4 ms·

I highly suspect software industry has such a reliability record because of the market. In other words, I think software can be way better in terms of quality,

by avmich 8y ago

I highly suspect software industry has such a reliability record because of the market. In other words, I think software can be way better in terms of quality, but nobody's interested to pay for incurred costs. Does it mean programming should be regulated like aviation was regulated? Not sure about that at all.

itchyouch 8y ago
Absolutely. The stakes for aviation is life and death. Software generally does not have life and death stakes that necessitates the additional discipline cost.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  One thing about aviation is accidents likely require high management level attention by manufacturers and operators. Compare with automobiles, the CEO of GM doesn't get a phone call every time a car kills someone. And you can see the behavior of CEO's when things become an issue, they're annoyed and totally unprepared for it. Vs aviation managers who see this stuff as a fact of life. Notable management of internet companies act exactly like auto exec's being called on the carpet for failures. Downplay and redirect blame. Quote from the CEO of BP during the Deep Water Horizon accident: 'I want to get my life back'
dredmorbius 8y ago
Risk, and Gresham's Law dynamics, greatly influence this. Absent some means of enforcing a minimum standard of design and support, as well as internalising risk costs to the vendor, these problems are unlikely to be resolved.
ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
Agreed, some companies care when there is a large financial risk but others do not. There’s also a lot of talk about automated testing all the time but a lot of it is lip service. The investment is often woeful.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Partially this, partially the cost of buggy software rarely falling on those who actually make the software. It's pretty typical for software companies to disclaim all liability for the results of using their software and offer no warranty that the software they sell will work. Not a lot of other products can get away with such an absolute disclaimer of liability.

by avmich 8y ago

itchyouch 8y ago

Absolutely. The stakes for aviation is life and death. Software generally does not have life and death stakes that necessitates the additional discipline cost.

Gibbon1 8y ago
One thing about aviation is accidents likely require high management level attention by manufacturers and operators. Compare with automobiles, the CEO of GM doesn't get a phone call every time a car kills someone. And you can see the behavior of CEO's when things become an issue, they're annoyed and totally unprepared for it. Vs aviation managers who see this stuff as a fact of life. Notable management of internet companies act exactly like auto exec's being called on the carpet for failures. Downplay and redirect blame. Quote from the CEO of BP during the Deep Water Horizon accident: 'I want to get my life back'

dredmorbius 8y ago

Risk, and Gresham's Law dynamics, greatly influence this. Absent some means of enforcing a minimum standard of design and support, as well as internalising risk costs to the vendor, these problems are unlikely to be resolved.

ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago

Agreed, some companies care when there is a large financial risk but others do not. There’s also a lot of talk about automated testing all the time but a lot of it is lip service. The investment is often woeful.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

Partially this, partially the cost of buggy software rarely falling on those who actually make the software. It's pretty typical for software companies to disclaim all liability for the results of using their software and offer no warranty that the software they sell will work. Not a lot of other products can get away with such an absolute disclaimer of liability.