Legato, on 11 June 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:
I think that is why most software companies just releases updates with little testing behind. Why pay a guy $40 an hour to test how it should work, when you can have John Q Smith test it for free. He is guarenteed to mess something up by doing something he shouldn't, he is the public, he is an idiot...anyone working retail can tell you that. Then you just patch the issues found later.
As someone who does network/systems administration for customer environments, I fully know that John Q Smith is a moron who will do horrible, horrible things if left to their own devices.
The problem with that testing mindset is liability that may (if any) arrive from misuse/problems caused. Then again, that's why most objects have really angry disclaimers all over them and/or their packaging. As a result, there really is a lot of testing that goes into applications with a higher risk/liability associated with them (such as the software for medical equipment, there was a big big lawsuit way back about some cancer-treatment radiation gear that had some bad code that scared everyone working remotely in that field), and those learning computer science get exposed to the ideas of how to test their stuff. It's just the lower-end "oh well, that sucks" stuff that gets ignored and tested by the public.