Of course I know better - but at least it generated some activity!
It also is interesting to note the assumptions that generated some of the
replies. It is always useful to evaluate your assumptions, particularly
during the analysis and design phase of any project.
I never indicated that lack of quality doesn't also cost.
I never indicated that the only cost I was considering was $$ (ok, the
Mercedes vs Yugo example might have led everyone astray here, as well as the
price I mentioned for the fly-by-wire systems).
I never indicated that a high price is the only indicator of quality - pre
1985 Jaguars a Sterling (pun intended) example.
However,
The total cost (effort, time, $, risk) of high quality product is always
(IMNotSoHO) higher than the total cost of a lower quality product unless
some unusual market condition forces it otherwise (single vendor, single
consumer, etc.). Why do I think this? The old 80/20 (80 percent of effort
spent fixing/preparing for things that happen 20 percent of the time) rule.
As you fix or prepare for the more unusual things that can occur, you get
less return for your effort.
For certain things, the consequences of the most rare occurrences can
justify the extra cost - ie aircraft falling out of the sky, radiation
treatment machines giving excessive exposure, etc.
For other things, the cost/risk ratio may be different. In the Yugo vs
Mercedes example, the inconvenience/cost of the Yugo not starting and
causing me to be late for an appointment/work may be acceptable if I work at
McDonalds for minimum wage, but if I'm a $450 an hour attorney, it may not
be. Whether an attorney is worth $450 an hour is a different discussion
entirely!
I know I am disagreeing with thousands of quality experts that contend that
quality costs less, but my personal experience does not always agree with
that. I would agree that extremely poor quality can be more costly than
extremely high quality, but I don't agree that extremely high quality always
costs less than average quality.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Intermediate schema
> On Friday 05 January 2001 01:36, Mark Sires wrote:
>
> > the price reflects it! Anybody who tells you quality doesn't cost is
full
> > of baloney - if it didn't a Mercedes would be cheaper than a Yugo.
> > Mark
>
>
> Now, now,... isn't this an open source forum? You should thus know better.
>
> (Debian) Linux IS a quality "product", and as it is absolutely free, it is
> certainly cheaper than M$Windows which lacks a lot in OS qualities such as
> reliability and stability. PostgreSQL is a quality data base system and
> free, M$Access is just a useless toy that costs a lot more (than nothing
as
> PostgreSQL).
>
> See? Quality and price may correlate sometimes - especially when quality
raw
> material is necessary for the manufacturing process -, but there is no
rule
> you could rely on.
>
> If my life would depend on a "automatized" anaesthetic or life support
> machine I certainly would insist on one running on a free Linux or BSD
system
> - and I would be a lot more relaxed if I knew that the application
software
> has evolved through an open source process rather than in a hideous
secretive
> closed source approach. Anybody on this list disagreeing?
>
> No, price is no guarantee for quality, nor does a cheap or free system
imply
> lack of quality.
>
> Horst
>
