[log in to unmask] wrote:
>Speaking of horror stories of commercial code, i saw this today in
>the news from the microsoft trial and laughed my ass off...
>"Felten, who examined the secret "source code" for Windows 98 under a
>court order, said he had found 3,000 bugs marked by Microsoft
>programmers in the portion of Windows 98 he had examined -- and he
>had looked at only one-seventh of it."
>3000 bugs in 1/7th of the code!
That was not a count of the bugs. That was a count of the bugs that
Microsoft knew well enough to ascribe to a particular part of the
source code, but decided not to fix.
Certainly there are many good reasons for deciding not to fix a known
bug, especially as the release date approaches. But 3000 of them in
1/7 of the code seems excessive.