On Tuesday 15 July 2003 22:00, Ben Reser wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:22:01PM -0400, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > > IBM reports that they find two orders of magnitude more bugs in an OS > > release within 30 days of a public release than in the /entire/ > > development QA period. That observation doesn't really fit your > > snapshot/beta/pre model. > > I'm gonna make the safe bet that IBM's data is based upon closed source > operating systems where nobody except the few people IBM allows to beta > test has access to the binaries let alone the source code to the OS. > Cooker is a very different animal. There will of course always be bugs > after a release but to suggest that twice as many bugs are found after > the release as during the development process is just not accurate in > this case. Not twice. two orders which i guess means 100 times more.
- [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no APM? Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no APM? Buchan Milne
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no APM? Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no A... Buchan Milne
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has ... Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13... Buchan Milne
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-... Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4... Ben Reser
- Re: dealing with bug re... andre
- Re: dealing with bug re... Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: dealing with bug re... Buchan Milne
- Re: dealing with bug re... Andi Payn
- Re: dealing with bug re... Buchan Milne
- [Cooker] CIFS (was Re: ... Buchan Milne
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4... Michael Scherer
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no A... Adam Williamson
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has ... Gary Lawrence Murphy
- Re: [Cooker] kernel 2.4.21-0.13 has no APM? Adam Williamson
