Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Monday 15 May 2006 16:21 \__
>
>>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>
>>>> But don't try and disguise this as having some sort of relevancy
>>>> towards Linux. The [news] where MS is giving their developers a
>>>> bonus to fix Vista bugs is related to Linux how again?
>>>
>>> Not that Roy "The Liar" Schestowitz would ever mention that a
>>> bounty is paid for finding bugs in the public domain/OSS program
>>> TeX.
>
> You are yet to prove I am a liar (but bear in mind that Larry is the
> only Windows sidler to whom I reply). As I said earlier in a
> different context, just because you don't like news that I deliver
> (re-post rather) doesn't make me a liar.
What does make you a liar are your lies about Windows, and the lies about
the content of the news articles you link to.
I ended up plonking your news posts because so many of them failed to
deliver the news you stated or implied in the thread title.
> Back to point: shame on you! A check for 2 dollars 56 cents (which is
> a joke by the way... 8^2) is no true reward and most people frame
> these checks rather than cash in.
The reward is in the money, or in the signed Knuth check, or in the "fame"
for finding a TeX bug. Whichever, the fact is people are given a bonus for
finding/fixing bugs in an open source program. It's not the only one:
Mozilla had a bug bounty in place for a while.
Not that you would ever show the intellectual honesty (you're a Linux
advocate, after all) to criticize any open source organization for doing
what you impugn MS for doing.
(since I killfiled your news posts, I'm assuming it was you Larry Qualig was
referring to)
>> I think that TeX is a bit different. (Will Windows ever have as few
>> bugs as TeX?) Here Donald Knuth is trying to show how rock-solid TeX
>> is that he's willing to put his own money on the line to anyone who
>> can find a bug. In Vistas case I don't think the issue is "finding
>> bugs" but rather getting them all fixed.
>
>
> It is merely an indicator of a state where many remain in tact, yet
> to be found. They require a lot of rigour due to the irreversible
> complexity of the system (needs a 60% re-write). A modular system
> need not /necessarily/ be tested in its integrated form as an
> almighty Vista beta. Its constituent parts can be exhausitively
> tested for boundary conditions and banged on rather hard by its
> implementers and testers. Think X.org or OpenSSH. These babies never
> ever crash on me unexpectedly.
Good Gawd! Now you're the only Linux user in the universe.
Results 1 - 10 of about 20,200,000 for Linux X crashes. (0.28 seconds)
>> I'm sure there's some OSS example of this... I just don't think that
>> TeX is that example.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
|
|
