Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Competiton: Mozilla's 200,000th Bug

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the does-chimera-ssl-hanging-count-as-a-bug dept.

Mozilla 219

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla's 200,000th bug will soon be reported. Not terribly exciting in itself, but they're running a competition to guess the exact date and time that the bug will be reported to Bugzilla, Mozilla's bug reporting tool. The prize is a Mozilla 1.0 CD that might actually be worth something one day. Anyone can enter, so let's see if we can have a Slashdot winner (we can all share in the glory)! To help you, they're up to 178,325 and 51 bugs have been filled today. (NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.)"

cancel ×

219 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I love mozilla (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598613)

In all the years I have used mozilla I have encountered few bugs. I am suprised there are so many.

Brent Jackson

Re:I love mozilla (4, Insightful)

psavo (162634) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598647)

most of bugs in bugzilla aren't real 'bugs', as in code flaws, but rather wishes for enhancement / policies.

Re:I love mozilla (2, Funny)

yatest5 (455123) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598669)

most of bugs in bugzilla aren't real 'bugs', as in code flaws, but rather wishes for enhancement / policies.

Yeah I'd like it to load in less than a week and use less that 128Mb to view 'HelloWorld.html'.

;-).

Re:I love mozilla (2)

Squareball (523165) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598824)

C'mon, let's keep our wishes in the realm of possibilites ;) hehehe

Re:I love mozilla (1)

serial frame (236591) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598913)

<kairi@heavyarms 0sys-3>$ ps u | grep phoenix
kairi 25467 0.0 0.7 2068 728 tty1 S Nov04 0:00 /bin/sh /usr/local/bin/phoenix http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25469 0.0 0.7 2148 732 tty1 S Nov04 0:00 /bin/sh /usr/local/phoenix/run-mozilla.sh ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25475 1.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 8:59 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25477 0.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 0:00 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25478 0.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 0:02 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25479 0.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 0:00 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 25481 0.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 0:03 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/
kairi 30311 0.0 31.1 53368 29284 tty1 S Nov04 0:00 ./phoenix-bin http://freshmeat.net/


Those are a lot of processes...:-/

Re:I love mozilla (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598653)

Please post logged in, so that I can add you to my foes list and never have to read any of your comments again.

Re:I love mozilla (2, Interesting)

mazur (99215) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598692)

In all the years I have used mozilla I have encountered few bugs. I am suprised there are so many.

I'm not; it's part of human nature. There are even people, who will find fault with the weather, when it's perfect, so why should 200.000 bug reports surprise anyone? And don't forget, lots of those may be a case of PEBKAC [astrian.net] .

Stefan.

Re:I love mozilla - Phoenix too! (1)

rapidweather (567364) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598701)

I've been trying Phoenix for Windows and Linux, and
have been told it is based on a lot of mozilla code.
Phoenix is very nice, but won't run on Redhat 6.1 like Opera will. :-(

Re:I love mozilla (2)

The Original Yama (454111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598816)

In all the years I have used mozilla I have encountered few bugs. I am suprised there are so many.
... cue for somebody to link to some bullshit MozillaQuest article. That Mike Angelo guy really pisses me off with his FUD [mozillaquestquest.com] .

Awesome (2, Interesting)

Botchka (589180) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598617)

I used Mozilla and reported what I thought was a bug. I was surprised and elated by the response that I got in order to try to fix it. Not that this will be a terribly exciting post for other /.ers but that was my experience. However, I want to like Mozilla....really I do.

Re:Awesome (2)

GauteL (29207) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598751)

What was the bug and what was the response?

I'm not trying to troll, but knowing this helps when I'm trying to form an opinion about who I'm going to side with.

Bugzilla... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598621)

It's actually a pretty good idea. But the problem is that the mass population rarely has the time to submit a report through Bugzilla once their Mozilla crashes. They just close it, and launch Mozilla again.

Re:Bugzilla... (5, Informative)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598684)

At the risk of feeding:

For crashes, Mozilla has the talkback feature. If Mozilla crashes, and it hardly ever does anymore, all you need to do is type the url you visited, and click send. That's it.

For other bugs: people will, and do, report them if they are really annoyed with a bug and want to see it fixed. Even if only one in a thousand take the time to file a bugreport you'd still have a pretty large number.

Re:Bugzilla... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598712)

"For crashes, Mozilla has the talkback feature. If Mozilla crashes, and it hardly ever does anymore, all you need to do is type the url you visited, and click send. That's it."

Let's imagine a situation. Someone went to a pr0n site, and Mozilla crashed. You really think they will submit the URL?

Re:Bugzilla... (2, Funny)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598779)

Let's imagine a situation. Someone went to a pr0n site, and Mozilla crashed. You really think they will submit the URL?

Why not? Afraid that Asa might backtrace you by the data in the crashdump, and call your wife?

Just report the damn URL, give the developers something to enjoy. Or is your "someone" underage, maybe?

Re:Bugzilla... (1)

blancolioni (147353) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598894)

Let's imagine a situation. Someone went to a pr0n site, and Mozilla crashed. You really think they will submit the URL?

Well, did you or not?

Re:Bugzilla... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598960)

There's no Talkback for Mac OS X. (Maybe that's why it's so bad compared to the other versions...)

How about IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598623)

How many bugs in IE have been reported so far?

Re:How about IE? (1)

frp001 (227227) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598630)

So? What's the point in this question?
What really matters is whether the final product is up to it or not.

Re:How about IE? (1)

Gheesh (191858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598632)

I think the important question is, how many of them have been fixed due to those reports?

Re:How about IE? (2, Insightful)

xutopia (469129) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598666)

Well IE has a great deal of bugs as well.

The count of mozilla bugs here includes the production bugs as well. I'm sure IE went through a load of bugs while developping it. Unfortunatly these numbers are not comparable.

Re:How about IE? (1, Funny)

Vilim (615798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598696)

I tends not to have small bugs (ie renders pages a tiny bit incorrectly) it tends to have HUGE bugs (ie you credit card numbers were posted on a public forum)

Re:How about IE? - Answer: 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598748)

Of course, that's after the number has wrapped around after reaching MAXLONG.

How does this compare to other apps? (3, Interesting)

Pike65 (454932) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598627)

This may be me just being hideously misinformed, but I have no idea what to expect for a project of this size? I mean it does sound like a helluva lot . . .

Mind you, I suppose it's better they all get reported and fixed than ignored until someone independant BugTraqs your ass.

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598633)

Most of them were duplicates of bugs already reported, or problems with people's setups and not bugs in Mozilla. Hence why the submitter said, "there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla".

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (4, Funny)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598634)

It's more than 2^16, which proves that the mozilla project's bug tracking code is able to deal with numbers that large. Unlike Micro$oft, which never have more than 65535 open bugs, because else the counter overflows...

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598636)

Well, the entire Windows2000 operating system only had 65,000 bugs when it shipped. So I guess Microsoft programmers really ARE better than Mozilla programmers. 200,000 bugs? Yikes! Obviously with IE being an integrated part of Windows it has much less than 65,000 bugs therefore IE is better than Mozilla right? :-)

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (1)

Luke-Jr (574047) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598829)

Try comparing Win2k to Mozilla1.0. Those 200,000 bugs include duplicates and are also all the bugs in Mozilla's history. Or you could compare the 200,000 bugs to all the bugs in MSIE since it has existed (don't forget to count bugs found at MS before a release!)

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598640)

Bugs are like cockroaches. For every one you see, there are a hundred you haven't seen. Except for mozilla, which most have been visible due to people reporting them. Bugs that are caught don't get to procreate other bugs. So the population diminishes to a marginal capacity over time.

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (3, Informative)

Brown (36659) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598656)

It's extremely difficult to compare this with any closed-source application, as a lot of these 'bugs' were in pre-1.0 versions - which never see the light of day in commercial software. Windows 2000 was however rumoured to have shipped with roughly 65000 unresolved bugs.

- Chris

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (2, Funny)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598677)

Windows 2000 was however rumoured to have shipped with roughly 65000 unresolved bugs.

<OLDJOKE>It actually shipped with far more than that, but Microsoft's bug tracking system itself had a bug whereby it couldn't handle more than 65,535 bugs.<\OLDJOKE>

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (0)

alphatool (603160) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598792)

I heard that 18,000 bugs were reported by beta testers for win2k. (My company was a beta tester, and we discovered about 4,000.
I think other people would have found more.)

Re:How does this compare to other apps? (3, Interesting)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598682)

Hmm. Mozilla is a ground-breaking project using cutting-edge technology (or it was cutting-edge when it was started). I think that there will be a lot of software engineering papers on the Mozilla processs in the future. It is a bold project, and I believe it has succeeded because of persistence and eye-ball-count rather than good planning and solid methodology.

Then again, a lot of developers had a lot of fun and AOL Time Warner footed the bill, so who are we to complain (except that IE got a monopoly during the years of development)?

Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (3, Funny)

eMilkshake (131623) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598628)

I believe Netscape 1.0 would be worth more than Moz 1.0 -- that's what I'd rather have.

<old timer mode>I remember Netscape .9, and wondering if it would ever reach 1.0. We'd say, what more could 1.0 do -- it's such a revolution!</otm>

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (1)

Soulslayer (21435) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598664)

Wasn't Netscape .9 still called Mosaic?

I remember when I first started messing around with Mosaic on the X-Terms at UW Milwaukee. When hypertext and imbedded images were still an astonishing thing.

And that one X-Term facing the back wall of the computer lab always had pr0n on its 21" display whether someone was using the terminal or not.

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598958)

It was dubbed Mosaic Netscape, so yes and no.

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598736)

It wouldn't be a CD, and nobody has any more of those little antistatic sleeves for mailing floppies.

Heck, I rather have Netscape 1.0 on a 5.25" disk.

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (0)

alphatool (603160) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598808)

Dude, you NEED a beer (or 5 (or 6))

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (0)

ciupmean (572454) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598921)

Dude, you need a brain...

Re:Moz 1.0? What about Netscape 1.0? (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598941)

What about Windows 1.01 [net2000.com.pl] (or here [386.bajo.pl] , here [pandora.be] or here [mmhart.com] ?

Did someone ask for Netscape 0.9 beta [capnwacky.com] (including a review - haha!)

I feel bad for direct linking, but hey, Windows is only 700K and Netscape around 300K. :-)

Mozilla (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598629)

Knowing that project as I do, it will probably be a security issue. And Slashdot will fail to report it here, although they harp on every little possible security flaw in any MS-related product.

Sad!!!

Re:Mozilla (1)

Letch (551512) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598718)

Hey, spot on.

6 Security flaws reported here [theregister.co.uk] .

Re:Mozilla (1)

StefMeister (219044) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598719)


Knowing that project as I do, it will probably be a security issue.


Don't make personal claims when posting as Anonymous coward, it sucks all the credibility out of them. But, let me guess, there was probably not much credibility to begin with.

Worth (1, Funny)

Klerck (213193) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598631)

Yep, I'm selling these IE1.0 CDs on ebay and making a fortune! (Off the tech support charges that is)

Re:Worth (2)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598965)

Yep, I'm selling these IE1.0 CDs on ebay and making a fortune!

I won't buy it at least, since I can get IE 1.0 for free [oldversion.com] . Ha! That along with Winamp 0.20 [oldversion.com] give me a whole new multimedia experience!

Bugs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598641)

NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.)"

OK, let's see... X=Y, but X does not - and has not ever been - equal to Y.

Only 200,000? (0)

Sex_On_The_Beach (621587) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598650)

And you all complain that Windows IE crashes and is full of bugs.

Re:Only 200,000? (5, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598887)

Erm, it doesn't have 200,000 bugs right now, that is for its entire lifetime, for the last 3 years. If you want to see how many there are now, open http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi (not via Slashdot) and find out. I will save you the trouble and tell you there are 28992 open bugs. Compare that the IE / Windows figures - oops you can't because they are hidden. Who knows what bugs are in your operating system?


That figure represents all feature work, enhancements, dupes, metabugs, Chimera, CCK. Mozilla.org, Bugzilla (bugs about Bugzilla), internationalization, platform specific, mail/news, browser, embedding, chrome, documentation and actual bugs in existence. The number of genuine bugs of any importance in the browser is likely to be a small fraction of the total.

uhmmm... just wait a second... (4, Insightful)

jukal (523582) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598652)

but they're running a competition to guess the exact date and time that the bug will be reported

before I finish this shell script to flood the bug report database... reset rate-counter...right, the 200 000th bug will be reported in about 42 minutes and 42 seconds. I mean seriously, their intention is probably good - to get serious bug reports - but you can just assume the side effects with all the geeks involved :)

Re:uhmmm... just wait a second... (2)

henben (578800) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598688)

Yeah, this is as stupid as the SETI league table turned out to be.

Bug, glitch, style issue... (2, Funny)

melonman (608440) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598658)

Am I the only person who thinks that counting bugs, all bugs, any bugs, is a bit meaningless? I mean, 1,000 bugs like 'left margin on submit buttons is 1 px too narrow on some displays' worry me less than 1 bug like 'all your credit card details will be posted on 500 weblogs around the world'. What we need here is the bug equivalent of the Beaufort Wind Scale, where a 'light breeze' bug could almost be called an endearing quirk, and a 'hurricane' bug is likely to trash your hard disc...

Severity (5, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598876)

What we need here is the bug equivalent of the Beaufort Wind Scale

Each Bugzilla entry carries a "severity" anywhere from "enhancement" (request for additional functionality) to "trivial" (slight misalignment of text in form pushbuttons) to "minor" to "normal" to "major" to "critical" (usually a crash or data loss) to "blocker" (a build fails smoketests).

Re:Severity (1)

melonman (608440) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598903)

In that case, the obvious question is 'how are the 200k-odd bugs distributed on that scale'?

What about IE? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598659)

I wonder how many bugs would have been found in Internet Explorer? IE being a much more mature browser, you'd imagine it would have had many more bugs than this reported. I suppose while MS keeps all it's work behind closed doors, we'll never know the answer.

Let's just hope that one day mozilla can be as good as IE.

Re:What about IE? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598700)

Let's hope that one day you'll stop trolling.

The most annoying being... (1)

gleather (596807) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598661)

freeze when a site uses flash and you're playing xmms. freeze when the site contacts ad.doubleclick.whatever.

Grrr.

Re:The most annoying being... (1)

Vilim (615798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598687)

I never noticed that one.

Re:The most annoying being... (3, Informative)

anshil (302405) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598745)

Thats easy I guess I got the same, if you trace mozilla you will notice that it hangs at opening "/dev/dsp" which is blocked by xmms.

You're running xmms using artsd? If not you should ;) Then don't start mozilla normally, start it with "artsdsp /usr/local/mozilla/mozilla", artsdsp will force mozilla to work with artsd, and wolla xmms and mozilla share happily the same sound device via artsd. (and mozilla does not hand anymore)

Artsd (1)

vbweenie (587927) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598852)

Am I right in thinking that using artsd to manage its multimedia is one of the big reasons why KDE3 is so fricken' slow on my old PIII 450Mhz? Or is that just KDE3 in general?

If it's not really artsd's fault, then I might start using it again, although I don't think I'll be going back to KDE from Gnome until I have a much faster computer (and possibly not even then).

Veering even further off-topic: will artsd let you record and playback at the same time (with, say, Audacity)? This is something I miss, really badly, since I switched from Windows...

Re:Artsd (1)

anshil (302405) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598914)

No, I ran KDE (well KDE1) perfectly on my 486-100Mhz, and it performed quite okay. A real speed for me issue was the XServer for the graphic card, when I got the correct one (instead of generic SVGA), KDE also runned several times faster.

Well if you can record and playback at the same time is more a matter what you sound card driver supports. Note not all sound card drivers are able to do that correctly. However this is a kernel issue. For example when I started expirmenting with speakfreely getting to work in full-duplex mode (speaking and hearing at the same time) was not an easy thing, as I've discovered the default audio driver SuSE picked was not able to handle this. Using not the ALSO but the driver from the linus-linux tree it was possible, altough this driver had the quirk that it hung the machine now and then when in heavy use.

Re:The most annoying being... (1)

Luke-Jr (574047) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598971)

+1 Insightful

Bah! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598662)

Everybody knows that Mozilla hasn't any bu

Re:Bah! (1, Redundant)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598721)

I think you pressed submit a little early.

Re:Bah! (1)

Make (95577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598798)

mozilla's textarea has always been very buggy.

Re:Bah! (0)

ciupmean (572454) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598959)

Hello, hello hello hello (times 100000) .. equals the echo inside your empty humourless head ;D That joke was so obvious ;)

Not many bugs, eh? (3, Interesting)

Munra (580414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598673)

So what's all this about: Mozilla riddled with security holes [theregister.co.uk] .

Even with the "bugs", I still love Mozilla, mind :)

Re:Not many bugs, eh? (4, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598698)

The Register article refers to Mozilla 1.0 and 1.0.1, not the current versions.

Actually, I think one bug mentioned there was supposed to apply to current versions.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Not many bugs, eh? (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598836)

Who said Mozilla was perfect? The difference is you can see what bugs are open, assess their importance and see when they are fixed. If a bug bothers you that much, you can even take the patch and retroactively apply it to a branch, e.g. 1.0.x or wait for the next nightly of course. You don't have to wait months for the next 'service pack' or listen to MS or whoever when they fob you off saying an exploit is 'theoretical'.


Of course, security issues are hidden in Bugzilla until they are made public, but that once they become public knowledge (e.g. through The Register article) they are are unlocked. The locked phase is just a period of grace to allow the problem to be worked on privately without alerting every script kiddie to its existence.

estimation (5, Interesting)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598686)

According to the whois database :
Record created on 24-Jan-1998.

So, 1747 days have gone since this creation (I assume nobody could file bugs on mozilla.org before this date).

We now have 178,325 bugs, so the average is 102 bugs per day.

So, the next 21,675 bugs will be files in approximately 212 days, making the 200kth bug being filed around June 5th...

Now of course, we could assume that as Mozilla becomes stabler and stabler, the filings should now slow down logarithmically, making the filing so late that we'll have have switched to Phoenix 4.0+gno/kMutt in the meantime...

But why expecting a CD when we have apt-get ? ;-)

How, yes : because it would not be the 1.0 version but rather a subsequent one.

Re:estimation (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598734)

Of course, Bugzilla.org was created on Thu, Jan 06, 2000 but I guess bugs were still filed before, no ?

Re:estimation (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598741)

With the latter figure but using the same reasoning, I get 125 days from now, which is the 10th of March, 2003.

Re:estimation (2)

Captain Large Face (559804) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598799)

The bug database isn't just defects in the build, but also requested features.

Re:estimation (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598947)

Now of course, we could assume that as Mozilla becomes stabler and stabler, the filings should now slow down logarithmically, making the filing so late that we'll have have switched to Phoenix 4.0+gno/kMutt in the meantime...

Actually rate of bug filings speeds up as Mozilla gets more stable. It seems counterintuitive, but as Mozilla gets better more people use it, and so you get a) more dupes, b) more feature requests and c) preexisting bugs are found faster and more times.

You might have to adjust your equations slightly :)

circumventing the /. effect (3, Interesting)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598691)

and I quote "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled." Looks like someone has the right idea.

Re:circumventing the /. effect (2)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598704)

Well, after reading your post, I just openened a new browser and got there from Google! [google.ch] ... :)

Re:circumventing the /. effect (2, Informative)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598742)

You could just copy and paste the link

Re:circumventing the /. effect (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598752)

Yes, but isn't it quicker for you, this way ?

Bugzilla.org != Bugzilla.mozilla.org (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598928)

after reading your post, I just openened a new browser and got there from Google! [redirect to www.bugzilla.org]

Except www.bugzilla.org is not bugzilla.mozilla.org. Bugzilla.org hosts information about the Bugzilla software. Bugzilla.mozilla.org hosts the bug database for Mozilla software.

When I want to link from Slashdot to an item on b.m.o, I do it through makeashorterlink.com, which replaces Referer: information so that b.m.o can't tell that a hit came from Slashdot. (It doesn't work for b.m.o's homepage because makeashorterlink.com thinks b.m.o's URL is already short enough, and tinyurl.com preserves Referer: information.)

if THAT is considered news... (5, Funny)

Frac (27516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598699)

Competiton: Slashdot's 10,000,000th Typo
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:00 AM November 5th, 2002

from the VA's-lowered-budget-can't-afford-spellcheckers dept.
CmdrTaco writes "Slashdot is about to see its 10,000,000th typo. Tis is the 9,999,999th one. Not terribly exciting in itself, but we're running a competition to guess the exact date and time that the slashdot hoard will notice the milestone-breaking spelling mistake. The prize is a poster-size copy of Mrs. Malda's revealing low-cut shot [hemos.net] ." The typo will show up anytime now - good lukc everyone!

Re:if THAT is considered news... (3, Funny)

sirinek (41507) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598723)

Well, if you want to get technical, you did it with "hoard". Although that is a correct spelling of a word, you probably meant "horde". :)

siri

Re:if THAT is considered news... (2, Offtopic)

Psiren (6145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598861)

Well, that's a grammatical error and shows a lack of understanding of the English language. Which can be excused for non-english speakers, but not for native speakers. Spelling mistakes are more often than not typos.

Grammatical errors just make me think the writer is stupid, and therefore the comment has little merit.

Note for the stupid:

They're having a party.
Their party was crap.
The party is over there.

See the difference? No? Well you're (that's short for "you are") stupid then. Here endeth the pointless lesson.

Re:if THAT is considered news... (1)

thisisatest (120597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598819)

And even if Mozilla gets a form spellchecker one day, that won't help Taco. He and most of the other editors use IE on Macs these days.

Re:if THAT is considered news... (4, Funny)

Captain Large Face (559804) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598883)

10,000,000th since when? Oh wait, that's gotta be since the beginning of November, right?

Bugs are so plentiful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598703)

There are so many bugs, they have to literally create another sourced project called BUGZILLA, to track the damn things. You can't polish a turd, ladies & gents. Sorry. It's really NOT that great of a browser, and I don't see what the big deal is all about.

Sign me up! (1)

downerad (29939) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598707)

Wow, a prize that someday might actually be worth something. Perhaps I'll be able to sell it and buy something really valuable, like lottery tickets!

A dumb idea (5, Insightful)

an_mo (175299) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598710)

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. The incentive is just to encourage fake bug reporting, with costs rather than benefits, to the whole project.

A better choice would have been to pick a random winner from valid bugs filed from today until bug 200K.

Re:A dumb idea (3, Insightful)

Queuetue (156269) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598936)

Read again - the bug submitter doesn't win. It's pool to guess when the bug will be submitted.

Oh goodie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598726)

Don't they already block having /. link to Bugzilla ("/. referers disabled")? I'm not sure that this'll help any... I fear they'll just get innundated with crappy bug reports as the "first post" syndrome takes ahold of bored geeks...

EXCUSE ME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598755)

Pleaze to be telling me how i am to be using teh leenux

Other news... (3, Funny)

Kj0n (245572) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598756)

A bug has been discovered in Bugzilla, which caused it to count every reported bug 5 times. This brings the total number of reported bugs in BugZilla to 83240.

As soon as people read Slashdot this morning... (2, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598790)

I doubt it'll last long if Slashdot's users care enough to compete - just don't Slashdot the bug reporting page.

Bad Journalism (3, Funny)

afra242 (465406) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598795)

(NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.)"


Reminds me of some awful news stations around here:


Although only 300 people died in the earthquake, it could have been worst.

Re:Bad Journalism (1)

Houdini91 (588691) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598884)

(NOTE: Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.)"

Reminds me of some awful news stations around here



Rhat reminds me of something else entirely: just replace "Mozilla" with "Slashdot" and "bugs" with "new posts".


- Houdini

OpenSource and the bug count (2, Insightful)

DigitalOZ (19981) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598832)

If this bug count is actually high for this kind of project (and I'm not sure that it is), I imagine it would have to do with the fact that it is an OpenSource project. In a traditional development method, there would be a great deal of internal testing that might result in less bugs being noticed by users. In a situation like Mozilla, there would be so many users testing the product through the development life cycle that many bugs would be reported that might have already been anticipated or discovered and repaired by the time it was being used by users. It seems that instead of a more traditional cycle of build, test, repair, release, in OpenSource you have a build, release, test, repair, release which probably results in inflated bug counts.

200,000 reported... (4, Insightful)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598842)

Not 200,000 bugs that are bugs. There are many, many duplicate bugs even though Mozilla asks people to look over the bugs and not duplicate. Also, many of these bugs are actually to get Mozilla to render a page "Correctly" when the page is written totally wrong, I.E. not W3.org valid, like slashdot.org, only worse. My guess is that about 1/3 of the bugs are really bugs, the rest are dups, features, or just dumb stuff.

So the prize is... (2, Funny)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598851)

...buggy software?

Include me out!

(C'mon, I get it, really I do ;)

The Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4598859)

"The prize is a Mozilla 1.0 CD that might actually be worth something one day."

Emphasis on "might".

Great done, slashdot! (1)

yaba (218529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598860)

Now the maintainers of Mozilla's buzilla have to mark 21.624 bugs as invalid in the next few hours due to false bug reports from /. readers hunting for the Mozilla 1.0 release CD, which might bring wealth to the lucky winner one day.

10^58 possible bugs (2, Insightful)

frawaradaR (591488) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598917)

Although almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are not - and have not been - that many bugs in Mozilla.

Although only almost 200,000 bugs have been reported, there are - and will be - massively many more bugs that will never be discovered, less so reported.

Among these bugs are certain combinations of for instance 278 nested divs with a loose font tag amidst all.

Feature Requests are counted (3, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4598972)

Amongst these 200000 bugs are feature requests, duplicates, bugs that aren't really bugs and platform specific issues. What percentage this is of the whole I am not sure, but it would certainly go to reducing the total number.

What would be of interest is how this tallies to any other product where the general public could submit straight to the bug database, rather than going through front-line, second-line and then third-line support.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>