6 ms·

> Then all software will be sold as beta. That is what happens right now, only that they get away without labeling it that way. When beta software (known as su

> Then all software will be sold as beta. That is what happens right now, only that they get away without labeling it that way. When beta software (known as such) is used in production environments, at least you can fire whoever made the decision to use it when it causes massive damage. But when a software vendor gets away with selling you a shrink-wrapped product that actually "does nothing" (as the legalese in the EULA claims), there's something very wrong. > I've developed and sold small electronic devices before--regulatory compliance is a huge burden if you're only selling a few units. Not a show-stopper then, thanks for proving my point. ;-) > Whenever someone proposes regulatory solutions like this, I assume he has only worked for (or owns) established companies and has recently tried to start one himself. Interesting assumption, out of the blue. I started my own (vc-funded) company in 2000 and am still working there as CEO. Now what was the ad-hominem-ish point you were making? > It's not, that's the point So why does software deserve special treatment, resulting in the buggy mess we have now? > How many car companies are there? Lots. > Do you really want to live in a world where the software industry works like the car industry? It would be great if software was as carefully crafted as typical cars. There's also plenty of humorous spins at that comparison out there (you don't have to drive cars with a completely different UI every 2 years) ... > But there is a huge trade off--do you want to run a desktop graphics program that is designed by engineers at Boeing? What exactly is so bad about engineers at Boeing that you expect me to answer with "no"? Is Microsoft a somehow much smaller, cooler and more flexible company than Boeing so I should feel like I'm getting a better deal now? > I like the freedom of choice that I'm currently offered Noone wants to take the freedom of choice away from you, just the freedom of vendors to sell junk ("no fitness for a particular purpose") disguised as software.

learc83 14y ago
If you want this kind of ultra reliable software, have it built in-house, or hire vendors and contractors who will agree to your terms. >Not a show-stopper then, thanks for proving my point. ;-) You have no idea how many products I've shelved at the prototype stage because I didn't think I could recoup the regulatory costs. >Interesting assumption, out of the blue. I started my own (vc-funded) company in 2000 and am still working there as CEO. Now what was the ad-hominem-ish point you were making? Turns out it was correct, you haven't recently tried to start a company--you did so 12 years ago. Now you're an entrenched player with something to gain from additional regulation. >Lots. That's just absurd. Compare the number of software makers to auto makers. There's at least 2 orders of magnitude more software companies, probably many more. >What exactly is so bad about engineers at Boeing that you expect me to answer with "no"? Is Microsoft a somehow much smaller, cooler and more flexible company than Boeing so I should feel like I'm getting a better deal now? You seem to want desktop software to be as reliable as embedded real time software, that's what I mean by manufactured by Boeing. There is a huge trade off for that reliability, in the form of performance. >Noone wants to take the freedom of choice away from you, just the freedom of vendors to sell junk ("no fitness for a particular purpose") disguised as software. That's exactly what you're trying to do. Right now I have a huge choice of available software. You want to restrict what manufactures can produce, thus limiting my choice. You don't like the current state of software--fine make better software, use BSD--don't tell me what I can and cannot buy and sell. Good Day.

learc83 14y ago

If you want this kind of ultra reliable software, have it built in-house, or hire vendors and contractors who will agree to your terms. >Not a show-stopper then, thanks for proving my point. ;-) You have no idea how many products I've shelved at the prototype stage because I didn't think I could recoup the regulatory costs. >Interesting assumption, out of the blue. I started my own (vc-funded) company in 2000 and am still working there as CEO. Now what was the ad-hominem-ish point you were making? Turns out it was correct, you haven't recently tried to start a company--you did so 12 years ago. Now you're an entrenched player with something to gain from additional regulation. >Lots. That's just absurd. Compare the number of software makers to auto makers. There's at least 2 orders of magnitude more software companies, probably many more. >What exactly is so bad about engineers at Boeing that you expect me to answer with "no"? Is Microsoft a somehow much smaller, cooler and more flexible company than Boeing so I should feel like I'm getting a better deal now? You seem to want desktop software to be as reliable as embedded real time software, that's what I mean by manufactured by Boeing. There is a huge trade off for that reliability, in the form of performance. >Noone wants to take the freedom of choice away from you, just the freedom of vendors to sell junk ("no fitness for a particular purpose") disguised as software. That's exactly what you're trying to do. Right now I have a huge choice of available software. You want to restrict what manufactures can produce, thus limiting my choice. You don't like the current state of software--fine make better software, use BSD--don't tell me what I can and cannot buy and sell. Good Day.