Slashdot Mirror
'The Year That Software Bugs Ate the World' (fastcompany.com)
FastCompany's harrymcc writes: It's not like there's ever a year that isn't rife with stories about buggy software. But 2017 seems to have had an unusually rich supply of software flaws that fouled up major products -- from Twitter to iOS 11 to the Google Pixel 2 -- in ways that were very noticeable and sometimes even funny. Sample this: A nagging flaw in Google's Play Services software for Android causes Gmail to demand access to "body sensors" before it will let users send email. Android Police's Artem Russakovskii discovers that his Mini is recording audio 24/7 and storing it on Google's servers. I rounded up a bunch of them over at Fast Company.
Programming in traditional programming languages instead of the latest fad language and framework. And develop in our own countries instead of outsourcing it.
99 bugs in the code to be fixed, 99 bugs in the code. Fix a bug, wrap it up, 148 bugs in the code...
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
The average person still does not care at all. Hence software can still get worse and even cheaper to make before it starts to cut into profits. And it will.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The examples listed are not necessarily bugs, even if they are named so when they're found out.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. But then again, never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by corporate greed.
I think a major contributor to all these bugs is that every. single. thing. has to be connected to every. other. thing. My computer has to talk to my phone which has to talk to my watch which has to talk to my refrigerator which has to talk to my toaster. All that connectivity makes software waaay more complicated that it needs to be. Now throw in some corporate greed where software design goes to the lowest bidder and you get what we have today.
Next year: Even more software, even more bugs.
I would go with shorter development time, nowadays less and less testing is done before a release,..
"Beta testing? BAhhhhh,... that is what users are for."
with that and your boss telling you to release now since he had a quick look and didn't see any problem,... (after a 5min glance)
Formal validations of software using math is already difficult and will be more so when applied to AI domain. Just the definition of what constitutes correctness is a challenge in such systems.
The demarcation between traditional programming bugs vs undesirable outcome due to flawed learning blurs as software complexity increases. Subtle biases or other instabilities can be introduced that influence cognition and it will be nearly impossible to trace.
If the app misbehaves, trying to trace and attribute it a segment of code may soon be a thing of past. So, 2017 as 'The Year That Software Bugs Ate the World' is probably just the precursor of a future where good enough is the new norm.
I mean I remember the "Good Old Days" where the system would crash when you look at it wrong, or typed too fast. SQL Injection errors were common...
These bugs that came out this year, while bugs, is a far cry to the risk of trying to use a computer during the 1990's or before.
I haven't seen a BSOD (or its equivalent) in nearly a decade now. These glitches that we get today, while some are serious, they are rather small in the big picture.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
the year the frog noticed the water was getting kind of hot.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Have you taken the time to consider how many libraries are used in the average project? Most of those are open source projects, continually updating and relying on other libraries from other projects. Like coding inception.. a bug or change inside of a library, inside of a library, inside of a library inside of a program that messes everything up. Vigorous testing is the only hope.
Fast Company - for those who find The Verge too technical.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You hit it. (Also I didn't see any previous post saying this). Irony ... Facebook, Yahoo (and eBay) ... all have software quality that SUCKS. They all release broken code - many times. (FB: open a video to a 'new' style window; the video doesn't play, the "back" arrow takes you back to the top of the list, you've lost your place; Yahoo: I've all but abandon it due to bad quality. eBay: New features in "rating" have grammatical errors/issue; and BAD (wrong) information -- all of these I have (attempted) to report to the companies many times. None of the companies have a meaningful feedback mechanism. For all of them -- their quality SUCKS. They are big enough that; who else are you going to go to? ... ? (No documentation... I have NEVER seen a dev write a test case that made sense by reading it). Yes, they (frequently) write great code. But you need a tester behind it writing test cases; both manual and automated.
/. article
"How Can I Make Testing Software More Stimulating"; the best response, worth reading and keeping:
You can't, so don't try
For me; it is - when I see the video bug, stop scrolling down. For Yahoo, I've almost abandon it. For eBay -- don't leave any feedback -- and I'm cutting back. The thing is that these are people {managers} have no clue about quality or testing. The suggestion of ''Let's have developers test their on code'' is insane. Time and time again, developers can't write bug free code; and are unable to properly test. Why should they? They will be paid to fix it on the next release! (Which they never do). I've reviewed developers written automation. One test case - did nothing (and reported that it was successful). A group of test cases (about 40%) passed with the server "down". None of the automated test cases (written by dev's) gave any rational as what they were doing, or the goals of the test case. Were they testing the GUI function, the server function, the ability to get the job done
From the
If we had capability based security in our systems, this kind of stuff would require the user to knowingly allow these types of activities. Until then, we're all screwed. Stop blaming everything but the OS. It's not the programmers or the users.
When will you suckers realize that a solid, well engineered foundation is the key to every successful construction project???
You "strengthen-it-later" types are why we can't have nice things; you merely sit back in your rubble, and smugly proclaim to be the great first-mover innovators.
"2017 seems to have had an unusually rich supply of software flaws that fouled up major products -- from Twitter to iOS 11 to the Google Pixel 2 .. Google's Play Services software for Android ..
Something missing from that story, just on the tip of my tongue, is it any wonder this has become known as the Microsoft Slashdot.
Two Bytes to $951M
Yup. Both of the Google "bugs" sure do look a lot like features. User-hostile features, sure, but planned intentional features all the same.
Google is always watching. (And listening, too, it seems.)
Stop Google now before it's too late.
My company has no QA testers, no spec to test against, no leadership motivation to get either of those things, and no financial resources to spend on them even if there was desire. We do have some unit tests but they are not a priority. As you might imagine, the quality of the end product is less than stellar.
Yet despite some serious usability issues tons of people use the system. That's considered validation of the business model. :)
Sometimes I talk socially with local "entrepreneurs" building various (mostly useless) applications with 100% outsourced dirt cheap labor. Often they will often tell me about some problem they're having with the software or the "coders", expecting a sympathetic ear or useful advice.
I literally laugh out loud at them. "Hahahaha - pay peanuts, get monkeys!"
The lower the inflation-adjusted pay goes in our industry, the more skilled and knowledgeable people who are going to sit back and just laugh while everything breaks.
Nope. If I go to my site via HTTPS it says everything is great but if I go to the HTTP link which mod_redirects to the secure link it says my site is insecure.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun