Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)

Thread View: comp.security.misc

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by DMARTIN Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:00

#674

Author: DMARTIN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:00

19 lines
1517 bytes

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
> From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
> Agreed - you can't get all of the bugs out. You can however get the major
> ones out, and the minor ones down below a certain, prespecified level.
>...
> I disagree. We have the capability today to set an acceptable bug level
> before the release, then not release until we have reached that level.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a "bug level", but I'm having
difficulty with what you propose. WHAT IS an "acceptable bug level", defined
so that I know when I have reached it? You can't simply ask that there be
no more than x "minor bugs" present in the software - that gets you into
a variation of the issue of proving software correct (How can I possibly KNOW
that I am down to x "minor bugs" and 0 "major bugs"?).

Please understand, I AM in agreement with your philosophy; I'd just like to
see a usable definition.

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Saturnalia, etc. etc.!

Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)

#677

Author: Barry Margolin
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:26

24 lines
1721 bytes

In article <1992Dec22.151201.22766@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> DMARTIN@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a "bug level", but I'm having
>difficulty with what you propose. WHAT IS an "acceptable bug level", defined
>so that I know when I have reached it? You can't simply ask that there be
>no more than x "minor bugs" present in the software - that gets you into
>a variation of the issue of proving software correct (How can I possibly KNOW
>that I am down to x "minor bugs" and 0 "major bugs"?).

As several others have posted, the reasonable goal is not "less than N
bugs" but "less than N *known* bugs".  We all realize that software that's
powerful enough to be useful is too complex to be perfect.  But if a vendor
knows about a serious bug when they ship the software then they're clearly
giving higher priority to deadlines than to quality.

The question arises: how do you prove that the vendor knew about the bug?
And even if the vendor admits to knowing about it, they might not agree
that it's a serious bug.  If it only affects .1% of users, is it serious?
Maybe not to the vendor, but if you're in the .1% it probably seems so.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads