On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> I guarantee you that IT managers and CTOs do not share your enthusiasm for
> slow, correct coding when faced with their business being down, their
> revenue stream being interrupted and their stock options losing value.
No company should have to face that sort of problem, any problem that
severe should be easily found in preproduction testing. Linux'es low-cruft
level usually causes pretty consistent and testable behavior, once it
works it tends to keep working. Additionally, any problem so severe and
repeatable to cause such problems should be easily fixed with or without a
I've seen an example of a fast bugfix from a company with a wonderful
When the teardrop became common, Microsoft used their wonderful debugger
to find a great point to insert a 'if packet looks like this' filter. They
didn't fix the problem in their initial patch. They inserted a fast
non-fix, the kind of behavior encouraged by debuggers (fix the symptom, not
the problem). Just a few days later, they were being crashed again by a
minor variant of the same bug.
Linux on the other hand, had a true fix and were not subject to the
revised attack. (Incidentally, Linux's true fix came out before MS's quick
Quick fixes bring about quick cruft. The 'expense' of maintain code grows
exponentially with it's cruft level. A 'slower' fix today will likely
improve long term sustainablity.
Finally, who says that acceptance by 'IT managers and CTOs' is actually a
measure of 'quality' that anyone here finds interesting or acceptable? The
very fact that many 'IT managers and CTOs' find NT acceptable speaks
volumes to counter the credibility of that as a useful product metric.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST