*BSD News Article 39285


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.unix.aix:48693 comp.unix.bsd:15535 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7707 comp.unix.solaris:28159 comp.unix.unixware:15064
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!hookup!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate
From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Unix for PC
Date: 10 Dec 1994 23:43:29 GMT
Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman  Montana
Lines: 74
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3cdef1$q87@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
References: <199411210319.TAA18133@nic.cerf.net> <D0E32G.3x8@news.cern.ch> <MICHAELV.94Dec10124723@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> <3cd8fo$ns5@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsd.coe.montana.edu

In article <3cd8fo$ns5@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
Larry McVoy <lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>Michael L. VanLoon (michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com) wrote:
>: In article <3c81c7$h1o@fido.asd.sgi.com> lm@fubar (Larry McVoy) writes:
>
>:    Nate Williams (nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu) wrote:
>:    : C'mon Dan.  Commercial OS software testing is completely different than
>:    : free software testing in general.  The reason Linux and FreeBSD have
>
>:    I hate to burst your bubble, but I worked at Sun in the systems group for
>:    a few years (and then in the server group).  They had *no* regression 
>:    test other than the binaries that shipped with the OS.  Since 5.x,
>:    they use the POSIX test suites but those (were) are pathetic and 
>:    certainly don't cover everything.
>
>: I've worked with a certain very large software company and it is not
>: done like this at all.  They do extensive testing constantly during
>: the development cycle, before anyone outside the company even sees it.
>
>I think you are misunderstanding the point.  Certainly Sun, and every
>other big or small company, will run the new release internally before
>shipping it and will "test" that the binaries "work".

>:    I hate to burst your bubble, but I worked at Sun in the systems group for
>:    a few years (and then in the server group).  They had *no* regression 
>:    test other than the binaries that shipped with the OS.  Since 5.x,

IMHO, this is totally contradictory to your statement I've pulled down
for reference sake.  The latter statement implies there is NO testing
done except to make sure the binaries 'run'.

>The original point was that Linux is less tested than the major vendor's
>releases.  That may be true but the gap between Linux and a commercial
>release is much smaller than you seem to think.

As was pointed out in the Linux newsgroups, the 'it compiles' is
sometimes all the testing some of the releases of Linux get, and some of
the releases don't even get that far.  This is (hopefully) far from what
some of the commercial releases get as far as testing goes.

Yes, release 1.0.0 of Linux was tested heavily, but the point being made
is that 'releases' of Linux happen all the time.  These are touted by
many Linux activists as one of the great strengths about Linux.  'Bugs
get fixed fast'.

My point is that just because something is claimed to be fixed in a
sub-release doesn't mean it *IS* fixed, or that it's a correct fix. 
With a commercial release you are at least given some guarantee of
nominal usefulness and usability, but with the individual 'bug-fix'
releases of Linux there is NO guarantee.  That's why it's called
beta-testing. :)

For people that *need* to have stable and usable OS, they either must
stick with Linux 1.0 which will not work in many network applications,
or they can run the 'patch of the day' and hope nothing critical breaks
as bugs are being fixed.  The former won't cut it in a large number of
installations, and the latter is too time consuming to be considered
feasible by companies that consider an operating system a tool rather
than rather than an end unto itself.

Linux, along with FreeBSD is an OS developed and supported by people
that don't get paid, and as such don't have the same motivation to fix
bugs as someone whose livliehood depends on having a good product. 
Capitalsism with all its warts is a pretty good motivator.


Nate


-- 
nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu     |  FreeBSD dude and all around tech.
nate@cs.montana.edu          |  weenie.
work #: (406) 994-5980       |  Unemployed, looking for permanant work in
home #: (406) 586-0579       |  CS/EE field.