murraymr wrote:Most software gets its full test from the users after publication - the authors of test scripts can never cover all the eventualities. That is why you continually get updates. Also the problem may go back to the definition of the global-dimming conditions.
It's also the reason many projects sit in beta for awhile (such as Windows Vista right now), even after it has been in-house tested. And sometimes, even then... I don't want to contemplate when Windows ME was in beta... I was an MSDN pro subscriber at the time, so had access to it from RC 1. And to make a long story short, many MSDN subscribers wrote putting Millenium Edition on their development computers, even though they payed nothing additional for the CD...
To suggest that the person responsible for the error be sacked as a matter of principle would mean that Microsoft, IBM and other major software suppliers would be very short of staff in their development labs - and in need of rapidly revolving doors at their entrances. At least HR would be well resourced!
One thing would be certain. The entire Internet Explorer development team would have been sacked a long time ago. Not just bugs, but
security issues. In fact, almost everytime something's on Windows Update, there's a fix for IE, and almost all of those tend to deal with potential security vulnerabilities and exploits.
tbh, I was taken quite by surprise when the model crashed. I didn't even know a mechanism was in place where a model could be aborted from the network. Makes sense in a way, as a fail safe; but to say I was scratching my head a bit when it failed on just loading a model, that got beyond where it was when I suspended it (to let lhc crunch, when it got work again), would be to put it mildly. Couldn't figure out why my efforts at a WU restore weren't going, or what to do with the core client that wouldn't let me restore...
Course I also never did get a successful sulpher run on this computer, but then coupled seemed to be going fine (along with seasonal attribution); which suggested that whatever issue I was having might have gotten worked out with this version. And then
In a way though, as much as it all hit me by surprise, and I watched my 100 hours crunch time disappear; it's also good to know the people running the experiment have displayed a certain level of honesty in pulling these models. Too often have I been in discussion with some of the more, shall I say quite political doomsday theorists. And when I've responded to some of their claims, with some actual climate data that doesn't tend to suggest such an alarmist take, or suggested the climate is a more intricate system with it's own feedback mechanisms; umm they have gotten more political, and we end up at logger heads...
Anyhow, as much as it can take one aback to lose all this crunch time, it's also good to know that there was a willingness to pull these models and set the record straight. In the long run, such willingness can leave one a bit more confident with the results we'll end up generating, then if the matter were just allowed to continue as such...