3 ms·

Whether or not my software is of quality is none of your business. I’m allowed to say “no guarantees”. It’s not your right to force me to provide you a guarante

Whether or not my software is of quality is none of your business. I’m allowed to say “no guarantees”. It’s not your right to force me to provide you a guarantee. Force is only justified in response to force, and nobody forces you to use open source software.

Ekaros 3y ago
I'm starting to believe that "no guarantees" should be explicitly banned. You release software, you should guarantee it.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  For what use case?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Every reasonably viable use case.
    - rpdillon 3y ago
      This is entirely divorced from reality, then. You'd have to make the code resilient to failure modes specific to operating environments you're entirely unaware of while authoring the code. E.g. someone takes your code and cross-compiles it for use as part of one of several daemons running in an embedded system on an architecture you never tested on, and it leaks memory in that environment due to how to OS allocates memory there. I'm not thrilled with this example I just made up, but I hope it captures the distinction between writing an algorithm and deploying a full solution into a known environment. The idea that software engineers can 'guarantee' against this is fantasy and precisely what integration testing is for. It has to be the case that those who deploy the code take responsibility for its behavior, not the original authors, since only those deploying have the full picture of the system.
- ls612 3y ago
  Would you like to propose a method for guaranteeing your software is bug free?
  - tzs 3y ago
    The proposed law does not require software to be bug free.
lijok 3y ago
You misunderstood my comment. I am not suggesting that you be forced to provide guarantees.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  By defending this legislation you are.
  - lijok 3y ago
    No. I am suggesting that you should not be producing goods for public consumption unless you are able to provide guarantees. Noone's going to force you to provide guarantees for goods you did not produce.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      Are you suggesting it or saying it should be illegal? Again, by defending these laws you want it to be forced. I never said anything about software I didn’t produce, should I interpret this as you agreeing that you will force me to provide guarantees for open source software I do make?
      - lijok 3y ago
        > should I interpret this as you agreeing that you will force me to provide guarantees for open source software I do make? Yes. However, the way you use the term "force me", at least to me, implies an unjust enforcement of a law, post-publishing that was not made clear pre-publishing.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        It’s unjust if you believe force is only justified in response to force, which you do not. Glad we cleared that up.
        3y ago

Ekaros 3y ago

I'm starting to believe that "no guarantees" should be explicitly banned. You release software, you should guarantee it.

rpdillon 3y ago
For what use case?
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Every reasonably viable use case.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    This is entirely divorced from reality, then. You'd have to make the code resilient to failure modes specific to operating environments you're entirely unaware of while authoring the code. E.g. someone takes your code and cross-compiles it for use as part of one of several daemons running in an embedded system on an architecture you never tested on, and it leaks memory in that environment due to how to OS allocates memory there. I'm not thrilled with this example I just made up, but I hope it captures the distinction between writing an algorithm and deploying a full solution into a known environment. The idea that software engineers can 'guarantee' against this is fantasy and precisely what integration testing is for. It has to be the case that those who deploy the code take responsibility for its behavior, not the original authors, since only those deploying have the full picture of the system.
ls612 3y ago
Would you like to propose a method for guaranteeing your software is bug free?
- tzs 3y ago
  The proposed law does not require software to be bug free.

lijok 3y ago

You misunderstood my comment. I am not suggesting that you be forced to provide guarantees.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
By defending this legislation you are.
- lijok 3y ago
  No. I am suggesting that you should not be producing goods for public consumption unless you are able to provide guarantees. Noone's going to force you to provide guarantees for goods you did not produce.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    Are you suggesting it or saying it should be illegal? Again, by defending these laws you want it to be forced. I never said anything about software I didn’t produce, should I interpret this as you agreeing that you will force me to provide guarantees for open source software I do make?
    - lijok 3y ago
      > should I interpret this as you agreeing that you will force me to provide guarantees for open source software I do make? Yes. However, the way you use the term "force me", at least to me, implies an unjust enforcement of a law, post-publishing that was not made clear pre-publishing.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        It’s unjust if you believe force is only justified in response to force, which you do not. Glad we cleared that up.
        3y ago