On Thu, 23 May 2013, Blake Dunlap wrote:
The problem with the wait and see approach is it is a tragedy of the commons approach. You're just outsourcing the effort to the "cloud" and hoping others are more adventurous than you are. Eventually critical mass is reached, and then even older code versions have the bugs, they last longer, and code quality gets even worse, and you can't just jump to newer code for the fixes, because they don't exist.
People use new software because they perceive an upside with the new features, and they're willing to take the risk of running into bugs. This has been pretty static the past 15-20 years or so, and true of "all" software that I know of.
If I don't need the new features, why would I not run a software that's been in active deployment for 6-12 months already, thus giving me a higher probability of not running into bugs? Just look at IOS, where they even have classification such as early deployment etc.
You can say "tragedy of the commons" all you want, and you might be partially right, but even Cisco recognises that a major new software release will have bugs and their Advanced Services department always recommends staying away from brand new software unless you *have* to use it.
Thus my yelling at Cisco to make sure that when they need to decide in a release if they want a lot of brand new advanced new features or new hw support, not both. Similar to Intels tick/tock approach, they develop new architecture one step and new manufacturing technique the next step, then new arch again. Not both at the same time.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
