| I'm sorry, I hate to be a pain, but it's a pet peeve of mine. They weren't "glitches". They were defects. Glitches are errors that happen outside of the design parameters of the system. For example, when you touch the antennae on an AM radio and you hear a pop or buzz from your own electrical field in the radio. Defects are errors that occur within the design parameters. So a train that can't handle some snow on the tracks, or a national health insurance enrollment site that falls over after only a few users show up, those are defects. Bugs are a type of insect. Using the word "bug" to describe a defect implies that the "bug" showed up, an external factor that got in and gummed up the works or something. But that doesn't happen in software. The defects were always there. I think it's important to use the terminology correctly and make a habit of using it correctly because I think it puts the emphasis on the fact that we create the defects, and the defects were always there, they didn't just develop, they just had to be found. That's also why I don't like the term "software maintenance". When you have to take a site down for several hours every 3 months for "routine database maintenance", that's a defect in design, not just "changing the oil". It was our fault. Calling them "bugs" or "glitches" or "maintenance issues" diminishes that. |
http://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/September/9/
Convention has stuck which is why we have software debuggers, and the word bug in computer science has come to mean any unintended result, not just the presence of insect wildlife.
(I myself debugged a floppy drive in '87 which had an earwig stuck behind the read head backstop resulting in the read head being misaligned to the sectors)