Guy Kawasaki Quotes

Defect-free software does not exist.

If I say I've got two versions of Word - that old one from 1982 that's perfect, with zero defects; or the new one that's got all this cool new stuff, but there might be a few bugs in it - people always want the new one. But I wouldn't want them to operate a plane I was on with software that happened to be the latest greatest release!

I think it's a combination of technical and social factors that leads to all the defects in deployed software.

All software sucks.

I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.

There is a strong movement towards increased accountability for software developers and software development organizations.

My reply is: the software has no known bugs, therefore it has not been updated.

The fundamental problem with program maintenance is that fixing a defect has a substantial chance of introducing another.

It's important not only to have the right timing of when the hardware is going to be released but also when we are going to be able to introduce quality software.

As you get to the end of the project you want to run all the tests cases against one version and make sure that you know that that version passed everything. And so as you get late in the project you get a little more conservative about making radical changes to the software.

There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed.

Testing is overrated.

We got to this point by constantly perfecting our products.

When someone builds a bridge, he uses engineers who have been certified as knowing what they are doing. Yet when someone builds you a software program, he has no similar certification, even though your safety may be just as dependent upon that software working as it is upon the bridge supporting your weight.

Running the test suite like this allows us to catch problems when they are just introduced.

This will surprise some of your readers, but my primary interest is not with computer security. I am primarily interested in writing software that works as intended.

I don't want to do anything and everything. I want to be a brand that, every time I leverage my name, I want people to feel sure that it's going to be something good - so whether it be my movies, my perfume, my restaurant, my musical, it'll be good work, good food and good everything.

I think, fundamentally, open source does tend to be more stable software. It's the right way to do things.

When I write software, I know that it will fail, either due to my own mistake, or due to some other cause.

I don't micromanage, but I do care deeply about every product we make. Every one goes through me, and I try most of our products before they go to market, including our John Paul Pet flea and tick shampoo. If I don't like it, it's not coming out.

As a rule, software systems do not work well until they have been used, and have failed repeatedly, in real applications.

Well, user feedback was excellent. Even when the software didn't work at all, there were few people who were avid users, and there were people who were just sending excellent feedback and excellent ideas.

To worship the product and ignore its development leads to dilettantism and reaction.

Writing software that's safe even in the presence of bugs makes the challenge even more interesting.

The reality of most software development is that the consequences of failure are simply nonexistent.