"And after all, OS/2, MVS, and UNIX never had patches and shipped complete and flawless, with all possible features"
New features != bug fixes.
"It's all completely inexcusable."
It is not inexcusable that they released software with bugs, but yes, I find certainly inexcusable, as long as the companies stay in business, that they don't fix bugs for them when a customer asks for it.
"Such a reasonable standard you have set."
The only one I find reasonable, yes.
"Good luck with your software company."
It's doing well, thank you very much. I produced software more than a decade ago and I for certain would fix any bug the customers could come to me with as I've already done up to this day.
And you know what? As long as they contracted support I managed not only the bugs but the new features too -the latter on a one-by-one basis, some of them we in common accorded that basically went into the original spec, so I covered them as a matter of respect my contract, others were priced apart, but bugs, always as a given.
I know that some of that software is still in use but there've been years that no new bug reports have come for them. I leave as an exercise to reader to imagine why.
"Excuse me, I'm not sure if you are aware of it but your post has an identifyable bug"
You tell me where is it and I gladly produce a new release without it.
"it contains an obvious strawman"
It maybe obvious to you; it is not obvious to me so I advise you to produce a valid bug report in order for me to be able to fix it.
But first I want to make sure the problem is in my post and not in your ability to parse the source code: you are aware "I didn't know my software had bugs" != "I don't know where are the bugs in my code", aren't you?
"Note, I don't want a new post"
Then you get to stay with the old one.
Even if I could fix the original, which I can't, it would be the original no more. You are aware of Heraclitus's "you can never step into the same river twice", aren't you?
"I've donated to slashdot several times"
Not *my* problem, unless you donated to *me*, which I know for sure you don't.
"Linux has been out for ~19 years, and 2.6 for ~8, and its still been getting patched. Ditto Windows, ditto OSX. Are they all garbage?"
They were by fiat. On one hand, *a lot* of those patches have been for new features, a different beast on its own.
On the other hand, following the "release soon, release often" advise is a good thing. Producing rubish doesn't necesarily map to a personal insult... as long as you know it. I surely prefere rubish now that adds real value than no value because it hasn't been released.
That said, the Linux kernel people show they are proud of the work they do precisely in the fact that they know it's rubish -a very valuable rubish, I must add, that requires time and effort to its full development as a highly worthy product -and take the time and effort to do it. So kudos to the people maintaining those old releases: they know they are doing the proper thing.
"With millions of lines of code they also can't test every possible application and error."
So they know for certain that there will be defects buried somewhere within those millions of lines of code, don't they?
In my book, selling something they know for certain it has defects is the very definition of "knowingly defective".
"What you're suggesting is that no OS could be released until there are no errors whatsoever."
Why do you try to second-read my "suggestions" when you can see what I did explicitly say instead? You released it with defects, you correct those defects.
"Maybe they shouldn't offer any updates at all after the date of purchase."
That could be certainly possible... as long as they disclose in advance the list of defects that come with the product so I can make an informed decision.
Re-read what I wrote and you'll see that I didn't tell that I'd better wait forever for a defectless product nor that I would pay 100x for a zero-bug software but that you knowingly sold me a defective product (yes, it's knowingly: you can't tell at the same time "it's impossible to write zero bug software" and "but I didn't know my software had bugs") which was something you already took benefit of (you have my money now instead of later), now it's time to correct the defects.
"You certainly know nothing about how impossible it is to write "perfect" software."
So what? You either enter in the business of selling software usage licenses or you don't. It is enterly your choice and it has nothing to do with being or not a programmer since it is a business choice.
So it is impossible to write zero bugs software? Ok: you know that in advance, don't you? So plan resources to cope with that.
"Sorry but Microsoft does the best at offering security fixes at no cost."
No: Microsoft does the best at selling to gullible people that are grateful of being sold a defective product now on an "I'll fix it later if I'm in good mood" basis.
Microsoft is not "offering security fix for no cost": they are selling you "knowingly defective products at a high cost".
I for one would expect from *any* serious company to cover for production defects forever and for any serious legislation to force them to that if they don't want to: after all the defects were there the day the product abandoned the mill. "Oh, but that was 100 years ago!" Well, you are still in business, don't you? Then, if you sold it defective, you pay for the repair.
I'm not asking for adding, say, WiFi support to Windows 95; I'm saying you repair all the from-origin defects Windows 95 has. To "Oh! but then I would have to support Windows 95 forever" I say, "Not, if you sold a proper product to start with". You cut corners to be able to launch the product earlier and you already won your legit share out of that. Now it's time the return the corners you cut.
"No, it's not. You're not going to die if your computer gets pwned. If you don't like it, don't buy Adobe products."
Well, how is it any different that in the case of life-threatening menaces? You don't want the new Sukhoi Superjet 100 because it tends to kill you? then don't buy it.
The point is that if a product produces an unforeseeble damage that can be tied to producer malice/miscalculus, then it is the producer the one to pay the bill. Bigger if there are deaths involved than in other case, but still to pay the bill.
If it's a years old version and *yet* after years of pushing security and bugfixes there're still more, it can only mean that the product they sold was basically cow shit and they deserve what it takes to protect it.
You don't want to push security updates forever? Damn easy: just don't push away shitty software.
"You mean, it would have to be seen what 50 F22s, PLUS all the F15s, F16s, F18s and whatever F35s they may/may not build can do against 1200 cheaper enemy planes."
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Because I already know what would about 2500 F15, F16 and F18 plus all the available support do against those enemies (sweep them out the air, that is).
And that's actually another point against the F22s.
"The US government has spent 80+ billion ensuring that every other nation on Earth has planes in the air only because the US lets them"
As others have already told, that has been said of other weapons before too: it's only the real thing that will test for that.
But, anyway, even if the F22 is the best one-to-one, with only 200 able to fly, maybe 50 at any given time, it had to be seen if 50 of them could do the job against 1200 of a cheaper enemy (say China or Russia).
And even then, the expenditure is moot because if the USA were really in the situation of considering deploying all their F22 for need of massive control of air space, that could only mean being DEFCON-1 and, at that level, there's no business in considering air superiority at all since it is the time of the nukes.
"and the Russians and Chinese amongst others know this."
In 5000 years of written History that has *never* been a deterrent for any enemy but, very on the contrary, an impulse to recover (and usually surpass) the equilibrium.
"Why would you fire an employee who lied on their CV, yet does the job well?"
To send a message.
Provided the employee does in fact the job well, it can't be because of the statements in his resume that led to hiring him so, from the part of the contractor it was blind luck. If you are going to hire under a "blind luck" assumptions, you surely should better fire all your hiring personnel and just hire on, say, a first come first gets it basis (hummm... for so many companies I think it wouldn't be such a big loss anyway).
If, on the other hand, you do believe that your hiring process has anything to do about the outcome of those hired, you'd better make a strong position about not tolerating anybody trying to jump it over, from CEO downwards.
"Why does it have to be nuclear? Why are you so intent on using nuclear, even if better options exist"
But, just in case, you fail to name anyone.
On the other hand, technologic research is, you know, that thingie about advancement of civilization and then, is terribly doubtful because everything we currently know about the physical world around us, that there's any source of energy with more potential than nuclear (both fission and fussion) with the exception, maybe, of matter/antimatter reaction which is practically science fiction right now.
So it seems nuclear is the obvious low hanging fruit for research and advancement, don't you think so?
"Based on your mentality of defending a profitable model, I suppose every single oil company in the world is doing an absolutely amazing job as we all pay $4/gallon for gas, right?"
Wrong! Because in Europe they manage to get that price doubled.
"There's a line between being profitable, and doing what is right."
Yes... for some people.
For corporations (sadly, I may add) "being profitable" and "doing what is right" are strict synonyms.
"It fizzled. In the meantime, record voter suppression laws have been successfully passed by the far right kooks in a number of states"
I'm not an expert on internal USA matters, so I won't doubt you are in the truth.
But certainly not because of the provided evidence... which I took the time to read and that basically ends up to: "nine states won't allow to cast votes to badly or un-identified persons". I happen to think that's a good thing.
"My life must just abnormally suck, I guess. I have no time for documentation."
No. Your problem is that you don't *want* to document and so you find lame excuses not to do it.
Unless your company is really as bizarre as you want us to believe, things don't get implemented twice just in case, so there's no other way but your manager to take your word for how much it takes to deliver any piece of work assigned to you.
Then the only thing you have to worry about is that the very last thing you do is to add that last syntax sugar the code needs to run.
An example: Step 1: # A hello world script Step 2: # A hello world script echo "Hello, World!"
See? Done this way it always gets documented. What you say you would want to do: Step 1: echo "Hello, World!" Step 2: # A hello world script echo "Hello, World!"
Of course, you never reach to step two. Of course too, you don't really want to reach to step two.
Slashdot Mirror
"So what you are saying is that you want MS to program protocols, drivers and other applications for things that haven't been invented yet?"
No.
"And after all, OS/2, MVS, and UNIX never had patches and shipped complete and flawless, with all possible features"
New features != bug fixes.
"It's all completely inexcusable."
It is not inexcusable that they released software with bugs, but yes, I find certainly inexcusable, as long as the companies stay in business, that they don't fix bugs for them when a customer asks for it.
"Such a reasonable standard you have set."
The only one I find reasonable, yes.
"Good luck with your software company."
It's doing well, thank you very much. I produced software more than a decade ago and I for certain would fix any bug the customers could come to me with as I've already done up to this day.
And you know what? As long as they contracted support I managed not only the bugs but the new features too -the latter on a one-by-one basis, some of them we in common accorded that basically went into the original spec, so I covered them as a matter of respect my contract, others were priced apart, but bugs, always as a given.
I know that some of that software is still in use but there've been years that no new bug reports have come for them. I leave as an exercise to reader to imagine why.
"Excuse me, I'm not sure if you are aware of it but your post has an identifyable bug"
You tell me where is it and I gladly produce a new release without it.
"it contains an obvious strawman"
It maybe obvious to you; it is not obvious to me so I advise you to produce a valid bug report in order for me to be able to fix it.
But first I want to make sure the problem is in my post and not in your ability to parse the source code: you are aware "I didn't know my software had bugs" != "I don't know where are the bugs in my code", aren't you?
"Note, I don't want a new post"
Then you get to stay with the old one.
Even if I could fix the original, which I can't, it would be the original no more. You are aware of Heraclitus's "you can never step into the same river twice", aren't you?
"I've donated to slashdot several times"
Not *my* problem, unless you donated to *me*, which I know for sure you don't.
I know, I know... tongue in cheek.
"Linux has been out for ~19 years, and 2.6 for ~8, and its still been getting patched. Ditto Windows, ditto OSX. Are they all garbage?"
They were by fiat. On one hand, *a lot* of those patches have been for new features, a different beast on its own.
On the other hand, following the "release soon, release often" advise is a good thing. Producing rubish doesn't necesarily map to a personal insult... as long as you know it. I surely prefere rubish now that adds real value than no value because it hasn't been released.
That said, the Linux kernel people show they are proud of the work they do precisely in the fact that they know it's rubish -a very valuable rubish, I must add, that requires time and effort to its full development as a highly worthy product -and take the time and effort to do it. So kudos to the people maintaining those old releases: they know they are doing the proper thing.
"It's not released "knowingly defective.""
It isn't?
"With millions of lines of code they also can't test every possible application and error."
So they know for certain that there will be defects buried somewhere within those millions of lines of code, don't they?
In my book, selling something they know for certain it has defects is the very definition of "knowingly defective".
"What you're suggesting is that no OS could be released until there are no errors whatsoever."
Why do you try to second-read my "suggestions" when you can see what I did explicitly say instead? You released it with defects, you correct those defects.
"Maybe they shouldn't offer any updates at all after the date of purchase."
That could be certainly possible... as long as they disclose in advance the list of defects that come with the product so I can make an informed decision.
Re-read what I wrote and you'll see that I didn't tell that I'd better wait forever for a defectless product nor that I would pay 100x for a zero-bug software but that you knowingly sold me a defective product (yes, it's knowingly: you can't tell at the same time "it's impossible to write zero bug software" and "but I didn't know my software had bugs") which was something you already took benefit of (you have my money now instead of later), now it's time to correct the defects.
"You certainly know nothing about how impossible it is to write "perfect" software."
So what? You either enter in the business of selling software usage licenses or you don't. It is enterly your choice and it has nothing to do with being or not a programmer since it is a business choice.
So it is impossible to write zero bugs software? Ok: you know that in advance, don't you? So plan resources to cope with that.
"Factor in the 3.5X price and you still have about 8 equivalent units of windows for every photshop over which to amortize costs."
Because, as we all know, developing a whole OS it's at the same cost tag than a graphics manging app that runs on top of said OS.
"Sorry but Microsoft does the best at offering security fixes at no cost."
No: Microsoft does the best at selling to gullible people that are grateful of being sold a defective product now on an "I'll fix it later if I'm in good mood" basis.
Microsoft is not "offering security fix for no cost": they are selling you "knowingly defective products at a high cost".
I for one would expect from *any* serious company to cover for production defects forever and for any serious legislation to force them to that if they don't want to: after all the defects were there the day the product abandoned the mill. "Oh, but that was 100 years ago!" Well, you are still in business, don't you? Then, if you sold it defective, you pay for the repair.
I'm not asking for adding, say, WiFi support to Windows 95; I'm saying you repair all the from-origin defects Windows 95 has. To "Oh! but then I would have to support Windows 95 forever" I say, "Not, if you sold a proper product to start with". You cut corners to be able to launch the product earlier and you already won your legit share out of that. Now it's time the return the corners you cut.
"In fact don't most (or all) EULA's specifically say there is NO warranty, explicit or implied, that makes them liable for damages of any sort?"
Yes, so they say.
And for the same price they could say you owe them your firstborn.
They saying what they want doesn't make it automatically legally bonding, didn't you know it?
"No, it's not. You're not going to die if your computer gets pwned. If you don't like it, don't buy Adobe products."
Well, how is it any different that in the case of life-threatening menaces? You don't want the new Sukhoi Superjet 100 because it tends to kill you? then don't buy it.
The point is that if a product produces an unforeseeble damage that can be tied to producer malice/miscalculus, then it is the producer the one to pay the bill. Bigger if there are deaths involved than in other case, but still to pay the bill.
"If this was a years-old version, I'd understand"
Well, I don't.
If it's a years old version and *yet* after years of pushing security and bugfixes there're still more, it can only mean that the product they sold was basically cow shit and they deserve what it takes to protect it.
You don't want to push security updates forever? Damn easy: just don't push away shitty software.
"You mean, it would have to be seen what 50 F22s, PLUS all the F15s, F16s, F18s and whatever F35s they may/may not build can do against 1200 cheaper enemy planes."
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Because I already know what would about 2500 F15, F16 and F18 plus all the available support do against those enemies (sweep them out the air, that is).
And that's actually another point against the F22s.
"The US government has spent 80+ billion ensuring that every other nation on Earth has planes in the air only because the US lets them"
As others have already told, that has been said of other weapons before too: it's only the real thing that will test for that.
But, anyway, even if the F22 is the best one-to-one, with only 200 able to fly, maybe 50 at any given time, it had to be seen if 50 of them could do the job against 1200 of a cheaper enemy (say China or Russia).
And even then, the expenditure is moot because if the USA were really in the situation of considering deploying all their F22 for need of massive control of air space, that could only mean being DEFCON-1 and, at that level, there's no business in considering air superiority at all since it is the time of the nukes.
"and the Russians and Chinese amongst others know this."
In 5000 years of written History that has *never* been a deterrent for any enemy but, very on the contrary, an impulse to recover (and usually surpass) the equilibrium.
"That's why the US have nuclear weapons, not to use them but to deter others from using such weapons agains them."
Looks funny, then, that it is USA the only country that in fact used them.
"A CEO can lie about the most important information about their company. Lie to the board, the stockholders, the SEC, etc."
A CEO lying on his resume has *already* lied to the board. You don't think the CEO's hiring process is led by a minion from HHRR, do you?
"Why would you fire an employee who lied on their CV, yet does the job well?"
To send a message.
Provided the employee does in fact the job well, it can't be because of the statements in his resume that led to hiring him so, from the part of the contractor it was blind luck. If you are going to hire under a "blind luck" assumptions, you surely should better fire all your hiring personnel and just hire on, say, a first come first gets it basis (hummm... for so many companies I think it wouldn't be such a big loss anyway).
If, on the other hand, you do believe that your hiring process has anything to do about the outcome of those hired, you'd better make a strong position about not tolerating anybody trying to jump it over, from CEO downwards.
"Yes, the CEO is far more important to the company than the sandwich guy."
Therefore is far more important to get the facts right *prior* to hire somebody for that role, isn't it?
Well, by lying about his CV in order to get his position, his lie is far more important than the sandwich guy doing the same, isn't it?
Now, what was your point, again?
"Why does it have to be nuclear? Why are you so intent on using nuclear, even if better options exist"
But, just in case, you fail to name anyone.
On the other hand, technologic research is, you know, that thingie about advancement of civilization and then, is terribly doubtful because everything we currently know about the physical world around us, that there's any source of energy with more potential than nuclear (both fission and fussion) with the exception, maybe, of matter/antimatter reaction which is practically science fiction right now.
So it seems nuclear is the obvious low hanging fruit for research and advancement, don't you think so?
"Based on your mentality of defending a profitable model, I suppose every single oil company in the world is doing an absolutely amazing job as we all pay $4/gallon for gas, right?"
Wrong! Because in Europe they manage to get that price doubled.
"There's a line between being profitable, and doing what is right."
Yes... for some people.
For corporations (sadly, I may add) "being profitable" and "doing what is right" are strict synonyms.
"It fizzled. In the meantime, record voter suppression laws have been successfully passed by the far right kooks in a number of states"
I'm not an expert on internal USA matters, so I won't doubt you are in the truth.
But certainly not because of the provided evidence... which I took the time to read and that basically ends up to: "nine states won't allow to cast votes to badly or un-identified persons". I happen to think that's a good thing.
"Those on the left are far more credible than those on the right"
Sadly no, they don't.
"The left represents the workers"
The European socialists *say* they represent the workers.
"the right represents the plutocrats"
So, you see? They both represent the same guys, but the right doesn't need to lie about it.
"Inflated sense of self-worth alert"
Yeah, Stephenson is as guilty of current state of affairs in science as much as Wile E. Coyote of suicidal rates by jumping off a cliff.
"who tells you that nobody had introduced some trojan on their system which reads all the bits sent to you and sends them to the attacker as well?"
Who tells you that the service provider itself is not sending perfectly random data... generated one week ago?
"My life must just abnormally suck, I guess. I have no time for documentation."
No. Your problem is that you don't *want* to document and so you find lame excuses not to do it.
Unless your company is really as bizarre as you want us to believe, things don't get implemented twice just in case, so there's no other way but your manager to take your word for how much it takes to deliver any piece of work assigned to you.
Then the only thing you have to worry about is that the very last thing you do is to add that last syntax sugar the code needs to run.
An example:
Step 1:
# A hello world script
Step 2:
# A hello world script
echo "Hello, World!"
See? Done this way it always gets documented. What you say you would want to do:
Step 1:
echo "Hello, World!"
Step 2:
# A hello world script
echo "Hello, World!"
Of course, you never reach to step two. Of course too, you don't really want to reach to step two.