Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Bugs, features, and restrictions (was Re: dsb unix vs. dec's vms)
Message-ID: <663@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 10:01:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.663
Posted: Mon May 18 10:01:05 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 19-May-87 04:41:48 EDT
References: <5828@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <34ab0e42.8be4@apollo.uucp> <6570@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 52
Summary: Bugs are better than "features"

In article <6570@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> In article <34ab3c5c.8be4@apollo.uucp> jps@apollo.uucp [writes]:
> [...]
> >The attitude seems to be one of "If I can make a funny remark or
> >witty comment about the inadequancies of the program, then I don't have
> >to make it work."  Thats why "FIND" is documented with:
> >    "BUGS:  The syntax is very painfull."
> >If they cared, they'd fix it.
> 
> Not so.  It is true that the very name `BUGS' is meant in jest;
> but while stodgier names include `LIMITATIONS' and `RESTRICTIONS',
> the contents of these sections in other systems' manuals are
> identical.  `Fixing' the syntax of find would be a disservice, for
> it is now too well engrained.

This is perhaps too late to say this, but which do you trust more:  an
operating system that frankly lists its numerous bugs/deficiencies, or
one that pretends they don't exist, or wants you to believe that they
are really special features?

As an example, VAX/VMS aborts the following Pascal fragment with a
fatal error:

     var i: integer;
     begin
     for i := 1 to 2000 do
	write ('*');   /* fill screen with 2000 stars */
     end;

If this is not a bug I would like to know what it is;  if it is
documented anywhere as a bug I would like to know where.

As another example:  If you are using a binary file from VMS C, ftell()
does not return the current file pointer position, fseek() will not
seek to the nth byte of the file, and under certain conditions, a
write() of an arbitrary number of bytes will cause an error.
Elsewhere, the manual goes on to explain say that these are powerful
"features".

They ought to have gritted their teeth and come right out and
documented these as the bugs that they really are.

Lately, AT&T's UNIX has changed.  The traditional "BUGS" entry is now
frequently "NOTES" or "RESTRICTIONS" and the comment about find's
painful syntax seems to be gone from AT&T documentation.  Thankfully,
BSD still maintains its original blunt philosphy of respecting the
user's intelligence and not hiding behind euphemisms.

All operating systems have their weaknesses.  Some just admit them
more freely than others.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi