GSquared (12/28/2009)
James Stover (12/27/2009)
I'll go one further - I don't think it's acceptable to have service packs. It's an acknowledgement that a product is defective. Only after an unspecified number of updates (and years) will it work correctly. The worst part is that we accept and, in fact, expect it. It's irritating that MS isn't giving us SP4 this year. But it's even worse that we should even have to expect one.So, you don't change the oil in your car? You don't brush your teeth? You don't clean the gutters on your house (or have someone do it for you)?
We live in a universe where the laws of thermodynamics apply. That means complex systems decay and require an input of energy to maintain. That means software will require updates. Until you live in a universe with different laws of physics, that's going to be true.
I guess what I am wanting to say is that is that the expectation of a service pack is an expectation of a defective product. As a customer, I want to buy a product and have it work. Simple as that. Your examples are maintenance items. If I take your examples and compare to an RTM product, I have oil that damages my engine, a toothbrush that rots my teeth, and gutters that cause rain to pour inside my house. Those things should work - correctly - straight out of the box without the expectation that it will eventually work correctly at some unspecified point in the future after an indefinite number of updates. In this regard, I find service packs unacceptable.
James Stover, McDBA