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: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'
Date: 2000/02/15
Message-ID: <t7r9ee5ihu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 586266779
Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch>
 <t7u2ja5lpx.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <2000Feb15.143333.1@eisner>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950645769 29215 209.49.126.226 (15 Feb 2000 20:16:09
 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Feb 2000 20:16:09 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-15T20:16:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> I am convinced that a great many of their defects are coding issues.
> 
> I am not convinced that fixing all the coding issues (by any method)
> would not still leave a great many other defects, probably enough to
> make the fact that coding issues had been fixed invisible to the user.
> 
> I am not at all convinced that defects enumerated by Microsoft (or
> any other vendor) cover a reasonable fraction of the total defects
> in the software.

Do you have evidence for any of these convictions?