att & osf

[Henry Spencer]

In article <2843 at ttrdc.UUCP> levy at ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>Anyone with reason would conclude that it's in AT&T's financial interest
>(GAA, there's that DIRTY word again :-) to have quality code, and that poor
>quality code can only hurt AT&T.  If you're going to hint at a conspiracy,
>you're going to have to come up with other evidence than code bugs.

I'm not talking conspiracy, actually, just a combination of incompetence
and utter disregard for problems caused to anyone outside AT&T.  For example,
people have been having trouble with NULL pointers in System V for years,
but it's only now -- when partnership with Sun makes AT&T care about the
issue for its *own* purposes -- that something is being done about it.

Anyone with reason would indeed conclude that it's in AT&T's financial
best interests to have quality code.  This is a sad comment on the degree
of rationality found in AT&T management.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu