Larry's rules of software engineering, Part 3: "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

Larry Osterman s WebLog Larry s rules of software engineering Part 3 | debt solutions

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:04:04 GMT

PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=11390

Larry Osterman s WebLog Larry s rules of software engineering Part 3 | internet marketing tools

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:15:06 GMT

PingBack from http://einternetmarketingtools.info/story.php?id=16661

Larry Osterman s WebLog Larry s rules of software engineering Part 3 | Insomnia Cure

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:35:13 GMT

PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=1857

Zero Defects Programming.

Bill's House O Insomnia — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:48:00 GMT

De nuevo regreso en 2 dias mientras...

Andres Bernal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:37:00 GMT

re: Larry's rules of software engineering, Part 3: "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

Florian — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:16:00 GMT

He, I like "Gift of the Larri".
And raise you a "Larry Osterman Lounge" or short "Larry's Lounge".

re: Larry's rules of software engineering, Part 3: "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

foxyshadis — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:13:00 GMT

This reminds me of the time near the end of 2k's torturous journey to release when a project manager started downgrading a few bugs at a time every day to make it look like bugs were being fixed every day and everything was on track to an early release. This is what ZD will do to people already near/on the edge, which isn't fantastic publicity. =p

re: Larry's rules of software engineering, Part 3: "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

Norman Diamond — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:24:00 GMT

> "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

Absolutely true. But that is no excuse for the following unconscionable garbage:

> For example, bugs that are older than 2
> years may be lower priority than new bugs,

A Windows bug that causes the loss of the entire contents of a hard disk partition remains as has the same priority 9 years after release as it was 2 years after release. Hard disk partitions have not taken advantage of the intervening 7 years to learn how to protect themselves from what Windows bugs will do to them.

> security bugs (or potential security bugs)
> are higher priority than other bugs

Fine, but that's because they're important to begin with. The importance of a security bug depends on the amount of damage it can do and whether users can protect themselves from its effects, the importance does not depend on how many years ago the bug was released (included in products sold) or first discovered or first exploited.

Step into the light

Cyrus — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:23:00 GMT

<a target="_new" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn/archive/2004/10/11/240666.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/cyrusn/archive/2004/10/11/240666.aspx</a>

re: Larry's rules of software engineering, Part 3: "Zero Defects" doesn't result in zero defects

Scott — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:16:00 GMT

Yes. Instead of Microsoft Windows, it should be called Microsoft's computer operating system.

MS Word can be renamed MS Document Formatter.

The iPod should be called "Apple Audio Device"