A Quote by Wietse Venema

My reply is: the software has no known bugs, therefore it has not been updated. — © Wietse Venema
My reply is: the software has no known bugs, therefore it has not been updated.
Microsoft knows that reliable software is not cost effective. According to studies, 90% to 95% of all bugs are harmless. They're never discovered by users, and they don't affect performance. It's much cheaper to release buggy software and fix the 5% to 10% of bugs people find and complain about.
Second law: The complexity barrier. Software complexity (and therefore that of bugs) grows to the limits of our ability to manage that complexity.
With software products, it is usual to find that the software has major `bugs' and does not work reliably for some users... The lay public, familiar with only a few incidents of software failure, may regard them as exceptions caused by exceptionally inept programmers. Those of us who are software professionals know better; the most competent programmers in the world cannot avoid such problems.
I'm not of the opinion that all software will be open source software. There is certain software that fits a niche that is only useful to a particular company or person: for example, the software immediately behind a web site's user interface. But the vast majority of software is actually pretty generic.
I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.
I have to laugh when I receive newsletters from major personalities and when you hit reply, you get a 'do-not-reply' address. It's ridiculous! Don't you want your customers to reply to you?
There's a tendency to make jazzy educational software that's very uniform and therefore just like school. I'd like to see a company develop software for rebellious kids who don't want to go to school.
Writing software that's safe even in the presence of bugs makes the challenge even more interesting.
There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed.
If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.
There's only one trick in software, and that is using a piece of software that's already been written.
Adding last-minute features, whether in response to competitive pressure, as a developer's pet feature, or on the whim of management, causes more bugs in software than almost anything else.
I think that we have been able to demonstrate that we cannot just consume software, that we can create software that can be used all over the world, that we have that kind of talent in Africa.
Wit and puns aren't just décor in the mind; they're essential signs that the mind knows it's on, recognizes its own software, can spot the bugs in its own program.
Cultural conditioning is like bad software. Over and over it's diddled with and re-written so that it can just run on the next attempt. But there is cultural hardware, and it's that cultural hardware, otherwise known as authentic being, that we are propelled toward by the example of the shaman and the techniques of the shaman. ... Shamanism therefore is a call to authenticity.
The software patent problem is not limited to Mono. Software patents affect everyone writing software today.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!