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.
>There's nothing wrong with allowing exceptions for software clearly described (and sold) as "beta".
Then all software will be sold as beta.
>Yes, just like he is accountable if he fits the lolcats viewer with a trojan on purpose.
One of those things is a criminal violation, the other is not--"just like" doesn't work here.
>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.
I've developed and sold small electronic devices before--regulatory compliance is a huge burden if you're only selling a few units. Paying the cost of compliance testing when you're niche products with a small number of sales is very difficult. In addition, it greatly increases the amount of capital needed to get going.
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.
How many small electronic vendors are there vs. small software vendors? Software that can cause death (like electronic devices can) already has to comply with safety regulations.
>How is this different in other industries where regulations that demand sufficient quality and warranties exist?
It's not, that's the point. The regulations in these industries are heavily skewed towards large companies, that can afford to pay entire regulatory compliance divisions and the divide the cost amongst their comparatively much larger sales--complying with regulations is much easier if you are selling a millions copies of something than if you are selling 100.
>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)?.
How many car companies are there? Do you really want to live in a world where the software industry works like the car industry?
Embedded critical systems running real time software are much more reliable than desktop software because failures can kill people. But there is a huge trade off--do you want to run a desktop graphics program that is designed by engineers at Boeing?
I like the freedom of choice that I'm currently offered--I'm willing to accept a few bugs in exchange for more a better user experience.
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.
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.
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.