On 7/18/06, Orn E. Hansen
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 functionality. 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@jabberafrica.org | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~ -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com