On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:
I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there will be little or no improvement in the situation.
I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people liable stifles innovation. The customers abundantly prove that they don't care. I know it, because I've talked to the customers. They might complain, but in a curiously perfunctory manner, their lips move, but their neurons don't spike. In the market, everybody is free to use more stable components for the mission critical systems. If they make a difference (apparently, not on the short run, if at all, since businesses are either operating in a largely brownian market, or are running in an irrational regime, since capable to afford very broad error margins), the marketplace will select for fitter products. If they do not, well, too bad. Where people's life are at stake the product as a whole is certified, and the producer is already liable. There's no point in introducing a Hippocrates oath for the code samurai in the field. There will be fewer programmers, the average programmer will be better, but you're paying by arresting progress. See small civilian aircraft for an illustration. If you're afraid of change, the customer eventually suffers. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3