> Paul, I fear you've missed my point. Everything you say is true *from within
> the computer community*, but of little relevance outside.
I know more than a few people who never buy the first generation of a new
car model. Or of a "new technology" (think VCR, LD, DVD, microwaves,
wireless telephones, cell phones).
They've made a conscious choice to give up "new" for "reliable".
So I don't think this is a problem limited solely to the computer community.
> For the millions of people who are not part of these and other forums, they
> have a right to expect software to function as well as any other product.
A right? That's a bit extreme. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,
and bug-free software?
> My partner is a good example. She uses computing for its functionality -
> word-processing, spreadsheets and addressbook - period.
Well then, the Palm syncing problem wouldn't affect her, now would it? ;-)
> She has no interest or time to involve herself further. Nor should she have
> to. Try telling her after a 14 hour day in the city that she should seek out
> specialised help groups and log on to sites like MacFixit and she'll laugh in
> your face.
She'd be better off if you told her that she should seek a better job. And
adjust a healthier lifestyle. Her life is way out of balance. ;-)
> This is true for many people. They either don't have the aptitude or lack the
> considerable time - the hours needed to keep abreast of these things. Just as
> I drive a car, but have not immersed myself in the finer details of its engine
> history, or own a telephone but couldn't tell you how it works.
Perfect examples. Early models of the car and the telephone were
cantankerous beasts.
Although I'm appalled that our educational system produces people who can't
even explain the basics of an internal combustion engine or the
telephone...*that* scares me. These are, in many ways, the foundations of
modern technology and society.
> People expect - and have a right to expect, a certain degree of reliability,
> and it's a simple fact of life that the early release of most software
> consistently falls woefully short of these standards. (This is a general
> observation about the whole software industry and ethos, not just Microsoft).
Remember that the commercial software space is perhaps 25 years old (and
that's stretching some definitions). Note that software at 25 is far more
complex than cars or telephones were at age 25.
This doesn't mean that the goal isn't ease of use and reliability, it just
means that the goal is complicated by reality.
Designing and implementing good software requires systems tools that just
don't exist. And which are unlikely to exist in the near future. I say
systems tools because it's no longer a question of "Does your software
work?" It's now a question of "Can any component, including those which
you've never seen and which will be released years after yours, render your
software unusable?"
Essentially you're trying to deal with the infinite, but you're doing so
with incredibly finite resources. And the stricter you make your code at
only accepting "exactly what you want", the more the user base complains
that "but this should be acceptable as well". So no matter which way you
go, you lose.
Some current estimates hold that, when first written, there are, on average,
one bug per line of code. So every line of code you write to eliminate a
bug typically introduces at least one more.
Yeah, it sucks.
But clearly even buggy software adds more value to most people's lives than
no software. Otherwise they wouldn't buy so much of it. Of course, people
buy snake oil and apricot pits...so perhaps commercial success isn't a true
measure of success. But it's the only readily available one.
mikel
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
