I sort of agree, but not entirely. The problem is that the end user (developer in the case of devel tools) is not part of the equation. If there are known bugs, and known workarounds, and there must be for priorities to based on them, then that information should ship with the product. As far as I can tell, it does not, and subsequently our time is wasted when we run into those issues. The idea that MS's (for example) time is too valuable to waste on low priority bugs, but that the time I have to spend wrestling with them when I hit them is worth nothing, is an issue as far as I'm concerned.

I have to wonder - cumulatively, how much more or less time is wasted by all of the end user developers on those bugs in relation to the time that might have been 'wasted' by the software producer in fixing the bugs.

I think that if the end user ever becomes part of the equation, we'll all be a lot happier.

Alan

>Gerry,
>I believe the opinion is shared by more than one person on one product.
>
>IMO, it's really all about priority. Yes there are bugs that have been left over for years. However, it sounds like there are also work arounds for those bugs that have existed for almost as long. If there is a "relatively straight-forward" work around, then the priority drops. It's that simple.
>
>In a utopian society, we could fix all the bugs found and also implement all the enhancements wanted. This isn't Utopia. Priorities are given and level of effort (LOE) is determined. If the LOE is high for a given bug and the priority is low (which it will be if there is a work around), that bug may exist for several development cycles.
>
>Just my $0.02.
>
>>This represents "one person" on "one product line" (kudos to him) ... and "one bug"; I wouldn't take it as an all pervasive philosophy/attitude across MS.
>>
>>I'm still creating work-arounds for VFP 3.0 bugs that (I guess) MS has deemed "too expensive" to fix (boo hoo).
>>
>>What's next ? ... It will be "un-american" to ask for (more) robust software ?
>>
>>Yep ... let's all sit back now and assume MS knows / does best ...
>>
>>Sorry, Garrett ... I don't ship software with "known" bugs, particularly in subsequent releases; and I won't buy into the concept that it's an acceptable way to run a business ... if you care about your users ...
>>
>>>Joe Bork wrote an interesting defense of why Microsoft would ship a product with known bugs. I recommend it.