Actually, you don't understand the problem.

Ah... no. For one system --- there is an "open source" software option; and in this open-source I found an annoying bug. The dirty secret with open source, if the bug it isn't on someone "favorite" plate, it's not going to be looked at/fixed. And if I don't know the language that it is written in ... then it won't be fixed.

... not possible; this is why I'm stuck in WinXP hell. The hardware that I'm stuck with is no longer available as 'new' and there are no "modern" drivers as an option. The software cannot migrate (and in one instance the owner of the software is no longer in business)

Again not an option. I need to put in a new development process to replace one piece of equipment (the 5-year issue); I need to replace hardware / driver (company is out of business & no one else makes it) and ... the 3rd is BUGGY replacement software written in Python.

This 'choice' is never offered.

You have got to be kidding. Show me a list of software that can be upgraded before the upgrade is available.

No, they didn't

What is MS to do?
1. Don't make upgrading that difficult. Make the upgrade / migration path easier, not more difficult.
2. TEST THEIR SOFTWARE. Hire in (back) QA and pay them for what they are worth. MS typically will undercut pay for SDET by about 25% (or more).

As I said earlier: I would like a viable migration path. Throwing in the garbage is not a viable migration path.

"YES" - for such critical needed updates.

I have one system that I've been trying to upgrade for 5 years. Another system has a hardware device {and drivers} that are no longer available, which also has software form a company that is out of business. "Upgrade to Windows 10" won't work (and I'm not going to to the MS-Sell land of Win 10). I am grateful to MS for upgrading the ones that they did, and to the moron's in the "buy the latest now"; that is not an option, I've tried.

I believe that you are correct, "nobody is perfect", based on my experience - Microsoft goes out of there way not to be perfect or anywhere close to it. Several times now - MS has had a purge of testers (even when the company / division is profitable) . MS testing is almost always 'happy path automation'. When I was there (last) little attention was paid to documentation of what was the expected results or what the test case was to get done. Then the 'good news' that the replacement directorate level was under the belief that all developers should test their own code.

I also agree with "... and everyone else that finds security issues and keeps them private."

Someone must have watched Brewster's Millions -- where this was treated as a crackpot idea.

I have product "X". It works; most of the time. Mega Corporation has done everything they can to make it so I can't report problems, and all I can do is bitch about the problems on public forums and have people agree - the software has it's problems.

Now ... without fixing any of the KNOWN issues, you want me to use and adapt Mega Corporation's next release "Y". I take a looks at it; and they have 'made it easier' ...( they have not); they have added features that I will NEVER use; frequently remove features that I do use, and to make it worse they have not fixed the bugs that I've seen, and later I read about new bugs in Mega Corporation's products (not to mention security issues).

And when this is scaled down from Mega Corporation to Mini Corporation; they are doing everything they can to just get by. New major features ... without fixes to old problems.

It would be amusing is Mega Corporation actually released a "next version" that was nothing but bug fixes.

This is why I stick with old software, and "Do Not" upgrade {improve} my "old" Software.

I'll stick with "alter":
alter
ôltr/
verb
change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
"Eliot was persuaded to alter the passage"
synonyms: change, make changes to, make different, make alterations to, adjust, make adjustments to, adapt, amend, modify, revise, revamp, rework, redo, refine, vary, transform

"Users were persuaded to alter their operating system/CPU"

Taking bets; M$ will release a 'patch' that has one intent: to deliberately break this 'fix'; so M$ can say "told you it wouldn't work". The bigger problem is: We won't know which "patch" M$ will 'break' to induce this problem.

BTW: It is no big effort for M$ to continue to test this as almost all testing by M$ is automated. There is an alter-motive behind this. Which I knew what it was.

I've tried. And been fired for it. From the unemployment office, it is amusing to watch as WS ATG investigates a company due to bad testing practices. It is disturbing to watch as 'computer glitches' cause hundreds if not thousands of travelers to be impacted. It is disturbing to send an email that - due to bad management practices (just what this article describes) mean that I cannot guarantee or relate the quality of a product; then be escorted out the door the next day.
I have and always will stand up for quality, which in this 'we will not fix it next release' era is a difficult thing to do.
Best thing to do: Put in 'requirements' that there be a code review before a 'check-in' is accepted. Best of luck if no one want to accept your recommendation(s).

The more 'automation' the put up front, the more people will eventually learn how to game the system. As you point out: ' discarding too many good applicants and letting too many awful ones through.'
I've also seen many systems that "don't work" for my employment, fields that are required that I don't know (or have or are not applicable).

Mark Zuckerberg is ether a fool or an idiot (or both). He seems to be out of touch with that is going on. I might suggest that his denial is so he won’t be forced (legally or morally) to enforce some kind of censorship (Slippery slope here what is satire vs what is false?)

One thing that I did find out: when you discover the “hate/false” posters (usually through other friends posts) and try post a correction about the inaccuracy: They will block you; and you will not be able to see the on-going problem. Also: The false information can be tracked to the same source(s).

It will take about one year, and cost only $20 million. Trust me.

This is so one sided, I'm surprise.. (well,maybe not) that it wasn't stopped earlier.
From the article:

Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river (or natural lake)?

A level of being redundant... Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river? And ... they are going to blame reservoirs for non-associated (man caused) pollution?

Someone is very anti-reservoirs (read pro coal/gas)

I noticed that the /. title - and description does not show the names of the companies. Both linked articles do not reveal the names until the second paragraph.
The Slashdot title should be more like "SCM Data and MMC Systems prosecuted for H-1B VISA Fraud".