Stability is not a binary concept: 0 or 1, it is stable or unstable. No, it is a variable with a wide range. You can go from "can't boot the system" to "it never ever ever crashes".
If you program computers you already know it.

Do you spend the same time for testing-stability if you make a system to fly an airplane than if you program a computer game? Probably no, what's more the airplane company will include in their specifications: "STABILITY" at all costs. So stability indeed is a feature, and a feature to which you can dedicate more or less time, and deliver a system more stable or less stable.

Me like you would love to have a "never crashes" VFP 9, but Kevin is right to say that stability is a feature is he says that they are dedicating more % of their time than in previous versions, and if VFP 9 is going to be more stable.

>Why should stability be more important than before? It has always been important and should be a GIVEN.
>
>No need to put a spin on this, Ken. I'm a big fan of the FoxTeam and all the work you guys are doing. However, call stability a feature is just plain ridiculous.
>
>
>>Of course I'm not joking. We are considering stability even more important than before. When we ask customers what features they want to see added in VFP, often people reply "stability". So it is actually not me stating this as much as customers, we are just putting more effort into finding and fixing issues before release than we did in previous versions. This should not be confusing or misleading, it should be clear that releasing a stable version of the product is just as important if not more than adding new features to the product.