home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2353 comp.org.eff.talk:7904
- Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!purdue!yuma!csn!qwerty-gw.fsl.noaa.gov!kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov!bear
- From: bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear Giles)
- Subject: Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.034142.14471@fsl.noaa.gov>
- Sender: news@fsl.noaa.gov (USENET News System)
- Organization: Forecast Systems Labs, NOAA, Boulder, CO USA
- References: <1992Dec18.024239.11331@news2.cis.umn.edu> <bhayden.724690634@teal> <1992Dec19.023609.26000@news2.cis.umn.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:41:42 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Dec19.023609.26000@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
- >
- >... and whether product is simply
- >not shipped with known serious bugs.
-
- The trivial solution is to not test for bugs....
-
- Seriously, in an ideal world the existing software would be bug-free and
- you could afford to wait until your new release is bug-free... but today
- the current version is _not_ bug-free.
-
- Would you postpone a release with known bugs (documented in a 'here there
- be dragons' addendum) which would replace a previous, more buggy version?
-
- What about a release with significant improvements which just happened
- to crash if you had a really obscure combination of hardware and software?
- What if the company offered you a free upgrade (or other compensation)
- if its software twigged on this odd combination?
-
- Or what if the software only had problems on really old systems which
- should have been upgraded a long time ago? ("Gee, I'm running DOS 2.8
- on a 5 MHz XT and your program doesn't seem to work!") How long do
- you need to keep providing upgrades for existing platforms?
-
-
- Bear Giles
- bear@fsl.noaa.gov/colorado.edu
-