Re: Gain-maximization debate

[Glenn Bacon <gcbacon@roadrunner.com>]

Michael C. Richardson wrote:

>>>>>> "Bacon" == Y2K Moderator <i-y2k-mod@phil.gn.apc.org> writes:
>    Bacon> Your avalanche metaphor is flawed.  When most of the Y2K problem
>    Bacon> was being created, few had any notion that their 2 digit years
>    Bacon> would be around at the end of the century.  They did not intend to
>    Bacon> build permanent housing.  Your scenario invokes a level of
>
>  This is like saying "it is okay to erect a tent in the avalanche
>zone because you are too cheap to buy better land and real
>construction materials. If it happens to become a permanent structure,
>then we'll get the public purse to bail you out"
>
>  The questions are:
>        1. why did they not intend to build permanent "housing"
>    2. just because it isn't permanent, is that an excuse to do a
>    shitty job?
>

1- Because programs and hardware (despete the later wisdom of the Unix
crowd) had historically been completely replaced on a 3-5 year cycle.

2- The perception of shittyness probably changes over time.

>   Are you telling me that Microsoft Windows 95 and 98 *NEITHER OF
> WHICH IS Y2K OUT OF THE BOX* were designed a "temporary" housing? Just
> two and five years before the end of the millenium?
>
>   I'll answer my own questions:
>     1. permanent housing, i.e. computer hardware and programs that
>        last do not need to upgraded every year.
>         2. It is cheaper to do a shitty job.
>

No, it appears that Microsoft just plain screwed up.  If you have ever
managed a program product or read the software engineering
litterature, you know it is not cheaper to do a shitty job.  The cost
of subsequent bug-fixing and customer hand-holding far outweighs the
cost of earlier defect removal.  The gain-maximizer who wants to stay
in business does it right the first time.

>   You are telling me that that this isn't a gain-maximization for the
> people designing the hardware/software? Yes, it screws the end user.
> But, thanks to Mr. Gates, the end user gets screwed so often now they
> have come to demand it!
>

Nonsense!  What is possibly in it for Microsoft to screw up?  I
suspect they are starting to run into the complexity morass that other
aging systems have encountered.