Now membership give us access one years worth of bug fixes, should all reported bugs be fixed within a year.

Membership gives access to a year of new features and bug fixes. This is approximately the same (or better) as the previous deal where you would buy the "latest version" and get about half a year of patches, with the next major version coming out roughly a year after the current one.

I would assume that if new features are added over the course of a year, new bugs might also find their way into the software. So after a year you might be left with a few. This is not any different from what happened with, say, X2. However, the CCC supposedly makes it easy to roll back versions. If your membership expires in August and a bug from July was not fixed, you should be able to roll back to the June version (just as an example). That's actually better than it has been up till now.

But should any bugs be older than a year? I know bugs will be introduced in the year you subscribe, but is it reasonable to let bugs roll on year after year, when your subscription entitles you to a years worth of bug fixes?

No I'm assuming that serious bugs that are present NOW would be fixed within a year. Certainly the aim of the bakers with this new system is to roll out updates and fixes quicker. Still, some minor bugs can linger for a long time. Again, not any different from the way it is now.

Sanderxpander
Still, some minor bugs can linger for a long time.

 
Staff View comes to mind.
 
 

Sanderxpander
SNo I'm assuming that serious bugs that are present NOW would be fixed within a year. Certainly the aim of the bakers with this new system is to roll out updates and fixes quicker. till, some minor bugs can linger for a long time. Again, not any different from the way it is now.

Why can they, why is this acceptable? They don't advertise that it will contain bugs, so why is it acceptable for them to ignore bugs for more than a year, when the agreement is bug fixes for a year?

Kamikaze
Why can they, why is this acceptable? They don't advertise that it will contain bugs, so why is it acceptable for them to ignore bugs for more than a year, when the agreement is bug fixes for a year?

You will get all bug fixes they write within the year, but that does not mean they promise to fix all bugs.
 
In case you want to have bug free program, download TeX. It is free. And that is the only known program which has no bugs (http://www.truetex.com/knuthchk.htm)

All software has bugs. Most of them you will never notice. It's simply impossible with a code base this large to write completely bug free. Nothing is different from the way it was, except that the bakers promise a shorter update/bugfix cycle.

Microsoft is sending you bug fixes for Win 7/8 via windows update aren't they? I don't imagine them stopping any time soon.
I do agree old bugs do need quashing though. I haven't installed the latest and greatest yet. Let us see what happens, try bumping this thread in Feb 2016.
 
 

No where in post posts have I mentioned I am expecting bug free releases, I am just asking should there be a commitment to fixing new bugs, an acceptable time frame being that we are only entitle to a years worth of fixes when we pay.
 

CakeAlexS
Microsoft is sending you bug fixes for Win 7/8 via windows update aren't they? I don't imagine them stopping any time soon.
I do agree old bugs do need quashing though. I haven't installed the latest and greatest yet. Let us see what happens, try bumping this thread in Feb 2016.
 
 

Yes, but I pay for my operating system once, and they aren't asking me for money every year to fix those. yet they still send me updates.