From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,de5dfd6df880dd3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bugs or Mistakes?
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <80sqhd$71g$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 549490630
References: <19991112202656.2368.rocketmail@web216.mail.yahoo.com>
 <80i9la$i9e$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <383086EC.372545D1@mitre.org>
 <80q4jk$fvo$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net> <3831DA52.964E4748@mitre.org>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 16 Nov 1999 23:49:01 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-16T23:49:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert, 

I appreciate your comments, agree with many of your counter
arguments, but have elided them in the interest of brevity.

In article <3831DA52.964E4748@mitre.org>,
	"Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org> wrote:

>    I think we are in violent agreement here.  They are errors or
>omissions and they should be fixed as soon as possible.  But a TBD in a
>draft is not a mistake, it is just a mark indicating that there is
>something which must be fixed before this leaves draft status.  (A TBD
>remaining in the documentation when it is shipped to the customer is a
>big mistake. ;-)

We have no real difference of opinion here.  A TBD is certainly just
a note about something that actually needs to be determined.  And
a TBD deployed, is irresponsible.

>> ... your question, "Who was at fault," will not be
>> satisfied by the answer, "Oh, it was just another bug."
>
>    Unless you work for Microsoft!  The quality of the garbage that
>Microsoft sends out as beta software is often abominable.  And not just
>beta releases.   MITRE does a very good job of vetting supported
>software before approving it for general use.  With Microsoft, this
>often requires critical patches before approval.  And talk about using
>bugs as a euphemism!  Microsoft has "hot fixes" and "Service Packs," not
>patches. 

No argument here.  The junk sold by Microsoft is outrageous.  Worse is
their penchant for using economic muscle to destroy better competing
products.  But that is another story, isn't it.   The Judge has ruled
on this and the remedies are still pending his decisions. 

I think we stop bugging our colleagues any further bandwidth about bug
versus mistake.  Some people have corresponded with me in agreement.
Others have decided that I am some kind of a nut.  I suspect the 
latter group is more on the mark.  Those who actually know me will
realize they are.  

Thanks for a spirited discussion.

Richard Riehle
http://www.adaworks.com