Quote

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.

Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!

I have come to know Bugs so well that I no longer have to think about what he is doing in any situation.

Most of the results of using technical bugging devices were of little importance for my service. It may have been different in counter-intelligence, where bugs in flats, etc., were used to obtain a lot of information about what counter-intelligence was interested in.

The important thing to remember is that bugs don't actually talk.

We worked out a lot of bugs and figured out who was working and who wasn't and how this beast functions. It was a lot bigger than we actually thought, and now we have a well-run ship where it feels I can actually have time to imagine and not just stress out about everything.

A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.

I find that when you read a script, or rewrite something, or look at something that's been gone over, you can tell, like rings on a tree, by how bad it is, how long it's been in development.

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

I hate bugs.