Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's 100,000th Bug
benb writes: "bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100,000 (cached). This proves its scalability. BugZilla is used to track work on Mozilla. Every change has to have a bug. This includes new features and bugs found by developers/testers during development (bugs that never reached users). We also get a lot of duplicates (which dedicated triagers sort out). So, the number of filed closed bugs cannot be used as criteria of the quality of Mozilla. During usage, BugZilla evolved to a very comfortable web platform for filing/tracking bugs, one that has only very few competition (of which I know). Examples are the emailing and dependency systems. In fact, BugZilla is probably the most important communication medium used in the Mozilla project (apart from the source code itself)."
"bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100 000 (cached). This proves its scalability"
If you wanted to prove the scalability you should have posted the real link not a chached one.
100 000 records is not much.
1) Windows 2000 was not a new creation
2) Many of the bugs are duplicates
3) The fact that they track and repair every bug is a testament to open source
4) Mozilla is an evolving project, which means as more technologies are introduced, more work needs to be done
5) Have you ever written a program the scope of Mozilla without having any bugs on the first go?
Keep this in mind the next time you're dumping on M$ for announcing they've fixed thousands of bugs in a Windows product
I fail to see how this is a good thing for Mozilla, or Bugzilla. How many bugs are in the latest version of IE? It seems kind of silly to be proclaiming this as a great proof of the scalability of Mozilla. If MS were proclaiming, "We just fixed the 10,000th bug in IE 6.0!", people would do nothing but talk about how the software should have been thoroughly tested, and there should have been NO bugs! Sorry, i'm just bitter against everything linux now that i've wasted 80$ on Mandrake 8.0 only to find out linux is a big waste of my time on the computer. Maybe when I have 2 years to waste learning a non-intuitive OS, i'll give it a shot again. And maybe every few days, I can go download the latest version of every piece of software I use. Including the most basic of them, the browser. Then, I guess i'd also get to recompile it, to make sure it works with my specific version of linux, and hopefully work with my specific processor. Of course, it will still have about 10,000 of those 100,000 bugs that have been reported, but not yet fixed. Great. Talk about your mainstream-ready OS.
This proves its scalability.
No it's not. It only proves that during development, more than 100,000 bugs were introduced. Nothing to be proud about.
Scalability can be proved by checking other factors and I do think mozilla is a Big Thing(tm).
100,000 bugs. If the database is using long int's then (2 ^ 32) - 1 would be more impressive. 100,000 is 0.005% of what the system should be able to handle. Any programmers out there see 100,000 and just laugh. Hey...now I can put my site up here if I can reach the 100,000 mark? Why don't we all post ours.
So when Win2K was released the OSS people crowed about how it had 20K bugs in it.
Now those same people are lauding the fact that they have a bug tracking system able to withstand the sheer onslaught of Mozillas 100,000 bugs?
Whatever.
OTOH, you have to admit that, whatever the bugs count, Mozilla does, as a matter of objective fact, fucking suck.
-- the most controversial site on the Web