🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.023609.26000@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote:

  It is fair to say that no computer company puts quality first, ahead of
  featurality.  Until they do, quality will remain abysmal.

In article <bhayden.724865911@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) replies:

> And that is why they are wide open to lawsuits. Its a business decision.
> As long as you stand to make more money selling defective software, 
> than software that works properly, companies will continue to ship
> before they get the bugs out. When enough software companies have lost
> enough money through law suits, we will get software that works properly
> the first time. 
>
> Just take a software engineering course. We know how to test for bugs,
> how to do software QC. We just don't do it. Often the company that is
> shipping the premature software has a QC section. Almost as often
> that QC group is at some level preempted by marketing. But how does
> it look when I ask for that QC data when I sue you for defective
> software. This is what is called a "smoking gun" by attorneys.

Sounds to me like from a legal standpoint the best thing would be to replace
fire the QC people so they won't generate any "smoking guns".

Things won't change until someone markets quality computer software and
hardware and gives the customers a choice.  You can buy a Japanese car
and tell Detroit to stuff it.  Why can't you buy a computer like that?

BTW this isn't an anti-American comment.  I just bought an American car
(I'm giving Detroit one last chance).

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu