Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!f1690d82!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3CC63AE9.5010804@gte.net>
From: Jason Stefanovich <stefanj-nospam@gte.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20020328
X-Accept-Language: en,ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.hardware,comp.os.os2.beta,comp.lang.beta,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Beta Testing
References: <bd769316.0204222052.52d125f7@posting.google.com> <3CC567A8.6010805@gte.net> <see-2404021029130001@192.168.1.2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 54
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:50:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.200.167.46
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1019623826 67.200.167.46 (Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:50:26 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:50:26 EDT
Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.edu:34389 comp.os.os2.beta:76460 comp.lang.beta:13218 comp.misc:82318

Barb Knox wrote:

> In article <3CC567A8.6010805@gte.net>, Jason Stefanovich
> <stefanj-nospam@gte.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Anteater wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have done Beta Testing before for such companies as Microsoft, AOL,
>>>etc. I do beta testing for a hobby. I would like to do more beta
>>>testing. I do not charge anything, or even request anything in return.
>>>
>>>If anyone knows where I could register. I prefer Operating Systems,
>>>and Hardware, but I am open to anything.
>>>
>>>Jkeagle13@aol.com
>>>
>>>THANKS!
>>>
>>>
>>Nobody who's worth their salt at it does beta testing for fun.
>>
> 
> From the other end, no serious software developers would entrust their
> beta testing to some random amateurs.
> 
> 
>>Even *properly* beta testing my own code is a pain in the butt.
>>
> 
> A minor nit:  Beta testing is when *outsiders* test the software; alpha
> testing is when insiders test it; and just plain testing is when the
> developers test it.
> 
> 
>>Jason S.
>>Software Test Analyst
>>US Army
>>
> 
> Maybe the army uses non-standard terminology here (which wouldn't be the
> first time; e.g. look up "military target" in your field handbook...)
> 
> 

No we don't.  It was a slip of the digits, because I was just wacking 
this out as a ha ha reply to some OT spam (the guy cp'd it to c.o.o.b 
which is not a "general" subject group).

BTW:  Don't talk to the Army about crazy definitions, talk to our 
contractors...none of whom can get on the same page regarding versioning
(or anything else for that matter).  And whats a field handbook?  <G>