The 80/20 rule illustrated?

One per cent bugs cause half of Microsoft errors : HindustanTimes.com

“About 20 per cent of the bugs cause 80 per cent of all errors, and – this is stunning to me – one per cent of bugs cause half of all errors.”

from Steve Ballmer’s comments on some recent analysis of customer-reported bugs. Contrast this with a tidbit from David Pogue NYTimes column for today:

I agree enthusiastically that software writers (and hardware guys) should never release a product until they observe a bunch of “slightly less capable than average users” wrestle with the product for the first time. Programmers should be bound and gagged, with their eyes and ears taped open, behind at least 15 users from their targeted user pools, just to watch these “zeta testers” grapple with the product for the first time, fresh out of the box.

a failed experiment

I decided, in solidarity with my long-suffering wife, to give up caffienated beverages for a few days. She has herself wired for the stuff such that giving it up means headaches and general malaise. I don’t have that problem, though I drink much more of it.

I think I would have made it just fine, except it got cold and I realized one of the reasons, perhaps the primary reason, why many of us in the Northwest drink coffee and tea, is to get warm. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go fix myself a mocha . . . . .

trusted by whom??

Weblog Entry – 10/01/2002: “Mac OS X Digital Rights Panel”

[ . . . . ] VP of MPAA said, basic challenge is how to we turn “a personal computer into a trusted entertainment appliance.”

Tim [O’Reilly]: They’re looking for the users to trust it or the studios to trust it? (Laughter.)

This has been my question about this issue, especially MSFT’s involvement with it: a company with their track record for reliability and security using the word “trust” as an advective for one of its initiatives is ludicrous. I think the only DRM issue they’re concerned with is their own license revenue, hence the activation stuff with Windows XP. Treat your customers as potential thieves and see if they notice.

Seen here

scumware sounds pretty accurate

New Software Quietly Diverts Sales Commissions

After conducting a detailed analysis of the software, [Erik Peterson] concluded that the TopMoxie program was intricately designed to substitute its affiliate identification code for that of other sites as transactions were made. He said that the program remained on the computer even if the user removed the original LimeWire music sharing software. “I don’t buy their explanation,” he said. “What kind of accident is that?”

Mr. Petersen also pointed to a statement made in an online forum where the technology was discussed, in which a LimeWire developer characterized accusations that the software diverts money as “pretty accurate,” but said, “While I agree that this is really a bit of a scam, it is a way for us to pay salaries while not adversely affecting our users.”

I was just reviewing my Amazon Affiliate statements (I’ve made $5.15 so far, thanks), and discovered a link to this story. Apparently, some companies have decided their business model is to route sales commissions from affiliates like me to themselves. You might come here, read about something I liked, clickthrough to it at Amazon, and the commission goes to one of these other companies who had nothing to do with the transaction. They just worm their way in through some “shopping software” but removing it doesn’t solve the problem: the diversions continue.

Gee, when I was a kid we called that stealing. Oh, they say the purchaser is told their commission will go to their new friend, rather than the person who brought them to Amazon. But at that point what’s the buyer’s option? Can they reset the affiliate code? They can only not buy the item they came for if they want to be fair to the referring site. Maybe that is the right thing to do . . . . .