[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Thanks, I may have mis understood the original posting, paul Neil Williams wrote: >On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:25:43 +0000 >Paul Sutton <zleap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>How do you define fitness for purpose it was sold for, >> >> > >There are clear definitions for such terms - generally the description >of the item and any specific claims. > > >>if you buy a toaster then you use that for making toast, >> >> > >or other bread-related products (ask Talkie Toaster for a full list). > > > >>software on the other hand can be used for anything, >> >> > >Not true. A specific piece of software can only do one job. A word >processor cannot compile a kernel, a graphics program doesn't handle >DNS itself, nor can it wash your dishes or get you a beer. > > > >> a word >>processor to custom made software, if you ask too much of it >>sometimes that particular piece of software may fall over, and fail >>to perfom on that task, >> >> > >If that task is part of the claims of the program (as expressed by the >packaging / help documentation), then that is a bug. Even if it is not >specifically part of the claims of the program, a crash is ALWAYS a bug >because the program should handle invalid input with an error message, >not a crash. > > > >> which is why I think this disclaimer is >>important, also why we have acronyms like Your Mileage May Vary, >>you can't predict what someone will use the software for, and >>therefore can't make promises regarding perfomance. >> >> > >Rubbish. You cannot predict what a *modified* version of the software >could do but the programmer has to explicitly know what the software >can be used to do. If a user is able to use the program to do something >that the programmer did not anticipate, that's another bug - the >functionality should be documented and handled otherwise future updates >could cause it to be lost. > >Crashes are bugs, undocumented features are bugs, anything a program >does that is unexpected is also a bug. > > >>Anti Virus software is good at it's job, but only if kept up >>todate, at somepoint, a virus will come out that it does not know >>about and that may get through, now if a user has clicked on en >>e-mail attachment and activated the virus, the software fails you >>can't go blame the anti virus vendor, >> >> > >That's different, that is a clearly documented part of the use of the >program. > > > >>same would go for filtering software, it can't filter every site out >>there, new sites appear all the time, so the software does the best >>job it can' but they need the disclaimer just in case something nasty >>gets through. >> >> > >Heuristics. > >-- > >Neil Williams >============= >http://www.data-freedom.org/ >http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ >http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ > > -- http://www.zleap.net http://www.openoffice.org http://www.linux.org -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.1 GIT d S: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L++ W++ N+ W--- O! V! PS+ Y! t+++ 5 X+++ R tv- b- DI! D++ G e H! r! z? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK---- -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html