Slashdot Mirror
Competiton: Mozilla's 200,000th Bug
An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla's 200,000th bug will soon be reported. Not terribly exciting in itself, but they're running a competition to guess the exact date and time that the bug will be reported to Bugzilla, Mozilla's bug reporting tool. The prize is a Mozilla 1.0 CD that might actually be worth something one day. Anyone can enter, so let's see if we can have a Slashdot winner (we can all share in the glory)! To help you, they're up to 178,325 and 51 bugs have been filled today. (NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.)"
This may be me just being hideously misinformed, but I have no idea what to expect for a project of this size? I mean it does sound like a helluva lot . . .
Mind you, I suppose it's better they all get reported and fixed than ignored until someone independant BugTraqs your ass.
"If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
<old timer mode>I remember Netscape .9, and wondering if it would ever reach 1.0. We'd say, what more could 1.0 do -- it's such a revolution!</otm>
most of bugs in bugzilla aren't real 'bugs', as in code flaws, but rather wishes for enhancement / policies.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
before I finish this shell script to flood the bug report database... reset rate-counter...right, the 200 000th bug will be reported in about 42 minutes and 42 seconds. I mean seriously, their intention is probably good - to get serious bug reports - but you can just assume the side effects with all the geeks involved :)
Everybody knows that Mozilla hasn't any bu
So what's all this about: Mozilla riddled with security holes.
:)
Even with the "bugs", I still love Mozilla, mind
At the risk of feeding:
For crashes, Mozilla has the talkback feature. If Mozilla crashes, and it hardly ever does anymore, all you need to do is type the url you visited, and click send. That's it.
For other bugs: people will, and do, report them if they are really annoyed with a bug and want to see it fixed. Even if only one in a thousand take the time to file a bugreport you'd still have a pretty large number.
Got brain?
According to the whois database :
;-)
Record created on 24-Jan-1998.
So, 1747 days have gone since this creation (I assume nobody could file bugs on mozilla.org before this date).
We now have 178,325 bugs, so the average is 102 bugs per day.
So, the next 21,675 bugs will be files in approximately 212 days, making the 200kth bug being filed around June 5th...
Now of course, we could assume that as Mozilla becomes stabler and stabler, the filings should now slow down logarithmically, making the filing so late that we'll have have switched to Phoenix 4.0+gno/kMutt in the meantime...
But why expecting a CD when we have apt-get ?
How, yes : because it would not be the 1.0 version but rather a subsequent one.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
and I quote "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled." Looks like someone has the right idea.
Competiton: Slashdot's 10,000,000th Typo
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:00 AM November 5th, 2002
from the VA's-lowered-budget-can't-afford-spellcheckers dept.
CmdrTaco writes "Slashdot is about to see its 10,000,000th typo. Tis is the 9,999,999th one. Not terribly exciting in itself, but we're running a competition to guess the exact date and time that the slashdot hoard will notice the milestone-breaking spelling mistake. The prize is a poster-size copy of Mrs. Malda's revealing low-cut shot." The typo will show up anytime now - good lukc everyone!
This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. The incentive is just to encourage fake bug reporting, with costs rather than benefits, to the whole project.
A better choice would have been to pick a random winner from valid bugs filed from today until bug 200K.
Thats easy I guess I got the same, if you trace mozilla you will notice that it hangs at opening "/dev/dsp" which is blocked by xmms.
;) Then don't start mozilla normally, start it with "artsdsp /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla", artsdsp will force mozilla to work with artsd, and wolla xmms and mozilla share happily the same sound device via artsd. (and mozilla does not hand anymore)
You're running xmms using artsd? If not you should
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
A bug has been discovered in Bugzilla, which caused it to count every reported bug 5 times. This brings the total number of reported bugs in BugZilla to 83240.
Reminds me of some awful news stations around here:
Although only 300 people died in the earthquake, it could have been worst.
Not 200,000 bugs that are bugs. There are many, many duplicate bugs even though Mozilla asks people to look over the bugs and not duplicate. Also, many of these bugs are actually to get Mozilla to render a page "Correctly" when the page is written totally wrong, I.E. not W3.org valid, like slashdot.org, only worse. My guess is that about 1/3 of the bugs are really bugs, the rest are dups, features, or just dumb stuff.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
What we need here is the bug equivalent of the Beaufort Wind Scale
Each Bugzilla entry carries a "severity" anywhere from "enhancement" (request for additional functionality) to "trivial" (slight misalignment of text in form pushbuttons) to "minor" to "normal" to "major" to "critical" (usually a crash or data loss) to "blocker" (a build fails smoketests).
Will I retire or break 10K?
That figure represents all feature work, enhancements, dupes, metabugs, Chimera, CCK. Mozilla.org, Bugzilla (bugs about Bugzilla), internationalization, platform specific, mail/news, browser, embedding, chrome, documentation and actual bugs in existence. The number of genuine bugs of any importance in the browser is likely to be a small fraction of the total.
Amongst these 200000 bugs are feature requests, duplicates, bugs that aren't really bugs and platform specific issues. What percentage this is of the whole I am not sure, but it would certainly go to reducing the total number.
What would be of interest is how this tallies to any other product where the general public could submit straight to the bug database, rather than going through front-line, second-line and then third-line support.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
...and at about 12.30pm GMT, my inbox was suddenly deluged with entries. Even without looking, I knew why that would be... :-)
Gerv
Given some of the above comments, this needs saying. This is a fun contest, and the prize is small. Anyone who tries to spam the database in any way will only mean that we can't have this fun any more. So please don't. And it won't work anyway, because we'll notice and stop you.
:-)
If you have an automatic bug creation script, please point it at Landfill, the Bugzilla test installation, which needs all the test bugs it can get
Gerv
It was a really simple fix, too. All you had to do was add a flag to the open() commmand. Macromedia wasn't exactly ignoring the product, either. Since the bug was reported to them (with solution, remember), they've had two or three minor releases of that line of Flash plugin, and nobody there bothered to fix that one line of code. Highly frustrating. One of the more recent posts on the Bugzilla bug was from someone at Macromedia, though, apologizing for how long it's taken, and the 6.0beta does fix the problem.
Anyway, that's more than you probably ever wanted to know about the thing. The only way Mozilla itself could have fixed this was to make all plugins threaded, so if the thread hangs nobody cares, but that's a lot of work that nobody felt like doing. Oh, and people were originally thinking they could just do a binary-patch to the flash plugin, but evidentally the extra flag to open() increases the bytecount of the command by one, which makes doing so rather impossible . . .
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Considering that Mozilla 1.1 is out and Mozilla 1.2 beta is out, you might as well complain about bugs in IE 1.0 while you're at it.
I'm still stunned that someone was brainless enough to name this Chimera. Surely even the most basic of Google checks would have found that there's already another web browser called Chimera. I used to use it many years ago on machines for which Netscape was too bloated.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
greeeeeeaaaat. so that one cd can hang around with my 200,000 AOL cds i have floating around.....