RE: enhancement vs. bug

["Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt" <bob.mcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As one who works in marketing at a manufacturer, I can attest that we will
rarely own up to "bugs" but will "spin" the response to say we "improved" or
offered a "newer version" that "addressed expressed concerns" etc.  You get
it.  It is not just semantics.  It is an effort to avoid owning up to any
responsibility and to create a positive impression in an end-user's mind
that the company "cares" and "responds"

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Tiger [mailto:tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:13 PM
To: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: enhancement vs. bug


In a recent news story (the one in Ohio) a Diebold spokesperson (a VP) 
called patches and bug fixes  supplied by Diebold *enhancements*.

This might be the biz as usual, where languaging is at issue. In fact it 
is. Language can hide lies.
Professionals say *we've got an issue*, while joe-in-the-street says, 
*we've got a problem*. See how this works?
Now let's be careful when we are listening.

If I hire you to install software on my system and a bug shows up, I 
expect you to fix the bug and not have to pay you to fix things that you 
didn't get right in the first place.
If you install something that you call an *enhancement*, I probably 
shouldn't be surprised if I get an invoice.

When Diebold says, *we added those enhancements in Maryland*, in 
response to bugs and flaws, I wonder how big the invoice was that the 
Maryland SoS received?

I told Kell that we ought to call them *enchantments*, because a) they 
only work by chance, and b) black box voting is enchanted -- all magic.

Read closely. Pay attention to what vendors are saying. In their own 
words they usually telegraph the meaning of their claims or the defense 
of their products.

paul tiger