Nick,
Here's my take on the language...
There are bugs that escape quality assurance and remain in a product
when it is shipped. QA is not foolproof and as some wag said: 'You must
ship your product (software) with bugs.' For anything but the smallest
projects eliminating *all* bugs is usually seen as a pointless and
hugely time consuming task. It's often a real combinatorial problem to
completely test every possibility. A huge customer base is a more
efficient way of finding them any way, so long as you keep the huge
customer base in the process.
There are missing features that were never meant to be designed into the
product in the first place. These can be captured and kept on wish
lists for future releases. Some users may believe them to be bugs.
And then rarely, there are unexpected features that were discovered by
the customer base that were never meant to be designed into the
product. 'You found it could do what?'
From the engineering side no bug is on purpose - they are errors of
omission not commission. How marketing/customer support puts their spin
on it is another matter. Whether or not developers fix the customer
identified bugs will probably be an economic decision or cost-benefit
analysis using something like ($cost to fix C/no. customers affected N)
- the lower the ratio the more likely action will be taken. I suspect
for Google if N is close to 1 nothing will happen regardless.
What do others on the list think?
Thanks
Robert C
On 3/24/13 2:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Now you all know, that, ever since Owen first used the word "top bit"
in my presence, nearly a decade ago, I have followed, with rapt
attention, the use of language on this list. So, you guys. I need
to understand this better. Can a "bug" be "on purpose"? It sounds to
me like Google has sabotaged its own product, right. Therefore, if I
understand the language, any Nexus phone thatactually worked, would
be "buggy"., by definition. I am sorry to bother you about this, but
these are the kinds of things that keep me awake at night. N
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
Roberts
*Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* [FRIAM] Just sent this to the Google Device Support Team
/Hi, Google Device Support Team./
/It's been a while since we spoke, but I recently discovered that
someone in your organization has been (I hope inadvertently)
disseminating inaccurate information about this Nexus 4
<https://productforums.google.com/forum/#%21msg/mobile/l4uYRMVHnHY/rHpsXdwNGPcJ> bug,
and I thought you'd want to know about it right away. /
/Here's the deal: you see, we all know that the Nexus 4 was not
designed *on purpose* to prevent wifi and bluetooth from being used at
the same time. We all know that it is a bug. Well, all of us except
for Steve, apparently. Here, read for yourselves: /
/http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/03/translated.html/
/Now, we all have the utmost confidence that someone in your
organization will immediately take Steve aside for a private
little counselling session about the inappropriateness of, shall we
say, /bending the truth/ regarding this particular flaw in the Nexus 4
product./
/Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter./
/Best,/
/--Doug/
--
/Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net <mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net>/
/http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins/
/
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
