6 ms·

The article tries to make a point and then at the end evades the conclusion: > The only real solution is to acknowledge that computer programs are going to fai

The article tries to make a point and then at the end evades the conclusion: > The only real solution is to acknowledge that computer programs are going to fail and try to minimize the damage they can cause in advance. [the best way to do this is to not use the software in question at all] No, the only real solution is to provide a meaningful warranty with software (rather than typical "no warranty" clauses). Regulation can enforce this and the price will have to be paid by the customer. We have put up with these crappy licenses for decades and the result is the buggy mess we have now and no way for customers to demand a working product. Mistakes will still be made, but they shouldn't harm the customer more than the vendor. http://mil-embedded.com/articles/software-warranties-new-era/ http://mil-embedded.com/articles/software-warranties-new-era...

aneth4 14y ago
How often have you really encountered such buggy software that's cause you significant harm as a consumer? I've had annoyances and had to get refunds, though rarely and it's hardly ever caused any significant loss. No way for customers to demand a working product? Which products don't work? How does consumer choice and refunds for completely broken software not take care of this? The software referenced in this article was mostly built in house, perhaps some with enterprise licensing which you can be sure included negotiations covering reliability. Regulation is not the answer. Software is just fine.
- lazyjones 14y ago
  Vulnerabilities in widely-used software (e.g. Windows, MSIE) were often fixed much too late, so the customer was at a risk or had to use 3rd party software at an additional cost just to compensate for them. Botnets that exist only because of these vulnerabilities put every business on the web at risk. Software is just as "fine" as any other product where no accountability exists.
  - learc83 14y ago
    How do you provide a warranty against someone actively trying to destroy something? Doors don't have guarantees against someone kicking them in. Cars aren't covered against someone putting sugar in the gas tank. What counts as a vulnerability? How can a regulatory body possibly decide what was a "vulnerability" they should have known about and what was something unforeseeable? I guarantee you there isn't always clear line between the two. What about when the vulnerability is exploited by a government who has greater resources than the software vendor? Does Microsoft have to pay out on a claim when damage is caused because a certificate is forged by the US government?
    - lazyjones 14y ago
      > How do you provide a warranty against someone actively trying to destroy something? You provide a warranty that states exactly what is covered and what not (and suitability for a particular purpose, which software licenses often deny completely). > Doors don't have guarantees against someone kicking them in They do, at least here in the EU you get differently rated safety doors at different prices. You know exactly what kind of minimum resistance they offer. > How can a regulatory body possibly decide what was a "vulnerability" they should have known about and what was something unforeseeable? I guarantee you there isn't always clear line between the two. Stupid Word macro and buffer exploits are very obviously grave mistakes made by the manufacturer, who should be held accountable. > What about when the vulnerability is exploited by a government who has greater resources than the software vendor? Why should that make a difference? If you cannot handle the responsibility you have as a vendor, then don't be one. > Does Microsoft have to pay out on a claim when damage is caused because a certificate is forged by the US government? No, because Microsoft's stuff works as intended in that case, the CA should be held liable.
      - learc83 14y ago
        >You provide a warranty that states exactly what is covered and what not (and suitability for a particular purpose, which software licenses often deny completely). So software vendors state in their warranties that running this software on an internet connected device voids the warranty, and they stop offering patches and support. All support moves to unofficial third parties. >They do, at least here in the EU you get differently rated safety doors at different prices. You know exactly what kind of minimum resistance they offer. And that's an objective quantifiable measurement. Levels of software vulnerability are not. >Why should that make a difference? If you cannot handle the responsibility you have as a vendor, then don't be one. That is stupid, no software vendor can harden consumer software meant to run on a desktop internet connected computer to the point that a large government agency can't find a vulnerability.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    No accountability? Microsoft is losing marketshare and mindshare to Apple and Linux because their products have been buggy, unreliable, and generally suck. They have revamped their company to attempt to address these issues. That's accountability. Opening software vendors to unlimited liability for flaws would certainly push me out of the software business. Particularly in the fast moving entrepreneurial word, pushing improvements that sometimes are flawed is better for consumers than perfect software. Remember that motto at Facebook?
learc83 14y ago
>No, the only real solution is to provide a meaningful warranty with software (rather than typical "no warranty" clauses). Here's just a brief list of the problems I can think of off the top of my head. What about paid beta software? What small part-time software developer is ever going to release anything if he is legally obligated to provide support for x number of years. Does some kid who bangs out a lolcats viewer for iPhone need to provide a warranty? Who's going to make up the regulatory body that governs this? Ex industry people like in every other regulatory body? Guess who this favors --big companies like Microsoft who can easily afford regulatory compliance. Software is inherently more complex than physical products, the vastly different hardware configurations of consumer PCs make it impossible to test everything. Manufacturers will only guarantee that the software works on x model Dell Desktop, and stop offering support for anything else to avoid regulatory problems. Software is much faster moving than hardware, lack of regulations is one of the reasons. The biggest problems consumers have with software is malware? Do you warranty against active destruction by a third party (like a car manufacturer providing a warranty against someone keying your car)?
- lazyjones 14y ago
  > What about paid beta software? There's nothing wrong with allowing exceptions for software clearly described (and sold) as "beta". > What small part-time software developer is ever going to release anything if he is legally obligated to provide support for x number of years. One who is careful enough to use a safe language, skilled programmers and possibly insurance. I fail to see how this is any different from a small vendor of electronic devices, who needs to comply with safety regulations and bear the risk of a recall due to a design problem. > Does some kid who bangs out a lolcats viewer for iPhone need to provide a warranty? Yes, just like he is accountable if he fits the lolcats viewer with a trojan on purpose. > Who's going to make up the regulatory body that governs this? Ex industry people like in every other regulatory body? Guess who this favors --big companies like Microsoft who can easily afford regulatory compliance. How is this different in other industries where regulations that demand sufficient quality and warranties exist? > Software is inherently more complex than physical products So you're saying that complex products should not come with a suitable warranty? How is an image viewer for the PC (no warranty, possibly vulnerable to specially crafted images due to buffer overflows etc.) more complex than a car (comes with warranty)?. > Software is much faster moving than hardware, lack of regulations is one of the reasons. I disagree. The software industry keeps reinventing and breaking things and hardware has progressed to a much greater degree in the past 20 years. > Do you warranty against active destruction by a third party (like a car manufacturer providing a warranty against someone keying your car)? Active destruction requires physical access. If you provide physical access through a stupid vulnerability (that can be 100% avoided using safe languages e.g.), then yes, you should be held liable. If the user provides the physical access through his own neglect, it's his own fault.
unimpressive 14y ago
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

aneth4 14y ago

How often have you really encountered such buggy software that's cause you significant harm as a consumer? I've had annoyances and had to get refunds, though rarely and it's hardly ever caused any significant loss. No way for customers to demand a working product? Which products don't work? How does consumer choice and refunds for completely broken software not take care of this? The software referenced in this article was mostly built in house, perhaps some with enterprise licensing which you can be sure included negotiations covering reliability. Regulation is not the answer. Software is just fine.

lazyjones 14y ago
Vulnerabilities in widely-used software (e.g. Windows, MSIE) were often fixed much too late, so the customer was at a risk or had to use 3rd party software at an additional cost just to compensate for them. Botnets that exist only because of these vulnerabilities put every business on the web at risk. Software is just as "fine" as any other product where no accountability exists.
- learc83 14y ago
  How do you provide a warranty against someone actively trying to destroy something? Doors don't have guarantees against someone kicking them in. Cars aren't covered against someone putting sugar in the gas tank. What counts as a vulnerability? How can a regulatory body possibly decide what was a "vulnerability" they should have known about and what was something unforeseeable? I guarantee you there isn't always clear line between the two. What about when the vulnerability is exploited by a government who has greater resources than the software vendor? Does Microsoft have to pay out on a claim when damage is caused because a certificate is forged by the US government?
  - lazyjones 14y ago
    > How do you provide a warranty against someone actively trying to destroy something? You provide a warranty that states exactly what is covered and what not (and suitability for a particular purpose, which software licenses often deny completely). > Doors don't have guarantees against someone kicking them in They do, at least here in the EU you get differently rated safety doors at different prices. You know exactly what kind of minimum resistance they offer. > How can a regulatory body possibly decide what was a "vulnerability" they should have known about and what was something unforeseeable? I guarantee you there isn't always clear line between the two. Stupid Word macro and buffer exploits are very obviously grave mistakes made by the manufacturer, who should be held accountable. > What about when the vulnerability is exploited by a government who has greater resources than the software vendor? Why should that make a difference? If you cannot handle the responsibility you have as a vendor, then don't be one. > Does Microsoft have to pay out on a claim when damage is caused because a certificate is forged by the US government? No, because Microsoft's stuff works as intended in that case, the CA should be held liable.
    - learc83 14y ago
      >You provide a warranty that states exactly what is covered and what not (and suitability for a particular purpose, which software licenses often deny completely). So software vendors state in their warranties that running this software on an internet connected device voids the warranty, and they stop offering patches and support. All support moves to unofficial third parties. >They do, at least here in the EU you get differently rated safety doors at different prices. You know exactly what kind of minimum resistance they offer. And that's an objective quantifiable measurement. Levels of software vulnerability are not. >Why should that make a difference? If you cannot handle the responsibility you have as a vendor, then don't be one. That is stupid, no software vendor can harden consumer software meant to run on a desktop internet connected computer to the point that a large government agency can't find a vulnerability.
- aneth4 14y ago
  No accountability? Microsoft is losing marketshare and mindshare to Apple and Linux because their products have been buggy, unreliable, and generally suck. They have revamped their company to attempt to address these issues. That's accountability. Opening software vendors to unlimited liability for flaws would certainly push me out of the software business. Particularly in the fast moving entrepreneurial word, pushing improvements that sometimes are flawed is better for consumers than perfect software. Remember that motto at Facebook?

learc83 14y ago

>No, the only real solution is to provide a meaningful warranty with software (rather than typical "no warranty" clauses). Here's just a brief list of the problems I can think of off the top of my head. What about paid beta software? What small part-time software developer is ever going to release anything if he is legally obligated to provide support for x number of years. Does some kid who bangs out a lolcats viewer for iPhone need to provide a warranty? Who's going to make up the regulatory body that governs this? Ex industry people like in every other regulatory body? Guess who this favors --big companies like Microsoft who can easily afford regulatory compliance. Software is inherently more complex than physical products, the vastly different hardware configurations of consumer PCs make it impossible to test everything. Manufacturers will only guarantee that the software works on x model Dell Desktop, and stop offering support for anything else to avoid regulatory problems. Software is much faster moving than hardware, lack of regulations is one of the reasons. The biggest problems consumers have with software is malware? Do you warranty against active destruction by a third party (like a car manufacturer providing a warranty against someone keying your car)?

lazyjones 14y ago
> What about paid beta software? There's nothing wrong with allowing exceptions for software clearly described (and sold) as "beta". > What small part-time software developer is ever going to release anything if he is legally obligated to provide support for x number of years. One who is careful enough to use a safe language, skilled programmers and possibly insurance. I fail to see how this is any different from a small vendor of electronic devices, who needs to comply with safety regulations and bear the risk of a recall due to a design problem. > Does some kid who bangs out a lolcats viewer for iPhone need to provide a warranty? Yes, just like he is accountable if he fits the lolcats viewer with a trojan on purpose. > Who's going to make up the regulatory body that governs this? Ex industry people like in every other regulatory body? Guess who this favors --big companies like Microsoft who can easily afford regulatory compliance. How is this different in other industries where regulations that demand sufficient quality and warranties exist? > Software is inherently more complex than physical products So you're saying that complex products should not come with a suitable warranty? How is an image viewer for the PC (no warranty, possibly vulnerable to specially crafted images due to buffer overflows etc.) more complex than a car (comes with warranty)?. > Software is much faster moving than hardware, lack of regulations is one of the reasons. I disagree. The software industry keeps reinventing and breaking things and hardware has progressed to a much greater degree in the past 20 years. > Do you warranty against active destruction by a third party (like a car manufacturer providing a warranty against someone keying your car)? Active destruction requires physical access. If you provide physical access through a stupid vulnerability (that can be 100% avoided using safe languages e.g.), then yes, you should be held liable. If the user provides the physical access through his own neglect, it's his own fault.

unimpressive 14y ago

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.