In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Thufir
<hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:00:26 GMT
<_xQ%i.6847$PE.3848@pd7urf1no>:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:40:10 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Still, that's the only metric for success that makes any sense at all,
>> from a business standpoint.
>
>
> Seriously, what's the mindset of "it's financially
> successful, therefore of quality?"
That is an entirely different question, and a false one.
The issue is not quality, but profits.
Of course, ideally they would be linked; the general
idea should be that the public buys quality products,
and therefore their manufacturers prosper. The trouble is
that the public is not all that well equipped to perceive
the inner quality of what is essentially a "black box"
problem (though they can see some issues with Vista and
aren't exactly enthusiastically embracing it -- more like
resignedly living with it).
Such is the power of marketing, methinks; Microsoft's
very good at selling crap, and Linux is the diamond in the
rough that nobody cares to look for because the Microsoft
billboard is so conveniently placed near thereto, and the
crap is just coherent enough to make a decent golf ball...
:-)
> I suppose it a pointless question, that's the logic and
> it's pointless to "debate" its merits. Oh well.
At this point I'm tempted to suggest that each and
every Linux distro include a binary code analyzer. :-)
Unfortunately, that's another "black box" problem --
though certain tools from Rational Rose (Purify) might be
of interest here; both $EMPLOYER and $FORMER_EMPLOYER have
used them in an attempt to isolate trouble spots.
>
>
>
> -Thufir
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
