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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-13 17:23:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Message-ID: References: <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g840k$qjt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmOrganization: LJK Software Date: 13 Jun 2001 17:02:17 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 992466139 216.44.122.34 (Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:02:19 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:02:19 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8706 comp.lang.java.programmer:76137 comp.lang.pl1:1014 comp.lang.vrml:3779 comp.lang.java.advocacy:21049 Date: 2001-06-13T17:02:17-05:00 List-Id: In article <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmapb3pfl@4ax.com>, Roedy Green writes: > This problem with buying a pig in a poke greatly favours market > leaders who can afford advertising, and whose products will be > purchased by newcomers simply on name recognition. There is not enough > incentive for a market leader to produce a high quality product. > > I see three ways around this: > 3. Consumer Reports so that new software is much less a pig in a poke. > General computer literacy should help along these lines too. The new > generation coming up are not going to be such lambs lead to the > slaughter. I fear use of reviews naturally degrades into faulty use of reviews. Recently I commented that I bought something because of the reviews. The response was -- I didn't see that getting the best score in the reviews. The response was correct, since I did not care about the overall score from reviewers, but rather their detailed comments on the aspects of the product about which I was most interested. The easiest thing for a reviewer to write is a bullet-list of "features". It wins points with editors, too, because it leads to a graphical presentation. So we are back at the old bugaboo of feature lists prevailing over quality, since the latter is so subjective.