From: Ellen K. 

Oh please.

No matter how much you test, there will still be bugs in the initial release.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:11:36 +0100, Adam Flinton
 wrote in message :

>Rich wrote:
>
>>    It may not be economical if testing is simply not something that
>> these folks care about.  The actual change is a tiny part of releasing
>> an update.
>>
>
>Indeed. MS have to be masters of major updates as they have to do it all
>the time.
>
>However wrt testing the best time & place to do that is before it
>becomes part of the product & not after it's been released which is what
>the openbsd people tend towards vs the marketing driven cycle in
>evidence wrt MSOS'es.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>     "John Beamish" 
wrote in message
>>     news:40f69bc7{at}w3.nls.net...
>>     (I'm not running Linux.)
>>
>>     I find that statement "economical with the truth". 
Assume that you know
>>     which module to go to.  Check it out, make the change, check it in,
>>     recompile it, do regression testing (assume the change works and doesn't
>>     break anything), update module documentation, update changelog, update
>>     bugtracking.   In any serious environment, that's a day's work -- not an
>>     hour.
>>
>>     What happens next?  Are Linux users expected to d/l the recompiled
>>     module or
>>     is there a process to compare the previous version with the new
>>     version and
>>     generate some kind of hex patch which gets downloaded and applied?
>>     Or what?
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     "Adam Flinton" >     > wrote in message
>>
>>      > Security information moves very fast in cracker circles.
On the other
>>      > hand, our experience is that coding and releasing of
proper security
>>      > fixes typically requires about an hour of work -- very fast fix
>>      > turnaround is possible. Thus we think that full
disclosure helps the
>>      > people who really care about security."
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > etc.
>>      >
>>      > Adam
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5