Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Gassee joins the fray Date: 20 Jan 2015 16:28:09 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: <1lyi997.xex7dh1r8ghuqN%nmassello@yahoo.com> <54be7f7f$0$54669$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> X-Trace: individual.net AZ1C5kmupoGh9XyjA9BjQQTv/85rvJz+gzFmNXs1KedM9tF9GN Cancel-Lock: sha1:gOulsnUcn8Q2c4rlvpdeft3ztJM= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:68574 On 2015-01-20, JF Mezei wrote: > On 15-01-20 10:43, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> "Look, I found another bug" is not evidence of a downward trend in >> quality, no matter how many times you repeat it Alan. > > IT's your right to remain blind to reality and refuse to see a trend. Your failure to show a trend doesn't equate to my blind unwillingness to see a trend. In fact I am asking for evidence of a trend, and as of yet none has been provided. Instead, all I see is a bunch of people claiming the existence of bugs magically equates to a downward trend. It doesn't. That's a fact. It's really brain-dead simple: Show the trend. Otherwise I call bullshit. > The types of problems being seen are not just "bugs", they are > indicative of over agressive development. We can look back in history and see plenty of examples of bugs (example: iTunes deleting entire hard drives) and attribute them to "over aggressive development" if you wish. Your classification is arbitrary, and the fact is at various times in Apple's history there have been critical issues. You have yet to show what makes current bugs any different. > Became very visible with the > Apple Maps, but continued afterwards. Again, no evidence of a trend - just one buggy release out of many that came before it. > Totally rewriting mDNSresponder > (for what reason ?) and putting it in production before it was fully > tested is such an example. Does it actually do anything new ? You admit you are clueless as to why it was rewritten. Then you turn around and claim that it wasn't fully tested without knowing anything about how it was tested. You're blowing hot air from a position of pure ignorance. And you still have not shown a tend. All you have shown is that a buggy release of a software component happened like so many that came before it. > Similarly, Apple had properly working wi-fi software, and broke it. Now, > about 70% of the time that I open my laptop, I have to manually select > my home wi-fi network. This was something that worked before. The fact that shit breaks does not equate to a downward trend in quality. > That there be bugs in some totally new functionality (like call transfer > from hanset to computer) I can accept. But not when you start to see > long working functiosn start to break just because someone at Apple > decided the software had to not ony be rewritten, but beta tested in the > full release. You have no idea why these particular bugs came to be, and you have no idea to what extent they were tested before release. But more importantly, you have shown zero evidence that there is a downward trend in software quality. The fact that bugs exist isn't enough - bugs have always existed, and probably always will. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR