From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Subject: Re: CD-ROM distribution! (And a modem question @ Date: 1 Jul 1992 13:38:41 GMT
In article <1992Jun29.103745.785@msus1.msus.edu>, markh@ghost.stcloud.msus.edu (Mark Holden) writes:
|> I agree. The way I see it, is that *nothing* should change from the
|> last 0.0x.plx release to 1.00. That way we have a system that works, with less
|> chance of new bugs popping in. This also entails (to me anyhow) a standardized
|> set of libraries, static and shared. Heheh, I think my Linux machine has
|> crashed less than my $1500 Mach386 package... But then I'm probably easier on
|> the Linux...
Reliability is something which people value differently. I know people
who are happy with 1-2 crashes a week. The BBS I run on xenix has been
up for 314 days (since the UPS went in) and that's why I haven't
upgraded. My Dell V.4 system has NEVER paniced, in alpha, any of 5-6
beta releases, or in production form. Not that there aren't glitches in
these systems, but they don't fall dead.
I wouldn't expect that kind of reliability from a 0.xx release, but I
think it could come if people are willing to work at it. That is, if
there is a 1.0 release, and *all* new capability is saved for 1.1 while
bug fixes become 1.0.1, etc. Unfortunately, doing this is more work that
going forward directly, and new stuff is a lot more fun to do than bug
fixes. Anyone who watches net software evolve has seen this; each new
version brings a mix of bug fixes, new features, and new bugs.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
Paranoia is the most effective martial art!