If he considers Linux to be proprietary, I wonder what he would consider to be a non-proprietary system? It sounds to me like he's expanding the definition of a "proprietary system" so much that the term loses all of its meaning. He's grinding an ax here, not making useful commentary.
That they spend as much as they do on testing and still release shitware is an indictment of their development process -- though what they're doing wrong is open for holy war ("talk amongst yourselves...").
You can't test quality into a product. It has to be designed in from the start. Windows' kludgy design has left it open to quality problems even if Microsoft were to test it from now till never.
In Microsoft's defense, the design of their software is drastically constrained by their requirements; specifically, their self-imposed requirement to keep future releases of their operating systems backwardly-compatible with old executables. Reasons like this are why they don't throw everything out and start again. It costs them, though. The "should we redesign from the ground up or should we patch what we have?" question is a tough call to make, and it's one where the conservative answer leads down a path of eternal backwards-compatibility, and thus eternal kludge.
Slashdot Mirror
If he considers Linux to be proprietary, I wonder what he would consider to be a non-proprietary system? It sounds to me like he's expanding the definition of a "proprietary system" so much that the term loses all of its meaning. He's grinding an ax here, not making useful commentary.
The Street Performer Protocol has potential to be an excellent distribution model. If you haven't read it before, Joe Bob says check it out.
FreeBSD seems to have met many of the author's requirements with their ports system. Might something like this work for Linux too?
You can't test quality into a product. It has to be designed in from the start. Windows' kludgy design has left it open to quality problems even if Microsoft were to test it from now till never.
In Microsoft's defense, the design of their software is drastically constrained by their requirements; specifically, their self-imposed requirement to keep future releases of their operating systems backwardly-compatible with old executables. Reasons like this are why they don't throw everything out and start again. It costs them, though. The "should we redesign from the ground up or should we patch what we have?" question is a tough call to make, and it's one where the conservative answer leads down a path of eternal backwards-compatibility, and thus eternal kludge.
Writing till geeks are all
Frothing and wailing
Under their Red Hats.
Pressing a prose style
Inflammitorational--
What's the next project of
Practical Katz?
"Lex"?
It has that ring of evil genius to it. It's the name of a utility too, so the name is vaguely apropos.