Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: Because Bugs are Cool
h_orion writes "According to Mr. Gates, Microsoft recieves 'Less than one percent' call volume in relation to bugs. He also blames the users lack of knowledge as a cause of some of these bugs. He goes on to say that the feeling of frustration that people hold towards bugs is a sociological issue, rather than technical saying that people complain about software bugs 'Because it's cool.' Read more in this interview." Boy, where do you even begin...
Although the MS Knowledge base is good a resolving lots of questions/bugs I wish it were more like Bugzilla....
Its actually hard to believe this interview is real. Actually is there any proof that it is? Gates sounded very unprofessional and not like himself in the interview, almost like he was attacking the FOCUS interviewer. Anyone else care to comment on this?
October 23,1995? This is a really old interview. It is nice and old. /. History for Nerds. Stuff that mattered. Hmm. At this point, it is difficult to even verify if this interview is even real...
-Sean
Doesn't Microsoft only receive a small number of bug-related calls because they charge for telephone support?
Where did this article come from?
Can anyone vouch for the veracity of the comments in it?
Did the interview really take place?
Did the interview take place at a time and in an environment that would have an effect on today?
If you just want to blindly start swinging because it's Bill Gates, then fine, do your swinging. But if you want to join the world of grownups, maybe it would be useful to think critically.
I have been pwned because my
How did this even get posted? It's obviously complete satire. Click here to see all of the websites that link to this...they're all TECH HUMOR. If humor was the intended goal, it'd be responsible to make note of that in the summary. Please correct this in the dupe.
Date + Style of the interview point to it being old and/or fake. Take your pick and either way it is a nice piece of history and little more.
Secondly, I'll bet from looking purely at support calls, he's correct. How many people are you aware of that are willing to spend money to be told "yep, that's a bug"? When Word just disappears altogether, how many people think "hmm - I'll call MS and tell them about it" and instead just throw up their hands in dismay, mutter ... something, reboot, and try again? Not that this is anything against your post - yeah, MS software is known to be buggy. But I'll bet that the metrics Bill was talking about were correct - and completely misleading.
However, what Bill was really trying to do was argue that when Microsoft releases a new version of one of their products (Word was the example given), they are not releasing a for-pay patch. They are releasing software that contains more and better features! At least, that's his argument. The whole point of his argument was not that MS software does not contain bugs - is what that new releases aren't just expensive patches.
Whether you agree or not...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It's also bogus, satire.
& oe =UTF-8&q=link:ieVDGMb7XnEC:www.cantrip.org/nobugs. html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
someone else mentioned this, I'm just re-posting it.
Indeed.
Never mind that this article is from 1995 -- the Slashdot summary is incorrect. Bill isn't saying that Microsoft never fixes bugs. He says, "We don't do a new version to fix bugs. ... We'd never be able to sell a release on that basis." [Emphasis added.] This doesn't mean that Microsoft never fixes bugs, or that Bill doesn't think bugfixes are important. He's saying that a product can't be sold on bugfixes alone.
And he's probably right. Consider Apple's release of Mac OS X 10.2. They charged people who already had 10.1. Those people complained pretty loudly about being charged for a "point-one" upgrade, and that was bugfixes and a feature release. Guess how much Apple's "point-oh-one" updates cost? Nothing.
If you try to charge people for upgrades that only contain bugfixes, you will either be ignored or yelled at.
irb(main):001:0>
Look at the date; this is an eight year old article that, for some reason, was posted to the front page of Slashdot...
Anyway, a couple points:
- I think there was some mis-communication. Gates is right -- nobody buys a new version to fix bugs. You might download an updated point release (or service pack or whatever) to fix bugs. But you don't often go from Office 97 to 2000 over some minor irritations.
- I actually believe the bug report percentage in relation to their phone call volume. When's the last time you called a software company to report a bug? When is the last time you discovered a truly unique bug in a major piece of software that you were sure wasn't known about?
And as someone else mentioned, most of their calls are along the lines of "how do I turn my computer on?" or "I upgraded MSN and it broke my inner-net"
So, basically, it's a poor article from 8 years ago. Slow news day...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
This, I think, is the key:
"We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using Microsoft Word. Call them up and say 'Would you buy a new version because of bugs?' You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs."
No matter how much we SAY we hate software bugs, we still go out and buy software that we know probably contains them. And we are not really that willing to pay for bug fixes. Not because they "should be free" - we already paid for the software, so there is no reason for the vendor to put effort into releasing fixes (unless we're on a support contract or something). If we software consumers really want to make a point that bugs will not be tolerated, then we have to STOP paying for buggy software. And if we still hand over the cash, with full knowledge of potential bugs, then by the economic principle of revealed preference, the vendor is right - it's not worth it to fix bugs.
I look forward to being moderated down once again.
Simply, Bill Gates' comments are probably close to the truth. He is not a stupid man. You may hate him for being rich. You may despise his tactics. But to dismiss his analysis of his own company and industry?
Even if you feel his domination of the industry is unjust, his views cannot be dismissed as inaccurate. Or swept aside just because they "sound arrogant". So he's direct and straightforward. It's not a crime. It worked for him.
I don't object to debating the man's ideas. I don't object to disagreeing with everything he says! But the editor who posted this article added "Boy, where do you even begin...", which implies to me an attitude not of one who hopes to learn that he may one day rule (or at least compete), but, more likely, one who despises authority of all kinds.
"Boy, where do you even begin..." is a rallying cry for the lazy and unimaginative, not the industrious and analytical.
Many postings in this thread have been thoughtful, but I wish in the future, the editorial staff could be more thoughtful themselves, and avoid such cliche commentary.
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing
Here goes the Karma...
Doesn't anybody here ever use any Borland software? You'd start thinking Microsoft had a top notch QA department. Try just about anything from Borland, but I'd say Paradox (that goes back a few years now) was the very worst. Then there's C++ builder. Pick your version. We're talking about a level and inconsistency here that would make you beg for a daily BSOD. In fact they have a bug that has been on the known bug list for 3 or 4 YEARS now, and they claim they CAN'T fix it. Ha! That's just the one I know about.
But do we ever hear a word about it around here? No.
How about the horror stories about Apple's previous OS constantly locking and crashing? Do we hear about those? No.
But we sure do hear about the BSOD, even though Win2K is plenty solid enough for your average desktop computer user, myself included. The version known for frequent BSOD'S (and boy was it bad) is three years in the past folks!
But at least it's entertaining to watch people sit around and mindlessy bash MS. Bill's right I guess. Bitching about bugs really is cool.
I really like to rake B.G. over the coals and such, just look at my sig, but that just doesn't sound like Bill Gates to me. Bill Gates is much smoother, in this interview he sounded all most spitefull. If that was B.G. I wonder what kind of abuse he endured to get himself to the point where he came accrost so testy. B.G. has been interviewed enough so that he'd know how to say those things but make them sound nice.
B.G and Microsoft et. al. maybe the evil coporate Satan incarnate, but you'd never know it from talking to them. My hookey meter is off the scale on this one. ( Sheesh I'm defending Bill Gates, who da thunk)
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds