“Tested adequately”
I’m a hobbyist here, so if that makes my opinion invalid to you, you can stop reading now.
However, my day job is essentially a software testing manager, so I do know a thing or two about testing. At my job, we have a few advantages. The software that my team and I test is not software we sell. It is used by other company employees. Second advantage, everyone at our company uses computers that are configured nearly identically.
Because our end users are other employees, there is a bit less impact of bugs making it to production. Because everyone uses the same computer configuration, we’re able to hold a HUGE number of variables constant, and eliminate a HUGE number of potential test scenarios.
For something like Kontakt, they have neither of those advantages. If you think about all of the individual user setups across the Kontakt user base, it is likely close to an infinite number of unique combinations of variables. In testing, it is nearly impossible to test for every possible combination of variables. And the more you try, the more time that takes, and nothing ever gets launched.
I’m not absolving NI. I’m simply addressing something I see stated often here. “Tested adequately, tested thoroughly, tested enough” - those are not easily defined concepts. And they certainly aren’t easily achievable concepts.
So to some degree, if you do make your living using this kind of technology, then yes, absolutely, part of your “job” is to stay current on what is happening with the software you use, reading release notes, being patient about when to take updates, having backups, or even running a redundant machine. All of that should be part of your cost of doing business.
will be a grudgingly-acceptable workaround.
