> On Tue, 29 Mar 1994 12:40:25 -0600 Virginia Metze said:
> >I for one am unimpressed by claims that software is easy to modify
> >and fix.  I don't expect to have to modify or fix software.
> >Professionally done software does not require an in-house tinkerer/
> >hacker.
> Virgina:
>
> You don't make a living maintaining systems software, do you?  For those of
> us who do, "ease of modification and fixing" is *very* important.  I have
> *never* seen any piece of significant software that was bug-free.  And I've
> been in this business for 15 years.
>
        Nothing is bug free.  But having to do a lot of local
        maintenance of software is NOT good.  No one can afford
        the staff to do it.  My budget is approximately the same as
        it was over 5 years ago -- and we have 25 times more equipment.
        I am not exaggerating.  Some installation of patches from the
        vendor is essential, and one will always have to spend time
        diagnosing problems, but the amount of patches and effort
        required to run some of the public domain software out there
        is not normal or desirable.   I am not saying that software
        vendors are perfect; I am saying that in general, the situation
        is better when one purchases software from a reliable vendor.
 
> Listserv has bugs.  Listserv has places where it needs to be modified to fit
> into our local environment.  Fortunately, Eric designed it so that I can
> make the modifications, and Eric can ship fixes that "drop in" easily.  So
> if there's a problem, I can have it *fixed* within 24 hours, and have on
> occasion (Thanks Eric for dealing with some of the screwy things we've broken
> Listserv with).
 
        Yes, software has bugs.  But it should not come to
        the purchaser with 50 patches to be installed and
        problematic support.  And it should come with as few
        bugs as possible.  Fixes should be available not from
        the local hacker but from the company.  This is not
        a dream.  It is possible.   It used to be done.
        I am not talking about listserv above, incidentally.
>
> As an alternate example, the IBM 'TCP/IP for VM' product is generally admitted
> by all, including IBM, to have a terribly broken software service scheme.  The
> result is that a site can buy a new 3172 Ethernet controller for their IBM
> mainframe, and then have to invest several man *MONTHS* in order to straighten
> out all the pre-requisite patches and fixes in order to install the patch that
> provides support for the 3172.
>
 
> Those interested in this topic should read Lauren Ruth Wiener's "Digital
> Woes - Why We Should Not Depend on Software".
>
>
>                                   Valdis Kletnieks
>                                   Computer Systems Engineer
>                                   Virginia Polytechnic Institute
>