----- Original Message -----=20
From: Howard smith=20
To: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX ; tentec@contesting.com=20
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
Hi Bob,
I want to disagree with what you said in a recent post:
"I'd agree. I recall loading and running Windows 1.01 and all the =
revisions=20
that followed. Just recently I've changed to Windows XP from ME from =
2000.=20
Still have bugs that I recall were in V 3.1. Also use NT on our =
network=20
servers. More bugs. Just the nature of software in my opinion."
I don't really think this is the nature of all software. I think it =
is the nature of Windows software. Here are a couple of examples the I =
know of which have well written, reliable software sets.
The Engine Control Modules (ECM) used by all of the auto makers are =
all microprocessor based, and their software does not appear to have the =
magnitude of bugs that windows software does. If they did, the highways =
would be littered with the pistons, rods, etc, that came out of the =
engines when the software failed.
Oh, I see your point. Look at it this way, the ECM has sensor input =
from say 15 to 25 sensors. Always the same 15 to 25. Add a human =
intervention to the chain and you'd see bugs. The sensors are known =
variables with set limits. The human input..........well. A different =
story.
The second example is the software that is used on the shuttle =
missions. That software has a documented error rate that is something =
less than 5 bugs per 1 million lines of source code. I think the big =
difference here is the fact that the software engineers meet with the =
astronauts to design the software. Everybody there seems to know that a =
software bug could mean that some of the people in the meeting may not =
be returning from the mission. That is a rather large incentive to get =
it right the first (and only!) time.
It's been suggested that Tentec offer updates and enhancement for say =
$20 to $50 per release. Wonder if NASA astronauts would want to ride on =
a $50 update. I realize the systems are vastly different and more =
complex in the case with NASA, but the principle is the same.
My point is that software does not have to be done poorly. It can be =
done so it is reliable. I have never understood why the Information =
Technology community has not taken Microsoft to task over the quality =
issue. The IT people are the ones who suffer the loss of productivity =
as they are always tracking down some new bug.
You are correct in that software does not have to be done poorly. As =
to Microsoft, business wise, it's a feature vs time vs cost issue. It's =
a triangle any way you strech it. It can be done so that it is =
reliable but again I enlist the 6 month rule. Be first and take your =
chances. Wait 6 mos and you get a reasonably solid package.
Bob
Howard Smith, WA9AXQ
=20
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
|