4 ms·
> Likely some portions of the system matter and some don't. ....... but I do think large swathes of software are completely immune because failure has no conseq
by sbov 11y ago
> Likely some portions of the system matter and some don't. ....... but I do think large swathes of software are completely immune because failure has no consequences
This is where software seems unique - this seems false to me. A common failure mode of software is code execution, which has nearly unlimited consequences.
E.g. my D&D utility could read and write files. But it might have a bug in the file reading code (Edit: or anywhere in the code), which someone could exploit with a properly crafted file to gain access to the user's computer. But you said this utility was immune to failure. It seems clear to me that it isn't.
There is no physical object analogy here that makes sense to me. It would be like - if you used your black and decker drill on a piece of wood someone gave you, it could electrocute you if there were a flaw in the drill bit. Or it could turn off your refrigerator. Or it could play a song to you. This makes no sense, but this is the world software lives in.
Edit: or do you mean no physical consequences, so only software controlling physical devices require the proper licensing?
- krschultz 11y agoI was thinking more physical consequences. There's no way that a program running on my desktop can hurt me other than privacy / security / availability of my data. But I'm not going to the hospital because your D&D utility was written in a weekend and crashes sometimes. But you do raise a point about the real costs of mistakes even in trivial systems. Arguably that makes the point that operating systems should have stronger sandboxes between apps. An operating system is effectively infrastructure, you probably want higher quality standards there.