Slashdot Mirror
Calling Software Reliability Into Question
phillymjs writes "CNN is running a story on software reliability, and how the lack of it may cost more and more lives as technology creeps further into everyday products. It appears a debate is finally starting amongst everyday (read: non-geek) people about vendor liability for buggy software. Some opponents of the liability push are unsurprising: Says the story, 'Microsoft contends that setting [reliability] standards could stifle innovation, and the cost of litigation and damages could mean more expensive software.' The article also says, however, that consumers' favortism of flashy products over reliable ones is partly to blame for the current state of software."
IMO if a company is unwilling to supply you with the source code (under whatever license) to let you see and fix problems that exist they should have no possible exemption from litigation, no matter what POS EULA they persuade you to sign.
They are asking you to place your trust in them that their code is good enough to bet your business on. If their software is not all it's cracked up to be and you had no chance to check their claims (but instead had to take their word for it) then they clearly are responsible for breaking their word.
Unless they told you that it was a buggy product that you couldn't rely on in the first place... now that would make for amusing adverts.
(Can you imagine Windows boxes with cigarette-health-warning style labels on them saying "The Computer-General warns that this product may be bad for your business.")
Beep beep.
Isn't the trend towards "flashy products" rather than reliable ones the same reason why current marketing pushes sex rather than product qualities (Pepsi, A&F, etc), movies flaunt big-name actors and actresses, and people won't go see a movie unless it has a high PG-13 or R rating (PG? It's got to be boring). This is the same reason why Legos now has 3-piece dumptrucks and 8-piece Hogwarts castles. Why is this? Dumbed-down education? Why is it that people have just started to gobble up whatever the media tells them rather than understanding what they need for themselves. *sigh* What's society coming to?
This is what Microsoft is, quite rightly, afraid of. If I can sue Microsoft for $100k because IE crashed, MS isn't going to have time to do anything except fix bugs. This isn't even entirely their own fault, since the nature of programming makes it impossible to write any large program without bugs. And unless you grandfather all of MS's products, they'd be screwed.
But this is even worse. Unless the laws are written to special-case free software, we might see Linus sued because Linux crashed one day. RMS might end up $15m in debt because Emacs ate somebody's email. How's that for stifling innovation? If I (personally) might get sued for some bug I missed, there's no way I'm going to give away my programs.
The guy in the article advocates only a limited sort of liability: you're liable only up to a point, or only if you don't divulge the bugs you know about. But does anyone out there really think the politicians, who are more in the pocket of trial lawyers than of anyone else, are going to make it hard to sue?
It is certainly true that users place reliability very low on their list of priorities when buying products, but that does not necessarily means that they don't value reliability. It merely means that they take reliability for granted.
:-).
For example, the last time I filled in a car survey, I didn't put "does not explode when ignition key turned" anywhere on the form.
The problem is a fundamental one. There are way, way, way too many possible parties to blame. The only logical reaction for MS if such a law was enacted would be to immediately cease running any software that wasn't authorized by MS (with approriate fees, bars for competing programs, etc.), a situation that I imagine they see only in their fondest dreams. Legislation like this would be the perfect excuse. To be honest, even I would barely question their right to secure their system if they are going to be held responsible for its flaws.
As for the idea that open source software should be exempt - I doubt that you'd accept the idea that cars should be exempt from safety standard if they provided you with the blueprints
Why should liability be software or hardwar based?
If i design a system to move some gears via an operator pressing big electronic buttons as a mechanical engineery, why should an electronic engineer who designs a program to operate the gears be exempt?
We are both designing a system to do a job. As an electronic engineer, I make my system based on some OS, so either I or the OS manufacturer (which, I add, licences an OS, if it is used against the license terms, it is my liability) has the liability.
Don't be lazy allocating responsibility.
Because some IT staffs have a higher-up who went to the most recent Microsoft seminar ($25.000,- for entry & attendance, $750,- for the hotel, $2.250,- on the flight) and got amazed by MS. After budget-cutting away the drinks dispenser and replacing it with an old coffee maker (Hey, that $28.000m- is more important then employee satisfaction! *sarcasm*) hte higher up has a great idea, replacing all server with Windows 2003 Enterprise Server! All the crying and complaining from the IT staff wont convince the higher-up, because a shifty, 40b USD company that can throw a flashy seminar is far more trustworthy in his opinion then his IT staff, who worked with the company before he got there. Several budget-cuts later to accomodate the win2k3 licensing costs, the entire department switches to Win2k3. Several more budget-cuts later, mainly used on MS support, the entire company goes to hell. IT staff gets fired, along with the rest of the company while management gets scattered among several other companies, ready to ruin them anew.
Welcome to the modern economic system.
Hate me!
Where life-critical systems are put in place, there will be an insurance policy. The insurance company should require a guarantee from the software vendor. Therefore, in life-critical systems, the software vendor should always be able to be held accountable. Yes, this will be expensive, but not as expensive as all those lawsuits.
Most software does not fall into this category. Virtually every business is heavily dependant upon software though, so it is mission-critical. The nature of closed-source software is a massive imbalance between vendor and customer though. The vendor is the only one who can fix bugs; it's the ultimate form of vendor lock-in. Those vendors with monopolies (for example Microsoft) should therefore be regulated in some way, as they can literally hold a majority of businesses to ransom.
Suppose a defect that only affected a small number of businesses was found in Windows? Microsoft has little economic incentive to fix the issue. The businesses are heavily dependent on the software, yet nobody can help them - the only thing they can do is work around the issue somehow, which may not be possible, or an expensive migration to another platform (expensive in terms of resources; even if the software is free, the downtime is not).
What can be done to fix this situation? Obviously, if you run a business, you take appropriate notice of this business risk, and plan accordingly. But this doesn't escape the fact that sometimes you have to resort to using software you cannot rely on. I'm a web developer; I have no choice but to test in Internet Explorer. If a bug prevents me from running it, it's a major setback.
I believe a solution to this is to loosen the grip the vendors have on the software. Copyright is an artificial monopoly on creating copies; it shouldn't be an artifical monopoly on fixing bugs. If you are a software vendor, you should have three options:
This, I feel, is the balance between protecting businesses from having no control over their software, and protecting the rights of the software vendor. Have I missed anything?
You want verified design? Cool, you can get it. You can get a design that is gaurenteed to have no bugs and to never crash. This exists today, however you need to be prepared to PAY for it, in many ways.
First, say goodbye to the concept of being able to load your own apps or run it on your own hardware. If the company is going to certify that everything will be bug free, they need to know that a 3rd party isn't going to fuck that up. Your system will be verified to run on a certian hardware and using certian software. You will not change any of that without consulting the company first to do a verification of the proposed changes, or you'll invalidate the gaurentee and service contract. After all, you can have 100% stable code, but if a peice of hardware has a dodgy kernel mode driver it doesn't matter, that can being the system down.
Second, you will have the access restricted. You won't be able to just put this system on teh Internet to be accessed in any way you like, it will be accessed only through verified channels. You cannot potentially have the integrity compramised by clients sending unforseen data to it so all access must be controlled.
Finally, you will pay in terms of price. IF you want a system of this level you are not getting it for under a thousand dollars. Think 6 or 7 figures, plus a yearly matenence contract since you yourself aren't allowed to maintain it.
We have systems of this level in the real world. Like the AT&T/Lucent phone switches that run most of your phone network. We have one at the university and know what? IT never goes down, it didn't even go down when they upgraded it from a 5ESS to a 7R/E. It is 100% reliable. However, it is totally inflexable. We can't mess arnound with new technologies with it, it does phones and it does them only one way. We don't even work on it directly, it came with two technicians as part of the service contract. Oh, and it cost nearly 20 million dollars.
Look, if you want to have a computer market where anyone is free to build hardware and assemble it how they like, and you can freely use whatever software you want, you have to accept that there WILL be problems and you won't get verified design. The big part of a verified design is just that, verification. You check EVERY part of the design and make sure it works properly with the other parts and has no errors. Well the problem is that hardware, software, and user interaction are all a part of that and all have to be restricted. Once a design has been tested and verified, it can't be changed without reverfying.
So, if you really want 100% reliability, and can afford it in terms of monetary cost and teh sacrafices you have to make, then don't whine, go and get it. Talk to IBM, EMC, Dell or the like. They'll design you a system to do what you need that will never crash ever. However you'll need to decide what it needs to do and be happy with that, because you won't be able to change it, and you'll have to pay a real cash premium for it.
I disagree about the article's assertion that there is no liability for defects in software.
I deal with embeddeded controls in industrial control equipment all of the time. I just had to change my insurance company last year and my rates went up because companies are being held accountable and insurance companies are paying out when people screw up. Many companies don't want to insure programmers anymore. Sounds like the hammer is coming down to me.
You may not be able to sue MS the next time Excel craps out on you but I assure you that you could sue a programmer because the system that he programmed dumped 1000 gallons of a toxic substance into your containment area or because you just released a toxic cloud of ammonia from your plant.
When the stakes are high, programmers tend to have to test a lot more. You still have to remain economically viable though. Three lines of code a day may work for NASA but the rest of us can't afford to be that inefficient. Of course the stuff that I can blow up is at most worth 10's of millions of $, not billions.
When it comes to embedded control apps, I don't think that things are much worse than they are for our physical counterparts. Yeah a plane crashed because of a bug in an altitude control system but they also crash because of other design problems in the mechanical, electrical, and materials engineering areas. I don't think that programmers are any less aware that lives depend on their work than any other type of engineer.
If you are doing number crunching types of applications, you also tend to run the code through a battery of tests. You can definitely be sued for screwing that stuff up.
Now little controllers in your dishwasher and your run of the mill desktop apps are held to a lower standard, I agree. You are rewarded by the market for getting new stuff out the door cheaply and quickly. You can certainly argue that it shouldn't be that way but the masses have spoken. If your stuff gets too far out of hand then the market will let you know. MS is definitely feeling the pressure from OSS and rightly so. I can bet you that they are atleast trying to respond. I can definitely see a big improvement between the Windows XP that I run on my notebook and desktop and the NT 4 that I ran a few years ago. I can also see that Windows 2000 is much better than NT 4 was on the server, but it isn't good enough yet and that is why a lot of people are moving to Linux for things like web servers, DB machines, etc. The market is speaking.
I would say that programmers are ultimately held accountable. I would hate to see things swing too far out of hand as I do think that it would ultimate stiffle innovation.
If something is inherently unreliable then you don't need to fix it: you find ways to live with it. A perfect example of this is the internet itself. TCP is a reliable transport provided over IP, an unreliable internetworking layer.
Make no mistake: IP is explicitly and deliberately unreliable. This keeps it simple, and allows upper layers to choose appropriate quality of service parameters for their application.
How this relates to the issue of unreliable application software is fuzzy: but its pretty obvious that humans have adapted to the reality of the situation: the power-cycling protocol is just one example of the ways in which we cope.
If a situation is life-critical, then I'd be happier knowing that the system is designed to cope with glitches then if the system assumes these glitches have been tested out of existance. Cosmic Rays really do exist, so some level of unreliability is guarenteed!
Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
In most places, free-as-in-beer stuff is already fundamentally a special case, because unless something of value changes hands in both directions, you don't have a contract.
Of course, free-as-in-speech software neither deserves nor should get any special privileges. If you make money by selling me an OS that happens to be GPL'd, open source, or otherwise "free", that's still something you're selling me. "Oh, you should have looked at all the source code for Linux and spotted the critical bug for yourself" isn't much of an excuse at that point; I'm paying you to have done that for me.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.