| > But what's the point of showing it? To reason about reliability and its impact on costs. > Real systems have 99%+ uptime, or they aren't deployed. Uptime is not correctness. > failure rates are astonishingly low [...]
> I don't see you arguing with that, because you can't argue with it. It's the facts! No, it's your perception. These are facts: - https://www.cvedetails.com/ - https://www.debian.org/Bugs/ - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/query.cgi - https://bugzilla.kernel.org/describecomponents.cgi - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/query.cgi - https://bugs.kde.org/describecomponents.cgi - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list do a search in any of these issue tracker and you will be overwhelmed with facts. Now, I agree that, with huge efforts and costs, over decades many developers and companies managed to go beyond the 99% correctness on some projects. But with simpler systems and designs, the cost of reaching such level of quality (that most of software do not even aim to reach) would be a tiny fraction. > Not doing "the right thing" works. Doing "the right thing" generally doesn't I wonder if you read the article at all. I proposed a third style: simplex sigillum veri. |