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 the

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.