This kind of thing pisses me off

Sorry, but your comment of 5025 characters exceeds the maximum character length of 4300. Please go back, shorten it, and try posting it again.

Hello? This is my journal, so I'm not trying to do a DOS attack on it.

Entered as a new post because of character limit

In response to b0rg:

Risking to start another flame I can tell you one thing: microsoft have a luxury of huge amount of ppl testing their code for bugs, and publically announcing those bugs.

[Cut to the scene in Aliens where Ripley straps the flamethrower to the combined assault rifle / grenade launcher.]

I wonder why otherwise educated people take some strange (well for me) pleasure in slagging the presentation language of (surprise, surprise) MS CEOs?

"Otherwise educated"? You really do want to play with fire, don't you?

Actually, I'm not a "grammar nazi", I'm a semantics nazi. I can quibble about grammar points (in fact my job demands that I do) but I generally come down on the side of flexibility: I loathe made-up grammar rules (like not splitting infinitives or not ending a sentence with a preposition); I quite like the "so ... NOT" structure, even if I don't recommend it to my students; I start sentences with co-ordinate conjunctions. What I can't stand is sloppy semantics, especially when used to avoid saying anything definite. You are right that MS executives are not the only offenders; I picked those two examples because I read press releases by software companies, but I have no reason to read Fortune or Forbes. I imagine you're right, though - I've heard some terrible things from managers in my school. (I'm in the unusual position of working in a university, but in an English department which is staffed mainly by people from the commercial world of TESOL, which has adopted management-speak in an attempt to give business respectability to a profession that was founded by backpackers.)

microsoft have a luxury of huge amount of ppl testing their code for bugs, and publically announcing those bugs. Which in turn being fixed.

So why are there so many bugs? I'm not talking about bugs in applications - anyone can write a buggy application - I'm talking about the OS. I used the original, not the second edition of Windows 98, and it was enough to get me off my arse and install Linux. Netscape was crashing every twenty minutes. Sure, Netscape in those days was buggy, and it also crashed sometimes when I was in Linux. The difference was that when it crashed in Linux, I didn't have to reboot, because the OS was stable. Then Windows 98 Second Edition came out - a bugfix trumpeted as an improved version. I use it occasionally, and it's still buggy.

Recently I moved offices and had to deal with networking a computer which some poor sucker had installed XP Home on (apparently we even paid for it). I spent a whole day trying to get it to accept printing commands from Samba, only to find out that this was impossible in the Home version. I then tried to set it up so that I could virus-scan it from my Linux box, as I do with the Win98 computers in our office. No deal. Next week it got a virus - something trivial like Sobig. Er, hello? Bugfixes? Trustworthy Computing?

Being in software for about 12 years I can tell you another thing: every computer program (well apart from hello world) has bugs in it

Hello World and TeX ;-)

it's only a matter of finding and fixing them. Which they do.

Which they don't, or if they do, they make new bugs in the process. Last time I was home, I had a look at my mother's computer, and downloaded about a year's-worth of MS security patches and updates. The result was that Windows broke and I had to reformat and reinstall from scratch (that's not me being bloody-minded; I had my brother, who has almost thirty years' experience in programming, look at it). I only managed to save her data files by installing Linux on a different partition and copying them over. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't make people pay good money for it. If I download some alpha software from Sourceforge or Freshmeat, I expect problems, but if I pay $100 for anything, I expect it to work. If someone sold me a microwave oven which burnt my food, I'd ask for my money back. Why should an operating system be different?

The biggest problem in software as I can see is not the software itself and not the programmers - it's the damn users who always moan for the reason "we want that next best feature", or just moan with no reason at all :-)

This is nonsense. I realise that users can sometimes be a problem (I had to work with one person who was death to computers - she once called me in to deal with a computer "problem" caused by her accidentally going into the BIOS settings). However, it is not users who demand the next best feature. New features are pushed on users by software companies who need to push the latest verison on them. The average Word user uses a tiny fraction of the available features, and usually doesn't even know about them: all they want is a smart typewriter (anyone who wants to do real typesetting uses something like Quark or LaTeX). The typical computer user wants to surf the Net, send emails, play games and write stuff. They do not want their computer to crash; they do not want to have to pay for anti-virus software or firewalls; they do not want an "experience". In other words, they have no reason to use Windows.