🚀 go-pugleaf

<msissom@dnaent.com> wrote:
>Nonsense, without even resorting to legalsleaze hair splitting, there
>are faults in every product available on every market. You expect a
>perfect product from one particular industry even though you happily
>accept imperfection in every other product that you purchase.

This is not even remotely true. If I buy screwdrivers, I expect them to be
'of satisfactory quality' and 'fit for their purpose' [1]; they should be
able to screw screws of sensible sizes, and made of a material that won't
break in use, and if they're not, I'll complain.

You may argue that screwdrivers are simple. If I buy a router from a 
reputable manufacturer (Cisco, say), which is a complex piece of
equipment running complex software, I expect it to work. If there are any
bugs in the firmware - and because they are complex, router bugs appear
about twice a year [3] - I expect them to get fixed, and if they don't, I
shall insist on replacement or a refund (during the warranty period.)

The GNU utilities have an extremely high reliability; AFAIK, about as high
a reliability as any software of comparable complexity ever. That
demonstrates a standard which _can_ be reached by software developers
without a milspec budget and testing procedure [2]; it's not an impossible
expectation that software should be that good.

[1] Quoting the UK Supply and Sale of Goods Act 1994, if anyone wants to
suggest this is not legally practical.

[2] USS Yorktown aside. :-) If we ever go to war with the 'merkins, I'm
going to suggest pointing 'fuzz' at their radar arrays and see if their
ships all stop moving.

[3] per vendor.
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Consenting Mercrediphile.|___|
| | |  Or, in Klingon:    "nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |