@blakeyrat said:
Finding the unintentional problems that arise from poorly-specified software is like 80% of the POINT of QA in the first place. To say "that's not a bug, just a bad spec" misses the point entirely. Hell, a lot of companies do a QA process on their spec before any code is written at all!
I completely agree with you, because you've totally missed the point. Poor design is poor design, but bugs are a result of poor coding. Do you blame the engineer told to make a car out of cream-cheese for the failure?
I'm guessing you see no difference between raising a bug, and putting in a change-request, either?
I thought you'd agree with me, since I'm only saying the things you normally say, but it turns out that the opportunity for a bit of point-missing pedantic dickweedery was too good to eschew. The point was, of course, not whether this or that specific thing is a bug or a design-flaw, but that bugs are very rare in Windows. As you've so beautifully demonstrated - and admitted, in one case at least - people tend to call things bugs which are nothing of the kind.
Just so you don't think I was agreeing with the rest, and get the impression I conceded the point, I don't think either of your other examples is a bug either. At best, you can have half a bug:
@blakeyrat said:
In what universe is that not a bug?
@MascarponeRun said:
It's really stupid to design the system to automatically re-sort things during a rename operation, but it's the design. Not like the code doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
You're honestly arguing that there's a bulletpoint in Explorer's design document saying:
*) Piss off our users by visually indicating they can rename a file, and then stomping all over their typing by resetting the original name halfway through
Nope. This one is more of a grey area, though, since it's arguable that the failure to spec the behaviour in a sane fashion is a bug, as you say. Not knowing the reasons behind it, though, I have no idea if there's actually a good reason for the design - if it's an oversight, I'll be more likely to count it as a bug.
@blakeyrat said:
Christ.
@MascarponeRun said:
Aside from the fact that I disagree with you about what the behaviour should be - this makes no sense unless all profile settings are updated to the same schedule - once again, it's the specified behaviour.
First of all, again, you're arguing that Explorer has a bulletpoint reading:
*) Piss off our users by forgetting all their icon positions at every opportunity
On this one you're just jabbering. There's no reason why icon positions are different to any other profile setting. You can argue that the designed-in way Windows handles profile settings is not the way you would do it, but there's no suggestion that it's not a perfectly reasonable design choice, correctly implemented. There's nothing wrong with it at all, let alone a bug.
In sum, then, and let's see you try and disagree with this, the ease of bug-reporting for Windows and Office - outside the automatic error-reporting - is entirely in proportion to the frequency with which it is necessary.