5 ms·

> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bu

> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bugs?

alkaline9 7y ago
No, it is asking people to design and test systems for the long-term. It would require establishing strong interfaces between components that will hold up when subcomponents are swapped out. I think of it like a car where parts can be replaced if those parts have an issue, but the designs of the connectors stays the same, and replacements are available. A 100-year car isn't one that requires no maintenance for 100 years; it is one that can be maintained, and replacement parts can be acquired, and it will still continue working. If a car depends on a remote server, such that the car stops operating when the remote server is shut down, then that car is perishable.
- LeftHandPath 7y ago
  There are a lot of cars that were maintainable, and built to be maintained, that can’t be maintained anymore simply because the manufacturer went defunct and there are no more parts (e.g. Saab, Datsun) or because the cost of manufacturing more parts for a car with a dwindling owner-base began to outweigh the profit, and thus, there are no more parts (e.g. older Ford models). Unless the car is built primarily with 3rd-party parts (from manufacturers like Bosch, Brembo, etc) - which is something that consumers usually hold against a car, like how many people are upset that the new Toyota Supra is actually a BMW - then the problem is almost completely analogous to the shutting down of remote servers; if the manufacturer goes defunct or can no longer make a profit by continuing service, the car’s life has perished. And in fact, the only way to avoid this is super conglomerates and monopolies - Lamborghini parts should always be available, because they come from the Audi parts bin, which comes from the Volkswagen parts bin.
  - winternett 7y ago
    In the past aftermarket parts makers came in to support popular cars after OEMs retired replacement part making for older model cars. Now if you so much as breathe on an aftermarket mod for your brand new software driven EV ( I won't name names here of course but you know who), the manufacturer may brick your car, or worse yet declare your warranty and/or any future support null & void. My 2017 Volvo XC 90 somehow begins to casually malfunction whenever I drive it beyond a few service warnings. The car is HEAVILY software dependent. It can technically drive itself and park itself too. This behavior somehow disappears once the dealer performs software updates. It's pretty strange, and I worry it's a ticking time bomb for when I reach the end of my warranty on the car.
    - LeftHandPath 7y ago
      I am definitely against the newest measures taken by car companies, e.g. Porsche completely covering the engine (and voiding warranty should you access it) save the oil reservoir, on the newest 911s. There is also something missing from my metaphor which is that even when the parts no longer exist, the car can still continue to run until it breaks down, rather than being remotely killed due to an external signal separated from the car itself (e.g. servers shutting down and triggering some switch in the code).
bluGill 7y ago
No, I'm asking you fix your bugs: when you sell software you should set aside money to fix your bugs. Note I said bugs, not add new features, you can charge for features, but if I don't want the feature you should still fix the bug.
- ailideex 7y ago
  Nobody works for free. I get your beef but the problem is we buy things and want to pay once, if you were willing to pay for your router every month, well heck you could actually just buy a new one every year about already. fancy that.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I want to pay once for something that works as advertised. If I buy a car and the airbags are bad they will fix it. If I buy a device and the software fails I expect it is fixed too. I'm not asking for features, I'm asking for bug fixes, which if you had a perfect text plan would already be fixed.
    - imoverclocked 7y ago
      You can't win at playing that game either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22271306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22271306
    - winternett 7y ago
      At the bare minimum, products should be engineered so they can function at a reasonable level "manually" independent of software systems. These devices should also allow owners to take themselves off the network any time they want in order to ensure REAL OWNERSHIP. That maybe is the happy medium that can get you home if the network goes down?

> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bugs?

alkaline9 7y ago

No, it is asking people to design and test systems for the long-term. It would require establishing strong interfaces between components that will hold up when subcomponents are swapped out. I think of it like a car where parts can be replaced if those parts have an issue, but the designs of the connectors stays the same, and replacements are available. A 100-year car isn't one that requires no maintenance for 100 years; it is one that can be maintained, and replacement parts can be acquired, and it will still continue working. If a car depends on a remote server, such that the car stops operating when the remote server is shut down, then that car is perishable.

LeftHandPath 7y ago
There are a lot of cars that were maintainable, and built to be maintained, that can’t be maintained anymore simply because the manufacturer went defunct and there are no more parts (e.g. Saab, Datsun) or because the cost of manufacturing more parts for a car with a dwindling owner-base began to outweigh the profit, and thus, there are no more parts (e.g. older Ford models). Unless the car is built primarily with 3rd-party parts (from manufacturers like Bosch, Brembo, etc) - which is something that consumers usually hold against a car, like how many people are upset that the new Toyota Supra is actually a BMW - then the problem is almost completely analogous to the shutting down of remote servers; if the manufacturer goes defunct or can no longer make a profit by continuing service, the car’s life has perished. And in fact, the only way to avoid this is super conglomerates and monopolies - Lamborghini parts should always be available, because they come from the Audi parts bin, which comes from the Volkswagen parts bin.
- winternett 7y ago
  In the past aftermarket parts makers came in to support popular cars after OEMs retired replacement part making for older model cars. Now if you so much as breathe on an aftermarket mod for your brand new software driven EV ( I won't name names here of course but you know who), the manufacturer may brick your car, or worse yet declare your warranty and/or any future support null & void. My 2017 Volvo XC 90 somehow begins to casually malfunction whenever I drive it beyond a few service warnings. The car is HEAVILY software dependent. It can technically drive itself and park itself too. This behavior somehow disappears once the dealer performs software updates. It's pretty strange, and I worry it's a ticking time bomb for when I reach the end of my warranty on the car.
  - LeftHandPath 7y ago
    I am definitely against the newest measures taken by car companies, e.g. Porsche completely covering the engine (and voiding warranty should you access it) save the oil reservoir, on the newest 911s. There is also something missing from my metaphor which is that even when the parts no longer exist, the car can still continue to run until it breaks down, rather than being remotely killed due to an external signal separated from the car itself (e.g. servers shutting down and triggering some switch in the code).

bluGill 7y ago

No, I'm asking you fix your bugs: when you sell software you should set aside money to fix your bugs. Note I said bugs, not add new features, you can charge for features, but if I don't want the feature you should still fix the bug.

ailideex 7y ago
Nobody works for free. I get your beef but the problem is we buy things and want to pay once, if you were willing to pay for your router every month, well heck you could actually just buy a new one every year about already. fancy that.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I want to pay once for something that works as advertised. If I buy a car and the airbags are bad they will fix it. If I buy a device and the software fails I expect it is fixed too. I'm not asking for features, I'm asking for bug fixes, which if you had a perfect text plan would already be fixed.
  - imoverclocked 7y ago
    You can't win at playing that game either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22271306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22271306
  - winternett 7y ago
    At the bare minimum, products should be engineered so they can function at a reasonable level "manually" independent of software systems. These devices should also allow owners to take themselves off the network any time they want in order to ensure REAL OWNERSHIP. That maybe is the happy medium that can get you home if the network goes down?