Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.aix:48965 comp.unix.bsd:15598 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7766 comp.unix.solaris:28447 comp.unix.unixware:15298
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!michaelv
From: michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Unix for PC
Date: 15 Dec 1994 21:35:16 GMT
Organization: HeadCandy Associates... Sweets for the lobes.
Lines: 56
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <MICHAELV.94Dec15153516@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
References: <199411210319.TAA18133@nic.cerf.net> <D0E32G.3x8@news.cern.ch>
<MICHAELV.94Dec10124723@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
<3cd8fo$ns5@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindbender.headcandy.iastate.edu
In-reply-to: lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com's message of 10 Dec 1994 22:01:28 GMT
In article <3cd8fo$ns5@fido.asd.sgi.com> lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com (Larry McVoy) writes:
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".
No, I think you missed *my* point. I'm not allowed to reveal the
inner workings, but suffice it to say that as many man-hours are spent
beating on the latest build as were put into coding that build. They
don't just make sure the binaries run and show the opening screen.
I think we are arguing about the definition of test and work. "It
boots" is not the same as testing, nor is running bunch of makes and
ftps, whatever.
Did I ever say that's how they tested? The testing is far far more
rigorous than this.
I'd love to "raise the bar" for the industry as a whole by having
someone out there describe their testing procedure that goes beyond
what I described.
It is being done beyond what you have described. I am not at liberty
to elaborate, unfortunately.
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.
It is much larger than *you* seem to think, however, and substantially
different from the Linux approach, at least in some cases.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@HeadCandy.com michaelv@iastate.edu
Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.
Working NetBSD ports: 386+PC, Mac, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4c, PC532
In progress: DEC pmax (MIPS R2k/3k), VAX, Sun4m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -