Microsoft's Principle

[5aboteur]

this is the most damn principle that i have ever encounter

DEPLOY NOW REPAIR LATER

i mean is that the power of monopoly ?

[Marine06]

Where is the source of this quote?

MS has made progress in the right direction, but with all the money they make one would think that they could spend a little more time securing their products.

[Negative]

DEPLOY NOW REPAIR LATER

Well, 5aboteur, that happens to be the motto of most companies trying to make some money.

No offense JP, but that's exactly how AntiOnline.com and almost every site on the web work. I mean, I've never seen a perfect site. Everything can be improved. You're of course right when you mean that you shouldn't 'deploy' a life-hazardous product before having repaired it. Like releasing a car that doesn't pass the Eland-test... (Mercedes, no?)

[ivan37]

Right...it isn't a matter of if it works or not - it is how well it works, but I don't think there are that many companies who's motto is "deploy now repair later". Most companies wouldn't knowingly release something with bad bugs. Now I am not saying there aren't companies who do it, but saying that any company who wants to make money has to release things as fast as they can is very much false. Many companies pride themselves on beating the crap out of their product to make sure that it is bug free before releasing it.

[Negative]

Most companies wouldn't knowingly release something with bad bugs

That, I hope, is true.

but saying that any company who wants to make money has to release things as fast as they can is very much false

Any company is not what I said...

Many companies pride themselves on beating the crap out of their product to make sure that it is bug free before releasing it

Yups. Do they have IKEA's in the States? In their shops you can see chairs that are being 'bug'-tested by punching on them with a heavy weight for like 10.000 times.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to buy a chair that's being punched on 10.000 times...

[ivan37]

Yes, I guess the US does have a few IKEAs although I have personally never seen one.

If you ask me, I'd much rather have a chair that has been punched 10,000 times as long as the punching didn't introduce any other defects. Now apply this to software - wouldn't you rather purchase software that programmers have been trying to break again and again as long as they fixed the holes they found without accidentally opening up others?

[Negative]

Like torturing the data until it confesses? ;-)

Maybe my comparison with Ikea wasn't as good as I thought it was ;-)

And for your question: of course I do...

I was just trying to say that most companies do NOT test their software thoroughly before releasing it. Especially the commercial ones (are there other companies?). And not all Linux-software is bugfree on release, is it?

[ivan37]

Ok. I can agree with you on that Most companies don't test enough.

But as far as Linux - no, not all releases are bug-free. Technically, no software can be bug free. Linux is tested a whole lot better than most other software, though. Plus, any known bugs that aren't fixed by the time it is released are added to the "known bugs" section of the readme. Most of these are pretty obscure problems that would only affect a very small number of people rather than massive holes that would affect nearly everyone.

[5aboteur]

Linux like any other open source has the advantage because it is open for other people to look for bugs and repair it before deploying it to the open market i just hope that microsoft will make their software an open source on it will help them a lot and maybe they will not be branded as monopolizers anymore

[Neophyte]

Sorry.

Although there is a good reason for anyone to have access to the open source of M$ windows OS, there is no chance of M$ ever giving that up. The reason is simple. M$ has made the determination that they want control. Giving up their source would negate their control of the market and affect their profits.

Imagine if you would a host of upstart companies made up of downsized computer hacking brains attacking the {substantial}errors in the code. These groups, because of open source, could actually produce patches and fixes and even whole new OS systems out of M$ products without the need of M$ approval. This is the last thing M$ would ever want. Multiple companies could be created that would produce competitive software or even OS packages that could work as well or even better for much less cost to the consumer. Without the control of the market they have now, it wouldn't be required to go to M$ for help. Thus M$ would lose substantial profits and quite possibly fail. If you were Billy G, would you do this to your company?

M$ will deal with bad press and government trials into their monopoly but they will remain the only one that can fix the problem. So for now they will continue to make money doing so.

Continue to dream of utopia but remember to deal with reality.