| |||||||||||||
This isn't either/or. Phase in such changes instead!This isn't either/or. Phase in such changes instead!Posted Nov 11, 2010 15:36 UTC (Thu) by jwb (guest, #15467)In reply to: This isn't either/or. Phase in such changes instead! by dwheeler Parent article: Glibc change exposing bugs
I assure you that even if all those pointless hoops had been jumped through, Flash would still have been broken when the switch finally happened. You would simply have been punishing the users and free software developers for nothing.
(Log in to post comments)
This isn't either/or. Phase in such changes instead! Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:40 UTC (Thu) by sgros (subscriber, #36440) [Link]
This is very interesting... people don't read specs, at least not carefully and tend to blindly generalize.
There are so many broken programs because someone tested something in a specific environment and it happened to work in that particular case and that test finishes with the broad conclusion it will always work.
Network is another example. I heard people, writing networking code that directly accesses Ethernet, claim that frames smaller than 46 octets are perfectly OK. Yes, they are, until some user starts using that code in different environment that is strict with respect to specs.
In the end, I'm not for helping bad programs and lazy programmers (lazy in negative, not positive sense!)
|
|||||||||||||