3 posts • joined 8 Jun 2007
Really enjoyed that review. Can't believe I missed it at the time.
Your point of enhancement requests is of course correct. However no wonder people get confused if everything gets labeled a bug. This really hacks me off about things like Bugzilla etc where enhancement requests have "bug" numbers etc and are called bugs. It's not a bug so don't call it that or at least don't be surprised when people get confused.
Want a new icon? Is NOT a bug. The developers should not call it that.
It's important to have the distinction between a bug and a request especially for estimating potential delivery dates and for high level numbers. If people are confused, it's the mechanism for tracking issues that's at fault because they have redefined what a bug is.
The points about patches always being needed in the previous are fair enough, but trying to hide the number of vulnerabilities is clearly about making things seem less bad than what they are.
Sure Firefox needs patched too, but you've just lost the ability to compare the number of vulnerabilities found. So for Matt, in 3 months times you can't say that Firefox doesn't offer anything better, because you won't know how insecure IE has been.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...