On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:20:53PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing > > > hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is > > > similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the > > > least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is not > > > "free" (as in beer). > > > > Any commercial software company will tell you exactly the same thing > > about software: testing is not free. We're *still* here. Consider why > > this works (without resorting to things which are obviously not true, > > like "current hardware doesn't ship with (many) known bugs", or > > "proprietary software is more reliable"). > > The difference is that software testing is often "free" in a capital > sense. I can volunteer my time to test or write open source software, > and there is very little capital expense associated with it (my cable > modem, my electricity, my PC, etc., much of which has other uses in my > household). The commercial software companies use volunteers like this too, even on pure-proprietary stuff, and it's not what they're talking about when they say testing is expensive. > Testing hardware of this sort requires actually manufacturing it (which > is a capital expense) and requires various pieces of test equipment (the > purchase of which would also be a capital expense). One way or another, > someone will have to bear these expenses. And they say that about software too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature