🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3335edc6.199114463@news.supernews.com>, chucks@isd.net (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
|> 
|> I made that stipulation because certain product types are prone to
|> being late.  OS's are one of them, and it doesn't matter if you look
|> at Apple, IBM, or MS, more often than not their OS's are likely to be
|> late, especially if they're major upgrades such as System 8, or OS/2
|> for the PPC or OS/2 SMP.
|> 
|> OS's *SHOULD* be late.  I would much rather an OS be delayed than ship
|> with a bug to meet a deadline.  IBM did this with at least 2 versions
|> of OS/2.  One of them had to be recalled because of it.  OS/2 2.0 was
|> finished *MINUTES* before midnight on their deadline date, and If
|> memory serves right there was a fixpack available within a week to
|> solve some of the last minute problems.


All apps should be late if there are still bugs to be fixed, not just
OSes. OTOH the schedules should still try to be as close to the actual
shipdate as possible, and this means that they have to take bugfixes
into account.

|> 
|> And don't give me any BS about Win95 shipping with bugs, since all
|> software has bugs.  Some bugs are even purposely left in products
|> because fixing them breaks legacy software the relies on the side
|> effects of that bug.

I disagree, if an app relies on the OS having a certain bug, both the
app and the OS should get fixed as both are broken.

 -Mike