>
>>If GE came out with a new refrigerator model, would we think it was
>>acceptable for it to have MAJOR fatal flaws, even if they sent a
>>repairman out to fix them at no expense to us? Hell no, we wouldn't, and
>>the same goes for cell phones, fax machines, and other electronic devices.
>
>This is a similar analogy that has been made about MS in the past. Would
>people accept a car that worked as poorly as Windows.
[snip]
>If you want to make sure that software has ZERO bugs in it, and that it
>works with every possible combination of other software, and situations,
>that costs money... LOTS and LOTS of money.
[snip]
>
>Hell... look at some of the software projects out there that have not had
>to deal with making a profit... and you will STILL see bugs. NASA has
>screwed up how much stuff now? All because of little bugs... and these
>are people that have millions of dollars to spend just getting one peice
>of code to work right. There are figures out there as far as what NASA
>has spent for truely bug free software for manned space missions... it
>ranks into the BILLIONS of dollars for small, very specific, very
>isolated software code.
>
>So given that bug free software potentially costs billions of dollars...
>how would someone like me be expected to write and release 100% bug free
>code. Applications that work just as well as your telephone. I can't be
>expected to do that. Nor can other software authors.
there is a difference between a software bug, and a (or more than one)
major [fatal to the application/use] flaw.
a bug might be an instance where a menu or window fails to completly
redraw, but otherwise the application is fully functional. A fatal flaw
might be, selecting the 'New' menu item crashes the program. Or a
calculator that adds 2 + 2 and gives 5 as the result - in the latter
instance it is not fit for the intended use.
using the above analogy - the refrigerator is fatally flawed if it fails
to keep things cold, but is only buggy if it makes an annoying hum while
the compressor is running.
so far - my experiences with Jaguar, and appearently those of many
others, is that it more closely resembles the refrigerator that fails to
keep things cold, then an annoying hum while working.
---
as far as bug free software, and the costs.
yes there is an issue about increasing complexity and costs - I beleive
the relationship is exponential, a doubling of complexity results in a
quadrupling (or more) of costs.
However - while I have issues with the UI, there are fatal (or nearly so)
flaws in jaguar that should never have gone out the door. as a partial
list:
installation/upgrade issues
scsi support issues
scanner suport issues
unknown (and un diagnosable) crashing of apps and the OS
the UI issues can be relegted to either 'personal preferences', or part
of that billion $ debug process
BUT - issues tha cause the OS to install incorrectly, be (or become)
unstable should be NOT be part of the 'personal preferences' NOR 'oh
that would cost to much time/$ to fix'
-------------------
Chip Scheide Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute,
is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any
prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of
government will disable us from discerning a good one."
Thomas Paine - Common Sense, Feb 14 1776
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
