[linux-elitists] What to do about cluebatting such companies, that require possibly *YEARS* old Distros
Wed Jan 26 14:57:17 PST 2005
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 16:45, glen martin wrote:
> Aaron takes issue with the word 'improperly'.
> It is a question of goals. In a large telecom
> manufacturer at which I once worked, tests were
> fully automated and thorough. More people wrote
> tests than wrote the system under test. This was
> because for that environment bugs were simply
> unacceptable period. There are other environments
> that are the same: nuclear reactor control systems,
> radiation therapy machines, etc. The economics don't
> permit error. The word 'improperly' absolutely
> applies in this sort of context.
I would agree, and yet how often did that telco upgrade the OS on their
> For the rest of us, it is an optimisation
> problem. Cost of defects vs cost of rigor at
> initial development time.
I disagree. For the rest of us, it's a matter of the cost of upgrading
vs the benefits of incremental versions of the system software. In most
cases, it's simply not a win to upgrade more than once every few years
(not counting security updates, of course).
More information about the linux-elitists