[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:43 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:05:44 +0200, Kasper Adel said:
> (Disclaimer - I've never filed a bug report with Cisco or Juniper,
> but I've spent 3 decades filing bugs with almost everybody else in
> the computer industry, it seems... Questions like the ones you asked
> are almost always pointless unless the asker and answerer are sharing
> a set of base assumptions. In other words, "which one is best/worst?"
> is a meaningless question unless you either tell us what *your* criteria
> are in detail, or are willing to listen to advice that uses other
> criteria (without stating how they're different from yours).
I tried to put details and criteria below and yes i am mainly interested in
Juniper, Cisco, Alcatel and Huawei Routers and Switches, mostly High End
Equipment and yes i am willing to listen to advice on criteria, why wouldnt
I :) ?
> > 1) Which vendor has more bugs than others, what are the top 3
> More actual bugs, more known and acknowledged bugs, or more serious bugs
> actually affect day to day operations in a major manner?
What i wanted to ask is from the field experience of experts on the alias if
there is a clear winner on which vendor has throughout history shown more
bugs impacting operation and interrupting traffic....poor written code or
bad internal testing, can we have some sort of a general assumption here or
that is not possible?
> The total number of actual bugs for each vendor is probably unknownable,
> than "there's at least one more in there". The vendor probably can produce
> number representing how many bug reports they've accepted as valid. The
> vendor's number is guaranteed to be different than the customer's number -
> divergent, *and why*, probably tells you a lot about the vendor and the
> customer base. The vendor may be difficult about accepting a bug report, or
> customer base may be clueless about what the product is supposed to be
> and calling in a lot of non-bugs - almost every trouble ticket closed with
> status is one of these non-bugs. If there's a lot of non-bugs, it usually
> indicates a documentation/training issue, not an actual software quality
> And of course, bug severity *has* to be considered. "Router falls over if
> somebody in Zimbabwe sends it a christmas-tree packet" is different than
> CLI insists on a ;; where a ; should suffice". You may be willing to
> or work around dozens or even hundreds of the latter (in fact, there's
> hundreds of such bugs in your current vendor that you don't know about
> because they don't trigger in your environment), but it only takes 2 or 3
> the former to render the box undeployable.
> > 2) Who is doing a better job fixing them
> Again, see the above discussion of severity. If a vendor is good about
> the real show-stoppers in a matter of hours or days, but has a huge backlog
> fixes for minor things, is that better or worse than a vendor that fixes
> of both serious and minor things?
> In addition, the question of how fixes get deployed matters too. If a
> is consistently good about finding a root cause, fixing it, and then saying
> "we'll ship the fix in the next dot-rev release", is that good or bad?
> Remember that if they ship a new, updated, more-fixed image every week,
> means you get to re-qualify a new image every week....
What you have mentioned is operations headache, so one questions comes to
mind here is what are issues a vendor will never be able to find in their
internal testing, i mean are there issues that will definitely be discovered
on the customer networks or we can assume that software needs to come out
with less number of sev1/2 bugs because internal testing is not doing a good
- Software Bugs
- From: karim.adel at gmail.com (Kasper Adel)
- Software Bugs
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)