News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by erikbye on Friday April 24, 2020 @03:39AM (#22965591)
> but let me not even count the ways in which software has failed me.

Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed.

Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by Veen on Friday April 24, 2020 @11:32AM (#22969071)
When someone pays for software, they are perfectly entitled to expect it to be fit for purpose. Failures don't have to cause major grief for me to be justifiably irritated and to expect redress. A conscientious developer should apologize for wasting people's time or selling them products that don't do what they are supposed to.
Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by Nicksil on Friday April 24, 2020 @04:02AM (#22965693)
>Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed.

Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. Here's a list for further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs

I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" is but we'd all do well to aim for 0 adversely-affected people as a result from using software we write.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by erikbye on Friday April 24, 2020 @04:49AM (#22965954)
Read my reply again, note especially the part "While this happens". Obviously I am acutely aware of what you are saying, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you link, so your comment is not only superfluous but also makes no sense, as I was asking OP if he was personally affected in such a way because he seemed bitter. Your reply does not answer this, and you should let him answer for himself.

> I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people"

I think my definition is about the same as every accepted definition of "very few", the number of people affected by such bugs falls within this definition, considering how many users software has.

> Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people.

5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by Nicksil on Friday April 24, 2020 @05:31PM (#22973134)
>5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

...

>I was asking OP if he was personally affected

So 5 people dead is insignificant, but a single person, adversely affected, is cause for concern?

Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by cutemonster on Sunday April 26, 2020 @06:34AM (#22986128)
There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.
Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by a1369209993 on Friday April 24, 2020 @02:44PM (#22971577)
> 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

Well, IIRC, there's Watership Down, a literal book, but I assume you meant that figuratively.

Re:I’ve made a conscious effort to stop apologizing for bugs... by holtalanm on Friday April 24, 2020 @11:49AM (#22969291)
not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.