|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ |
|
|
|
Ye Ol' Pi Shack Blunder Tracking |
|
|
|
================================ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is SysOp's place to keep track of blunders and wishes for the Ye |
|
|
|
Ol' Pi Shack project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**NOTE:** The use of "Blunder", instead of "bugs", comes from two |
|
|
|
places: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. [Gary Kildall](https://computerhistory.org/blog/in-his-own-words-gary-kildall/) |
|
|
|
in his book "Computer Connections", humurously points out, that |
|
|
|
"errors" is not the right word for broken software (*bugs*) |
|
|
|
since "error" in mathematical terms is a small percentage of |
|
|
|
deviance from perfection. Most software "errors" take far more |
|
|
|
effort to fix then it did to write them. Hence they should be |
|
|
|
called "blunders". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. [Grace Hopper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper) is |
|
|
|
attributed to first applying the term "bug" to computers. In the |
|
|
|
photograph of her log (at that link) you will see its a physical |
|
|
|
bug that had caused a physical, ie hardware, malfunction, not |
|
|
|
software. Yes, the hardware malfunction caused the software to |
|
|
|
malfunction, but the "bug" was still a hardware malfunction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you see, a "computer bug" is a hardware thing and problems with |
|
|
|
software are too large to be considered "errors" so I'm using |
|
|
|
Kildall's suggestion of "blunder". :-D |