Xref: utzoo comp.misc:10424 comp.std.c:3829
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Shipping bogus code
Message-ID: <1990Oct28.235107.18916@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 28 Oct 90 23:51:07 GMT
References: <27098@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Oct22.231028.24623@zoo.toronto.edu> <18632@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Oct24.173121.20610@druid.uucp> <116@raysnec.UUCP>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 21

In article <116@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:
|darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
||The same with software.  If you run a
||system utility and it immediately dumps core then you can safely say that
||someone didn't do their job.  If it dumps core only when run at the stroke
||of midnight then you can say it has a bug but you can understand why it
||wasn't caught by the testing group.
|	Agree completely. A somewhat different problem involves failure
|to test components of a package already in wide use. The assumption is 
|that, if the package has been around long enough in enough hands, it's 
|*got* to be stable, right? Often true, but not always.

I agree too.
In fact, since this topic deserves to be discussed, I have redirected
followups to comp.misc (which I read) rather than alt.flame.

[Disclaimer:  This is my opinion, not my employer's opinion.]
-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC    diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
                                    (tkou02 is scheduled for demolition)
We steer like a sports car:  I use opinions; the company uses the rack.