Objective proof that WMF software development is a literal scam
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:02 pm
Out of the 13,410 valid bug reports reported to the WMF, over 31% percent (4,168) of them have not been addressed. Including many that are 15+ years old. Compare that to a functioning organization like the Blender Foundation:
Out of the 70,790 (that's over five times more than the WMF) bug reports opened since the creation of Blender's bug tracker (which was around the same time as MediaWiki), less than 3% (2,102) are still open. That means that Blender is over five times better at fixing bugs by shear volume and over ten times better percentage wise.
But it gets worse! If you went by the WMF's development costs, you'd assume that Blender would have to be spending billions to get this good results, but nope! The Blender Foundation only spent a little over two million last year, while the WMF spent over $145 million. That means that the that WMF is spending 67 times more money and getting cataclysmically bad results.
Multiply all those numbers together and you'll get the astonishing result that the WMF is over 4,000x worse per dollar than the Blender Foundation. There's no other way to describe that than an outright scam. And that's probably an underestimate given the fact that Blender employees significantly more non-developers and the report I used included more of the additional costs than the WMF's, and it didn't even include how anything about software functionality, design, code quality, low vs higher level languages, or the amount of time bug reports are resolved in. Add those in and I'd say it easily gets into the tens of thousands.
To rub more salt in wound, Blender's oldest bugs are only three years old, compare that to MediaWiki's, which still has many bugs from 2005 - 18 years ago. And those are just the oldest bugs, bugs in MediaWiki are in general not addressed, and even if they are, they usually take years. Most bugs in Blender are usually addressed quickly, and if they aren't, there's usually an actual reason.
Sources:
MediaWiki open bugs (4,168 as of September 22, 2023).
MediaWiki closed bugs (9,242 as of September 22, 2023).
Blender bug reports.
Out of the 70,790 (that's over five times more than the WMF) bug reports opened since the creation of Blender's bug tracker (which was around the same time as MediaWiki), less than 3% (2,102) are still open. That means that Blender is over five times better at fixing bugs by shear volume and over ten times better percentage wise.
But it gets worse! If you went by the WMF's development costs, you'd assume that Blender would have to be spending billions to get this good results, but nope! The Blender Foundation only spent a little over two million last year, while the WMF spent over $145 million. That means that the that WMF is spending 67 times more money and getting cataclysmically bad results.
Multiply all those numbers together and you'll get the astonishing result that the WMF is over 4,000x worse per dollar than the Blender Foundation. There's no other way to describe that than an outright scam. And that's probably an underestimate given the fact that Blender employees significantly more non-developers and the report I used included more of the additional costs than the WMF's, and it didn't even include how anything about software functionality, design, code quality, low vs higher level languages, or the amount of time bug reports are resolved in. Add those in and I'd say it easily gets into the tens of thousands.
To rub more salt in wound, Blender's oldest bugs are only three years old, compare that to MediaWiki's, which still has many bugs from 2005 - 18 years ago. And those are just the oldest bugs, bugs in MediaWiki are in general not addressed, and even if they are, they usually take years. Most bugs in Blender are usually addressed quickly, and if they aren't, there's usually an actual reason.
Sources:
MediaWiki open bugs (4,168 as of September 22, 2023).
MediaWiki closed bugs (9,242 as of September 22, 2023).
Blender bug reports.