>And you were castigating Microsoft for shipping untested product. >You can't have it both ways. You know that an engineering >solution can look perfect on "paper" and can fail in the field.
You seriously err... 1) Theirs did not look good on paper either. People who looked at the code described the error as "obvious." 2) I was castigating Microsoft for not testing something that they were selling as functional. That is very different from not bothering with a universe of assertions that are clearly non-functional. 3) If I assert that you can leap off tall buildings and fly, would you want me castigating you for not taking a flying leap? >Now we know more about those factors, but we didn't learn it >without sacrifice. The next time around it WILL be better. Are you saying we should all take Obama's exhortation to sacrafice to heart by going out to buy a Zune? >But there will still be things we didn't calculate. "The truth is out there" Etc. Etc. Is you next step to lecture us about the reality of UFOs? Maybe MS would be more successful with new products if they sacrificed a chicken or two? Should MS replace Balmer with a Rastafarian? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
