> I wasn't defining "broken" as "the engineers find it distasteful". I was defining it as "broken". If a piece of software literally will not launch period, th

> I wasn't defining "broken" as "the engineers find it distasteful". I was defining it as "broken". If a piece of software literally will not launch period, then it is broken. If it can do pretty much anything more than that, then it "works to some degree", and just has some number of scenarios that are broken. And my point is that if it has 80% of scenarios that work and 20% of scenarios that are completely functionally broken (ie do not work at all for the customer) that still provides business value. That's the point I'm making. It's not ideal, but in the real world half broken software is immensely valuable. > Software that's broken in preventable ways doesn't solve business problems, it just creates new ones. So software that is broken in preventable ways, absolutely does solve business problems. And just about the entire software industry is proof of this.