Comments on: On Answering Questions About ET http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/30 The Consulting Software Tester Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:21:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Xiaomei Tai http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/30/comment-page-1#comment-265274 Xiaomei Tai Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:50:16 +0000 http://12.165.213.55/blog/?p=30#comment-265274 "Now, I do have an exploratory approach to boundary testing. I use various heuristics as part of the boundary testing process" James, can you offor more detailed information about this? I'm really interested in the way you teach boundary test. Thanks. <em>[James' Reply: That's part of my testing class. I haven't yet written an article about it.]</em> “Now, I do have an exploratory approach to boundary testing. I use various heuristics as part of the boundary testing process”

James, can you offor more detailed information about this? I’m really interested in the way you teach boundary test. Thanks.

[James' Reply: That's part of my testing class. I haven't yet written an article about it.]

]]> By: Samuel http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/30/comment-page-1#comment-263066 Samuel Tue, 04 Jan 2011 06:47:34 +0000 http://12.165.213.55/blog/?p=30#comment-263066 I'm right now reading Boris Beizer's book "software Testing techniques". It is interesting to read the approaches taken by both Boris and James. As a tester I think I need to be aware of the general approaches to testing. PS: I read the following somewhere Boris is famous for pushing code coverage as a big deal and dismissing the idea of exploratory and risk-based testing. He once told me, in 1993, that Microsoft would be out of business "within 5 years" because it was using the kind of testing practices I recommend. -- JamesBach I do not know if this is true :), but I will complete reading that book I think. Sam I’m right now reading Boris Beizer’s book “software Testing techniques”. It is interesting to read the approaches taken by both Boris and James.
As a tester I think I need to be aware of the general approaches to testing.

PS: I read the following somewhere

Boris is famous for pushing code coverage as a big deal and dismissing the idea of exploratory and risk-based testing. He once told me, in 1993, that Microsoft would be out of business “within 5 years” because it was using the kind of testing practices I recommend. — JamesBach

I do not know if this is true :) , but I will complete reading that book I think.

Sam

]]> By: Boris Beizer http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/30/comment-page-1#comment-262931 Boris Beizer Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:00:52 +0000 http://12.165.213.55/blog/?p=30#comment-262931 My Goodness James. You seem to get a childish kick out of misquoting me out of context. <em>[James' Reply: I don't think I have misquoted you. Nor have I quoted you out of context. But if you would like to be specific, I will consider your case. In the conversations I like to talk about, you and I were the only people present. So, I suppose all we have is our own reputations to go on. People will decide for themselves which of us is the more reliable source. In the conversation I cited, I specifically challenged you about the utility of some of your advice. You specifically scoffed about it. You told me "I do best practices. I don't do risk." I remember you said that because I was so amazed at how dismissive you were toward me and the community I was speaking for (Silicon Valley).] </em> But then I learned a long time that you anything that is said within your hearing by someone you disagree with is fair game for use in an ad-hominem attack. I notice you don't provide verifiable references.. just something like " Boris Beizer once said to me .... " <em> [James' Reply: Please review the definition of "ad hominem." An ad hominem attack is not the same as an attack on your character. I have attacked you as a bully and as someone who shows contempt for the practical applications of your ideas. I stand by that. My source is personal communication with you. I have tried to faithfully report what happened. You have made your bed. Now go back to sleep.]</em> I don't understand why after all this time you still feel that it is necessary to attack me. I suppose it has something to do with the persistent popularity of my writing. must bug the hell out of you. Isn't your 300,000 + google hits compared to my mere 40,000+ enough for you? Areare all those hits of your making? <em> [James' Reply: Honestly, Boris. I don't feel the need to attack you anymore. You are no longer holding back the craft. Some of the people who are holding it back nurture their negligence and arrogance on ideas you are famous for spreading. But I generally just argue the point on its face. As a tyro I questioned the internal inconsistency of your positions, your lack of attention to reality (read "empirical evidence"), and your lack of respect for the disciplines of social science. I am no longer a tyro. Don't argue with me unless you come armed with a better education.]</em> Boris Beizer My Goodness James. You seem to get a childish kick out of misquoting me out of context.

[James' Reply: I don't think I have misquoted you. Nor have I quoted you out of context. But if you would like to be specific, I will consider your case. In the conversations I like to talk about, you and I were the only people present. So, I suppose all we have is our own reputations to go on. People will decide for themselves which of us is the more reliable source.

In the conversation I cited, I specifically challenged you about the utility of some of your advice. You specifically scoffed about it. You told me "I do best practices. I don't do risk." I remember you said that because I was so amazed at how dismissive you were toward me and the community I was speaking for (Silicon Valley).]

But then I learned a long time that you anything that is said within your hearing by someone you disagree with is fair game for use in an ad-hominem attack. I notice you don’t provide verifiable references.. just something like ” Boris Beizer once said to me …. ”

[James' Reply: Please review the definition of "ad hominem." An ad hominem attack is not the same as an attack on your character. I have attacked you as a bully and as someone who shows contempt for the practical applications of your ideas. I stand by that. My source is personal communication with you. I have tried to faithfully report what happened. You have made your bed. Now go back to sleep.]

I don’t understand why after all this time you still feel that it is necessary to attack me. I suppose it has something to do with the persistent popularity of my writing. must bug the hell out of you. Isn’t your 300,000 + google hits compared to my mere 40,000+ enough for you? Areare all those hits of your making?

[James' Reply: Honestly, Boris. I don't feel the need to attack you anymore. You are no longer holding back the craft. Some of the people who are holding it back nurture their negligence and arrogance on ideas you are famous for spreading. But I generally just argue the point on its face.

As a tyro I questioned the internal inconsistency of your positions, your lack of attention to reality (read "empirical evidence"), and your lack of respect for the disciplines of social science.

I am no longer a tyro. Don't argue with me unless you come armed with a better education.]

Boris Beizer

]]> By: Michael Bolton http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/30/comment-page-1#comment-1433 Michael Bolton Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:06:09 +0000 http://12.165.213.55/blog/?p=30#comment-1433 "...if I were to say that I test the way Richard Feynman used to test, some people get it right away." And if they don't get it, you can point them here: http://www.sellsbrothers.com/fun/msiview/#Feynman ---Michael B. “…if I were to say that I test the way Richard Feynman used to test, some people get it right away.”

And if they don’t get it, you can point them here:

http://www.sellsbrothers.com/fun/msiview/#Feynman

—Michael B.

]]>