continued the trend of pessimism not only for Windows, but for all device shipments. The researcher now believes 2.41 billion computing devices will ship in 2016 -- 80.4% of them smartphones -- compared to a same-year prediction of 2.46 billion made in the fall of 2015."
(Note the use of the units "Billion")
Sure looks like Windows has long passed it's peak. With the "replacement" being iOS and Android.
I was referring to desktop/laptop OSes. I don't use other OSes. My wife has an Android phone though, and it seems to work.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.