James Stover (12/28/2009)
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.
Yeah. You're right. No car has ever had to be subject to a safety recall. Instead, the manufacturer comes to your house and, for free, fixes the problem for you.
Nothing humans do is without risk. Nothing "works perfectly right out of the box". Expecting perfection is living in a fantasy.
If what you are saying were true, we'd still be driving Model A Fords, because they'd "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". Your car, whatever car you have, is the end result of a huge number of very expensive updates, and they aren't done yet. It still is killing you and everything around you (toxic exhaust fumes), it still requires the timing belt to be replaced ever X-thousand miles, and the oil to be changed more often than that.
Your doctor, in order to correctly diagnose a wide variety of issues, has to put you at risk of horrible death. He'll subject you to potentially carcinogenic X-rays, CAT scans, etc. He'll cut you open and take pieces of your flesh for biopsies. He'll stick needles in you that could potentially be infected with antiobiotic-resistant, flesh-eating staph. And yet all of this is the end result of tens of thousands of years of constant updates and improvements, and is safer and more effective than any prior version of medicine. But iatrogenic disease (illness caused by medical professionals) still kills more people than computer glitches do. That means the bugs in medicine will continue to be patched, often in a monthly fashion through professional publications.
So, if you brush your teeth (exposing yourself to the potentially toxic/carcinogenic chemicals in your toothpaste and toothbrush - plus the risk of choking on the toothbrush or drowning in the toothpaste foam, which are risks that actually do kill people), if you visit a doctor, if you drive a car or just live in the same atmosphere as people who do, you are taking life-threatening risks that are subject to routine, constant "patches and updates" that improve effectiveness and safety.
I could go on indefinitely. Everything you do carries risks. Every human endeavor is subject to refinement over time and use. What makes you think computer software can be different?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon