CheshireCat Posted March 24, 2016 Share #261 Posted March 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) In reality this battery message thing is rather innocuous and it's probably best left alone, just live with it It is not with this spirit that you build a great product, let alone a great company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here "Check Battery Age". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted March 24, 2016 Share #262 Posted March 24, 2016 We have a few Leica apologists here alongside those who think the problem should be fixed promptly, of whom I am one. What is absolutely certain is that this code cannot have been tested properly when it was written. You'd better hope that the software which gets your next flight back safely on the ground has been tested more thoroughly. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #263 Posted March 24, 2016 But feel free to enlighten me with your experience in software engineering When I did that, I used to pick my trainees with a particular view to their ability to learn, and will, of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #264 Posted March 24, 2016 We have a few Leica apologists here alongside those who think the problem should be fixed promptly, of whom I am one. I suspect that this is a veiled reference to an earlier remark of mine in which I said that Leica ought to fix this one, but that they should do the more urgent problems first. FIFO is not a good scheduling rule when resources are limited, as I suspect they are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 24, 2016 Share #265 Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Philipp, I think you are being far too kind to Leica on FW updates and firmware in general 1) They have known about the GPS problem on the M240 MF Grip for over two years now and agreed then what action needed to be taken to correct it. Apparently they "forgot" about including it in the last Firmware update of 11th of June last year and since then - nothing. It should be a simple alteration, changing the seconds before the existing position is deleted from 300 seconds to 7200 seconds. Even I might be able to get that right with messing up anything else. 2) How on earth could Leica release a camera, the SL, which they describe as being "professional", without testing that the flash coupling worked properly - words fail me. 3) Having dropped the ball in a big way on this, I should have thought they should be working day and night to get this right but there seems to be little to no sense of urgency to correct this howling error. Wilson Edited March 24, 2016 by wlaidlaw 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #266 Posted March 24, 2016 Wilson - the things you mention are some of the errors I thought Leica ought to fix before even starting to think about fixing a silly message that does not even affect the working of the camera in any way whatsoever. I appreciate that they are rather new at the business of developing products with embedded software, but it's apparent that they lack an effective development management and that lack might hurt them before long, I fear. The error we're discussing here is particularly strange in a number of ways. First, it's not properly speaking an "error". It seems to work perfectly well if it's meant to alert the user to the fact that the battery in the camera has reached a predefined age. It's that the message is particularly pointless. You can not make it disappear once seen. There's nothing you can do about the battery. It does not tell you anything useful about your battery. Even worse, it's a red herring as soon as you camera exhibits any other problems at the same time. There's at least one such case in the forum, probably more. Given that software engineers and system designers usually would like to build useful systems and components, the reason for this non-useful function is not apparent. Is it a stub for a use case not completely studied or specified? a vestige of a partially removed function? testing code inadvertently left in the final release? a function left incomplete because the software had to be rushed out? Before fixing that bit of code, the programmer should most carefully study the history of that bit of code, to make sure that fixing that silly message would not introduce side effects. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMB Posted March 24, 2016 Share #267 Posted March 24, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I feel embarrassed to see how the prestige of a very good Leica products (M and SL) are ruined because details like this and others do not care as it should. Francisco. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 24, 2016 Share #268 Posted March 24, 2016 Wilson - the things you mention are some of the errors I thought Leica ought to fix before even starting to think about fixing a silly message that does not even affect the working of the camera in any way whatsoever. Oh, I thought the camera stopped working the way people are going on about it. So the message just disappears with a touch of the shutter button and the camera carries on as normal? Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #269 Posted March 24, 2016 Oh, I thought the camera stopped working the way people are going on about it. So the message just disappears with a touch of the shutter button and the camera carries on as normal? Pete Indeed, and the message is shown only when you press the "Info" button, where it is shown among other things such as the number of frames left on the storage card and so on. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted March 24, 2016 Share #270 Posted March 24, 2016 Pop, I'm afraid I agree with Wilson. I've spent most of my career developing embedded software and whilst I accept there will always be some risk to changing code, you really can't defend months of inactivity to change one timeout for GPS and disabling the display of a message. How long would it take to retest the new build? Even regression testing all camera functionality wouldn't take months. I'm sorry, but it just shows that the company places fixing software issues far down its list of priorities. Its inexcusable considering the premium price placed on Leica cameras. I really can't see how you can defend that! Jonathan 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #271 Posted March 24, 2016 .. you really can't defend months of inactivity to change one timeout for GPS ... This is exactly what I don't. I said to fix the serious errors first, then the cosmetic ones. I did not say to wait fixing the real bugs. I also said that they needed to put a software development management in place. This is not "defending months of inactivity". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 24, 2016 Share #272 Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) I also said that they needed to put a software development management in place. This is not "defending months of inactivity". Interesting. So you are saying that at the moment, there are a bunch unmanaged developers randomly changing the source code ? That explains a lot. Edited March 24, 2016 by CheshireCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 24, 2016 Share #273 Posted March 24, 2016 When I did that, I used to pick my trainees with a particular view to their ability to learn, and will, of course. That is not very enlightening about your expertise in software engineering. Have you ever worked on embedded device firmware ? Which software components ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted March 24, 2016 Share #274 Posted March 24, 2016 @CheshireCat: I really don't see what are you trying to prove by constantly attacking pop like a Jack Russell. This is not a life or death issue. It is a minor annoyance for some people who have batteries older than a certain age. Please put it into perspective. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 24, 2016 Share #275 Posted March 24, 2016 Interesting. So you are saying that at the moment, there are a bunch unmanaged developers randomly changing the source code ? That explains a lot. Try again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted March 24, 2016 Share #276 Posted March 24, 2016 I'm sorry, but it just shows that the company places fixing software issues far down its list of priorities. Its inexcusable considering the premium price placed on Leica cameras. I really can't see how you can defend that! Inexcusable? Come on.... anyone who has worked the software side of a company -- especially a company that sells hardware -- knows that new features get new customers, bug fixes don't. Corporate management looks at the bottom line which is driven by sales and costs. Bug fixes affects that in a negative manner -- they don't generate new sales yet they add to product cost. This is especially true for consumer items where customers buy a limited number of the product. The premium price is irrelevant. Industrial products may get more support because buyers may not sign a PO for their thousands of units until they have a contract that specifies payment (and penalty!) terms that may include a level of performance that includes bug fixes. That causes sales to push up the corporate management hierarchy which eventually results in a notice to engineering to fix bugs. Some work on bug fixing might also occur when the bugs generate enough bad PR to cause a perceived hit to the bottom line. Note I said a perceived hit... if corporate management doesn't think the bugs are affecting sales there will be no pressure to fix the bugs. I would not be surprised if Leica is like many other companies where new development gets priority; bug fixing gets a couple of junior coders. And those coders might be pulled off their bug fixing task at any time to help with new development. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 25, 2016 Share #277 Posted March 25, 2016 ^ I doubt Leica would interpret the battery message to be a bug. It is (most likely) part of the design, i.e a feature. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 25, 2016 Share #278 Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) I would not be surprised if Leica is like many other companies where new development gets priority; bug fixing gets a couple of junior coders. And those coders might be pulled off their bug fixing task at any time to help with new development. And that is the reason why someone at Leica and many other companies should be in search of another job. Talk about excellence... [to admins: there's no "vomit" emoticon, please fix that... or is the missing emoticon a feature ?]. Edited March 25, 2016 by CheshireCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 25, 2016 Share #279 Posted March 25, 2016 And that is the reason why someone at Leica and many other companies should be in search of another job. Talk about excellence... [to admins: there's no "vomit" emoticon, please fix that... or is the missing emoticon a feature ?]. Firing someone clearly does not improve any kind of software. Just try it. There's a software with a bug. Fire person A. The bug will still be there. You don't seem to realize that you're singling out Leica yet again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted March 25, 2016 Author Share #280 Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) ^ I doubt Leica would interpret the battery message to be a bug. It is (most likely) part of the design, i.e a feature. I think you are right. I firmly believe the Leica like most camera manufactures do not involve photographers/users at the design stage. They are only involved at the testing stage where some design element are 'baked-in' and cannot be changed easly. Some designers and engineers will not appreciate the user experience as an actual user, and so elements are put into the cameras that may annoy or even hinder the end user. Look at the Jony Ives designed Leica (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/null-n09014/lot.14.html). A great piece of design? Where do you put the flash? Want to shoot wider than 28mm? How do you mount a viewer? And as for changing the shutter speed... This is what happens when a designer designs a camera without thinking of the end user. A bit like the red "Check Battery Age". A warning message that is as useful as a chocolate teapot. And as a non programmer I suspect the fixe is very easy. Don’t change anything except delete the actual red display text in the line of code. So the line of code is left in place but the text field is now blank. Any programmers out there? Is this a viable solution? IF the fix is that easy, then that could explain why it has not been released. Is it worth it to Leica to push out a firmware update just for that, and go throught the expense involved? Edited March 25, 2016 by jto555 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.