Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!news
From: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Bug in definition of defineuserobject?
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.152932.25765@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Jan 91 15:29:32 GMT
References: <43.UUL1.3#5127@aladdin.com> <9969@adobe.UUCP> <1991Jan15.173727.20580@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jan15.173727.20580@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> paisley@mte.ncsu.edu writes:
>Perhaps you should institute the system Don Knuth used for TeX some years ago. 
>He paid $0.01 for the first error, $0.02 for the second, doubling the reward
>for each new bug discovered.  Of course you must have great confidence in the
>quality of the system or you can get into trouble.  Knuth himself has done
>pretty well, last I heard the prize was only up to $20.48 (or maybe $40.96),
>and this is after some 10-12 years, I think.
>
Actually, the rewards for finding bugs in TeX have never worked like that; they 
double in size each year (usually), regardless of how many bugs were found in   
that year. The rate was $327.68 last year, but I don't know whether Don intends
to double it again this year. Of course, this is for bugs in the program TeX,
you get something much smaller (maybe $20.48) for bugs in the TeXbook. Now if
Adobe would pay for bugs in their PostScript interpreters, we could all be
rich :-) :-) :-)

Chris Thompson
JANET:    cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx
Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk