> Vincent Snijders wrote:
>> One or two <> More than 700.
> 700 defects in 700,000 lines of code is the same ratio as 1 defect in
> 1000 lines of code, or 2 defects in 2000 lines of code.
>
> It all comes down to code metrics.....
>
> :-)
>> So what? Don't you think it is misleading to call something as bug
>> laden as Lazarus 1.0?
> You need to put it into context. It is open-source, and has been a hobby
> for many.
>
> Writing compilers and code-tools is a tough business.
>
> What has been done so far is remarkable....
>
> Let's just put a shiny coat of paint on the thing and present it in it's
> best light.....
>
> we don't have to claim it as perfection... people are free to do their
> evaluations as they see fit and come to their own conclusions....
>
>> You only can get away with that, if you are a commercial entity. Open
>> source has higher standards.
> Higher ideals....
No in fact higher standards (this whole discussion proves it)
> but in reality, commercial organisations must contribute funds/manpower
> for open-source projects to be able to iron out their bugs.
Complete baloney. Who ever made you think that it is a MUST?
> hope you know that IBM invested about a billion dollars into Linux,
> writing tests, to get it to be useable in a commercial sense. Otherwise,
> it would have just stayed a hobbiest-hack.
So what is your point? Do you feel that Lazarus / FPC are a hobbiest-hack?
I tend to think not.
> Same is true for Lazarus.... we really need to find more companies that
> can fund (unit) tests or contractor-time to sort out our issues.
True, funds can help a lot..
> To do that we need to present a slightly rosy picture ......
hope you know that getting funds from companies will never work if you con
them into investing.
Darius
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
