Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2831 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Gates [OT]
  • From: "Andre Truter" <andre.truter@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:47:37 +0200
  • Message-id: <173f0b9f0607181047w7fe7ed25q122194bed1326225@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 7/18/06, Orn E. Hansen <orn_hansen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tisdaginn 18 juli 2006 09:48 skrev Andre Truter:
> Do you suggest that we ignore the bugs and rather focus on new
> features, new ideas, etc?
> How is "endlessly fixing bugs" a bad thing?
It depends on "how" the bugs originate. Remember that good old James Bond
movie, with the "Gates" copy figure? "Guaranteed to buy endless bug
fixes" :-)

I can understand that this might be true in closed source software
where the owner of the software gain more revenue and lock-in by
constantly selling fixes and improvements, but I don't see how this
can be true in open source.

To deliberately write bugs into open source software have no gain for
the developer. In fact it has the opposite effect. A develoepr would
loose credibility and be ignored in the community because lots of
other developers scrutinse the code.

One of the strengths of open source software is that developers are
motivated by achivement, pride in thier work, etc and not money. So
leaving bugs in code or deliberately crippling code is insane.

> How does bug fixing prevent the IT revolution?
[...] (snip example)
you? And therefore, if you are not putting an END, it might start looking
like youre trying to stop others from making a sequel ... something like Star
Wars story, perhaps? :-)

In my opinion your example may relate to enless scope changing or
feature chasing, not bug fixing.

A bug is something that casue the software to function incorrectly, so
it has to be fixed before the software can be completed. You don't
have a choice but to fix it, otherwise you can never put your fullstop
to the line.

With software we do have the dilemma that it is very difficult to
determine if it is 100% bug-free, so we can never determine if a
software product is really complete or not.
This is one of the reasons why traditional project management cannot
be applied to software development.
So, we have to compromise with software projects and we declare a
project finished (or milestone reached) when it has been tested and
passed a number of tests.
After that we continue to fix bugs as they appear, but without adding

That is another pitfall in the software engineering field : How to
distinguish between a bug and a feature request and how to prevent
feature requests to be slipped in among the bug fixes. (Clients love
to do this)

But then, a lot of open source projects are living projects. They
keep on evolving and do not have definate end.
Features are added all the time. A project will continue to evelove
until it has become too old and complicated to manage (or people loose
interest) and then it will be replaced with a new project.
BUT, the original project will have to be maintained for bug fixes as
long as it is used.

Of course, its all just a theory and its all untrue ... doesn't need saying,
of course >:-)

You are confusing me...
Am I the only one confused? (If so then maybe it is time I need to
take a vacation)

Andre Truter | Software Consultant | Registered Linux user #185282
Jabber: andre_tux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.trusoft.co.za

~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~

Check the headers for your unsubscription address
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com

< Previous Next >