3 ms·

This seems like one of those things which is perfectly okay for private companies to do-- one was even mentioned in the article-- but somehow not for government

• Jtsummers 4y ago
  Why the distinction, in your mind?
• baby 4y ago
  I would say it's not OK for anyone to do. Software, like gardens, is something you need to tend to otherwise it decays and will eventually stop working.
  • xabotage 4y ago
    It's clearly been working for decades. The only reason modern software needs so much attention is because 1) Internet connectivity requires constant security updates and 2) new features to sell, neither of which should apply here.
  • klyrs 4y ago
    Does it? It sounds like this software has been doing just fine for longer than most of us here have been alive. Interesting that your preconception has not been challenged by this obvious counterexample. The hardware is eventually going to give out, which might require a change to software, but the software itself is clearly fine and doesn't need mucking about.
  • tluyben2 4y ago
    Not only does this decades old software from the article tell you otherwise, but it doesn’t apply to gardens either. We (and many others here) don’t tend to most of our garden and all is fine. There are piles of software on Archive.org from the 70s/80s that was not touched since it was built and it also works fine. Not everything is brittle always breaking tech. Not everyone is a feature hoarder either so why would you need changes to something that works well; without changes, things don’t just break.
• perryizgr8 4y ago
  Yes, there is a double standard in play. It arises due to the fact that private companies are working with their own money. They are free to decide what to do and how to do it. But the government works with money coerced from law-abiding innocent citizens, and so must strive to perform its duties in the most efficient and perfect way possible. Otherwise it becomes difficult to justify the continuous violence imposed on the populace in the form of taxation. Maybe an example that makes the distinction obvious: Bill Gates can outfit his bathroom with all kinds of advanced tech, spending millions of dollars on it, and nobody will feel the need to criticise him for it. After all, it is his money and he is free to do whatever with it. However, if a city government builds a public bathroom that costs millions of dollars per stall, that's a scandal. You cannot take the same liberties with public money as you can with yours.