On 9/17/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna / blurgle.ca> wrote:
> On 06-09-17, at 21:20, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE wrote:
> > Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> >> I would stress that strict back-compatibility,
> >> even with bugs, is generally the way to go (except for bugs that open
> >> security holes)
> > Big -1 there. BC with bugs? Ixnay.
> That would seriously depend on the bug. Some bugs, you know EXACTLY
> how they're going to react, and if it's relatively minor, why bother
> running the risk of introducing a different, worse bug in the process
> of fixing that minor bug? I mean shit, that's just silly. You need to
> realize that not all bugs need to be fixed, just as not all injuries
> need a doctor.

...or that fixing all the bugs will actually cause more problems for
your customers than they should otherwise cause. Raymond Chen -- an
excellent read even if you don't like Microsoft -- recently had a
piece about a bug in an embedded version of Samba that was taking
advantage of a bad bug in previous versions of Windows. Fixing it was
a huge problem for Microsoft, because they had customers who depended
on this product with embedded Samba -- and they weren't the type of
customers who could even think about upgrading the embedded software.

Not all bugs are worth the cost of fixing them. Even ones that cause
security holes may not be worth *fixing* as much as *sandboxing* if
you have enough dependent clients.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca