Slashdot Mirror
Software Regulatory Body?
Barbarian writes "This article at 3D Action
Planet discusses the possibility of a Software regulatory body, with
the power to impose fines on companies which release crashware. Although
the article ignores Open Source, it is insightful in it's assesment of
commercial software. The article pertains towards games, but it is intended to apply to the Software industry in general. " My only question: Much like the UN, where does the real power come from; how do the fines stick, and actually get paid?
What a dumb idea. Does this mean I can sue the nakers of the movie "Entrapment" because that movie sucked? After all, this guy says that if software lacks features then the regulators should nail them. "Entrapment" lacked action and suspense, so should they get regulated?
Do someone know of a way to automatically detect MS-HTML ?
I guess I could do an (ugly) solution by scanning the cache for ms-ascii.
Ideally there would be a setting "warn for msascii" that would pop-up some box.
Then we all could write polite (sure...) mails to the webmasters of those sites.
Or some automated bot that scans the net and automatically mail webmaster@offendingsite.com ?
It's just pure evil !
there are laws in the US against illegal marketing such as the examples you give. i believe the origin suit is slightly different, being a class action suit. but the premise is that you sign away those implied rights when you sign the license agreement. thats what the article was saying.
In practice those kinds of laws would benefit Microsoft. Microsoft probably favors regulated programming... it could be used to keep a lot of scrappy young hooligans with good ideas but no influence from stealing market share.
You are forgetting that there are other countries than the U.S.A. This is an international prob. Besides, not all software problems are because of shoddy software. Nail hardware manufacturers as well for bad specs, wrong specs, their bugs etc... ....Hell, the shopping car I used at SafeWay weaved to the left & forced me to crash into a crate of watermellons...Penalize 'em!!!!
ISO9000-3 covers software development processes. However, ISO9000 standards only ensure that you are following documented processes. They can be the lamest, most moronic processes known to man, making the worst products ever seen. But if they are documented, and followed, you get your certification, and management gets to put a big ol' honkin banner on the front of the building that says "ISO9000 Certified!" (which is the point of ISO certification, I think).
-- cenobite, who doesn't have his password at the moment
The only question marks I see are at the end of questions.
Every software store I have been to says that
they have a policy that states one can not
return software and CDs that have been opened.
If you do not like the software or it has lots
of bugs what should you do? I think we need to
look at stores that do not allow you to return
software before creating an agency to sue
software producers.
WOuld you really want to take on the responsibility for a program that you wrote and gave away? legal liability? NO
THis would be just another way for OSS to be undermined. Remember, Microsoft would have a lot more lawyers to defend itself in court than you would. THey are good at the lawyer thing, this programmer license and other legal BS would be good for them.
Less law is better law. I think for every law applied to the books, another should be removed. Then lawyers would simply be working on better compression algorthims.
nuff said.
We have 'em. POSIX is one. The TCP/IP specs are too. So are the FTP, HTTP, DNS, etc protocols. If you don't follow them, it will sooner or later break.
We do not need a greater entry level barrier. That would make it impossible for the small developers (i.e. Open Source) to compete with the big ones (i.e. Microsoft).
the ford explosion was secretely set of by a model rocket.
I work for a company that's ISO9000 certified. But let me tell you, the quality of the software (and some hardware too) is incredibly poor. So they follow a set of procedures, they log bugs, but then if they don't want to fix a bug, they just list it as rejected.
actually its netscape 4.6 on a mac so i dont think i am a prisoner of bill and there are no question marks thanks for asking and that check your facts thing was just some kind of joke but oh well sorry to hurt you i apologiz also i dont know what that octal dump crap is about but maybe if you view it in netscape you wont have to worry about this weird junk
Ever heard of the free market? Don't like something? Don't buy it. Why in the world should software vendors be subject to your whims? If they want to make crap, then don't buy it. It's very simple. UL listings are there so innocent people don't die from fires. Last time I checked, SimCity 2000 wasn't exactly a fire hazard. I think that perhaps YOU need to grow up and make some grown up decisions about where you spend your money. Why in the hell are you using Zip disks? Are you stupid? There are easily hundreds of other options for backing up your data? Your stupidity in relying on a poor product for cirital backups is no one's fault but your own. Grow up.
If there were some sort of body which certifies software as not being defective (for instance, having all advertised features), they could do this. They'd look at Micro$oft XXX, decide it doesn't have an advertised feature, and put a death penalty against Micro$oft fining them a few million dollars, and which would be all over the computer press. If they don't pay up, they will never get certified again. This might depress sales of Micro$oft XXX by an amount far larger than the actual fine, so they'll fix it (or their advertizing)
Free software probably wouldn't be certified, but this is no big deal. If free software doesn't work, you just throw it away. You didn't lose any money on it. The disadvantage for free software is that companies might have requirements that software be certified.
Note also that if you really wanted to, you COULD go through the certification process for your software.
This procedure is somewhat similar to the way standards bodies work. Isn't it amazing that all 4-40 screws, no matter who makes them, fit in 4-40 holes? How do they get this conformity? They do what I have described above.
"Glassy-Eyed Libertarian Pod Person"
Kid, you're a moron. Grow up, get a job, and don't bother the real people until you've at least seen reality, if not understood it.
It's just too hard to enforce. But I see what they're getting at.
Instead, how bout creating a reputable independent label that awards good software with a certification. It would make money by accepting certification reviews, but would be honest and unbiased since the company reputation and hence their profits is at stake.
I don't know about Sweden but I think in the US you have to prove that it was an intentional attempt to defraud. Also I think you have to prove damages were done, which is hard to do with games.
For the most part, when the software we are talking about crashes, noone dies.
When is is that vital that the software works programmers use Ada and program verifiers to make sure that the program _CANNOT_ crash unless there is hardware failure.
About the only times it's ever this important is when we are talking about nuclear bombs and plants, passenger airplanes, and military equipment. At those times the government does regulate the stability of the software very closely.
... be sold in Sweden?
The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument?
In and of itself, it's kinda vague.
Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
This is totally unrelated. There is no parallel at all between on the one hand holding companies responsible for the quality of their products, and on the other hand making them hire homeless people. You seem to be saying, "in both cases we're passing a law, so it's the same thing either way." Well, no. It's not the same thing at all.
There are, in some states, laws limiting the amount of liability a vendor (a vendor of things in general, not software in particular) can blow off by denying all responsibility in the EULA. Forgive me if I've been listening to what libertarians say rather than what they claim to believe, but in practice libertarianism is all about rights and nothing about responsibility.
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Okay, here's where you go so far off the rails that it's not even worth talking to you. There's no way to discuss that remark, because your definition of "socialist" is radically different from the non-libertarian definition. Basically it seems to mean "infidel": "Anybody who doesn't share my rather eccentric view of the world". Libertarian is reductionistic to the point of bearing a close resemblance to religious faith. If it comes to that, though, I'd sooner argue with a priest about the Trinity. After all, priests are trained to back up their views with logic, and very few of them resort to name-calling. Whenever I point out that a libertarian is relying on faith rather than evidence and logic, they always say, "but libertarianism is all ABOUT logic! I'm logical by definition!" Well, that's poor logic right there, and at any rate, saying "logic logic logic" over and over doesn't make you logical; it makes you repetitive.
unless a goverment enforced this, it would be entirely voluntary. Who would volunteer for fines, based on someone elses view on the stability of your software. I mean we wouldnt need anything like the nrc.The only sane way to promote stableness is by compeating on the "feature" of stableness. Free software rule is "competition by cooperation" it only makes sence eventualy open software will be the most stable platform. Thats why many open sourced programs are stable.
So that's what makes those stupid '?'s. We should email the author of that page and tell them to test their web page before releasing it! (or be fined)
This is Microsoft's (and their ilk) fault. Note that one of the acknowledged arguments against regulation is:
It isn't necessary! Consumer pressure is the answer. Once a company lets us down we know to avoid their products in future.
With the response:
Nice in theory, but in reality it isn't working, is it?
The reason it is not working is because of the effective monopoly Microsoft has that breaks the competitive market system. Note that in software domains in which Microsoft is not a player (yes these exist, such as many industrial embedded systems...telecom, manufacturing, etc) the market system is alive and well. Also note that in these competitive arenas the touted disclaimers in this article usually do not exist. To try to avoid accountability in the competitive arena is a negative factor for that products value.
Therefore, break the monopoly and you break the need for regulation. However, the game industry does not really fit the monopoly model. The game industry actually IS already competitive and it is the increased bandwidth available to consumers (to viably download demos) that is helping consumer pressure. I know that I would never buy a game without trying it first anymore. Game consumers are only now becoming aware. This issue will correct itself. For example, if one of the current next gen CIV games advertised that they guaruntee their features and quality I would choose that one for my CIV needs. At this point I will not play any of them since I refuse to invest my time in a game that could fail to deliver.
Not programmed badly? Ermmmmmmm. Considering:
1. Patches to fix "accidental" bugs that really,
really look like deliberate cheats for the AI;
e.g. SMAC, Close Combat 2.
2. Patches to fix hardware-related issues, be it
motherboard, video card, etc; too many to
count.
3. Patches to fix things that are quite possible
but never anticipated, e.g. doing things in
a different order making games unsolvable, or
leading to the bizarre (e.g. SMAC, using a
signed octet for city size, when you CAN
break 127; hello, size -128 city. Various
adventure games. And so forth.)
4. Reviewers that seemingly adore ANY product
that crosses their desk, ignoring such as the
above; practically any reviewer, gamer or
otherwise. Hordes of screenshots, glowing
hype about "new" features, and raves about
the publisher's claims (Stability! Runs
faster! Reboots faster! [um... but what if
I reboot 1x/year?] New file format! [Gee,
thanks, but no...], Terrain effects [but the
_Ancient Art of War_ had that in, what, 1988?]
etc), blatantly ignoring issues.
There's a lot of sloppiness out there on many parts, including frequently the consumer. And I'm not going to exempt Linux, either; consider all the various RH patches that relate to installation and so forth.
I've seen the occasional damn fine product that's stable AND useful (or, perhaps, useless but lots of fun). Wordperfect 5.1 worked quite well for me. A lot of the old Electronic Arts titles were quite spiffy (e.g. _Pinball Construction Set_; _Articfox_), as were such from other publishers. That's all pretty rare nowadays.
I wonder how much of this is due to the pressure to publish early and often...
... At least that's not at all the impression I got from the article.
My understanding is that companies would only be fined for software that was flawed enough to prevent you from using it as intended, and only if a significant number of users made complaints about it. And the fines would be based on profit made from release date until the product was fixed, and therefore if you give your software away for free, then profits==0 and you therfore can't be fined. So Microsoft releasing a barely functional operating system could cost them $50 million, while some small company selling a word processor for $20 would lose considerably less money if their product was buggy and they fixed it in a timely manner.
The only problem I see with this system is that the users aren't compensated for their wasted time or lost data from a failure of a product. However, that could be solved with a law saying that a company can't exempt itself from consumer protection and warranty laws in an agreement (exceptions could be made for beta or free products which are clearly labeled as such). This way, if a product acutally caused harm (not just inconvenience) then you could always sue the company in court just as well as you could any other company, like a car company that makes exploding cars.
Although it needs to be well thought out before any action is taken, I think that this is a viable idea that could be very benificial to the end-users.
AB
This might work... a group that certifies software and makes sure that the companies do what they are supposed to do. Those who do would be able to use the logo on their box or mention that they are approved.
How do you garuntee that the panel stays unbiased? If you have Microsoft lovers on the panel, then I garuntee that Microsoft will be able to release anything under any conditions. If the panel only containes GNU advocates then it would be REALLY hard for ANY commercial company to get approved...
Using BlahWare 2001 will increase your productivity! Never reboot again!
And the damn thing crashes every 10 minutes, then you ought to be able to get your money back... The companies should not be allowed to sell broken software, not allow refunds, etc, etc...
> Sometimes simply getting something out there
>that works is more important.
Right. So what about software that you buy that doesn't work? This is not about where the priorities are, but rather against making false claims, selling shoddy programs and refusing to accept responsibility when your software breaks.
What recourse does this leave the average consumer? There is no one to hold liable for broken software. Wait, wasn't that why companies don't want to use free software? Oh....
The problem with this argument is that is centers around the structure of the game industry as an example, and to be honest, I don't think the game industry needs to be regulated. Much as it is irritating when a game is buggy or doesn't live up to the hype, that is not a good reason to start fining the publisher. As a gamer, you have a choice if and when to buy a game. If you are the type who has to get a game the day it comes out the door, then you should also realize that you are taking a risk. You always have the option to wait a few weeks for reviews to come in or for sufficient patches to come out. If that never happens, then don't buy the game. Like the writer said, if you buy a ford that never runs, you'll never buy another ford and you'll tell others not to buy one either. That's what a free market economy is all about. Its also important to note that you are not always stuck with a buggy game. Some companies (such as Sierra Online) have 30 day return guarantees, so that if you truly can't stand the game, then you can return it. And perhaps most importantly, the worst thing that will usually happen if a game doesn't work is that you lose $50 or so. No significant time is lost, and except in the most extreme cases, your computer is not harmed.
This has not historically worked.
Period.
If your argument is that it does work, I would ask, what changed?
I must say I am very disappointed with many of the responses I've seen. How many of these, I wonder, might be MS people on company time making sure 'libertarian' people protect MS from the consequences of their actions? Isn't 'Well, he with the gold wins, therefore you shouldn't even try involving the government because MS will buy it' a stinking admission of cowardice and refusal to be responsible?
*ahem* hm, that's coming out a bit strong.
What I'm saying is that this article is dead on the money, and some slashdot posters have begun to illustrate why. UL was mentioned. That is a very important clue to what is really at stake here.
How many items do you have IN ARM'S REACH which are certified by Underwriters' Laboratories? My soldering gun is UL listed. Here's an old Atari power adapter, UL listed. An old Tascam power adapter, UL listed. Hell, every power cable and AC adapter and power strip- _and_ my AT&T answering machine and Wacom tablet. The phone, the modem, the keyboard etc do not have UL listings- but all comply with FCC regulations, and they all have "RU" and "SA" listings (what are these then?)
What is so special about the software industry that it can't be accountable like everybody else? Hell, _you_ as a private citizen are accountable. Why does the software industry get rights you don't have yourself?
The reason all the power strips are UL listed is because (as an earlier poster noted) people were having electrical hardware 'crash' a lot. Yes, this is more life threatening- but come on now, software is not that innocent! At the computer shop where I work, we _must_ have two PCs to do business. The one in the front runs some accounting software and is the answering machine. The one in back is the bench machine, and it is the one we risk with software and plugging stray hardware into, and it's been rebuilt a couple times. The reason we can't do it on one machine is because if we dared, we would be risking all our records and our means of doing business at all, on the daft notion that software crashing couldn't hurt us. No no no! And so we've taken longer to pay off our debts because we _must_ run two PCs in order to be able to function. Does this sound like accountability in action? Yes- ours. On the other hand it's a glaring admission of just how damaging the software industry can be. How many consumers can afford to buy an entirely separate computer to keep important documents and electronic accounts on? Need I even mention the strong bias the industry shows toward having consumers load even _more_ critical data into their computers? All the mortgage information! Every critical business contact! Dad's medical records and scheduling of appointments! All that onto the creaking PC, then install DirectX 9.3.0.0.0! And what do you do for safety? Back up... onto ZIP DISKS! Which of course are their own very serious accountability concern, and not acceptable as an archival medium what with click of death and all. But by god, are they cheap!
We can't do this dance forever.
Now, I've touched on one valid issue- DirectX 12.0.0.0, as it were- the trouble of someone like Microsoft breaking everybody's work. Who pays? Who apportions blame? It's bad enough MS can just about selectively target whoever they wish to break (proprietary means nobody sees the code that says "if vendor == id then crash.die_ungrateful_pup!"), but if they could do that and then hammer the hapless victim with regulatory fines things would be totally impossible.
However, this isn't something to cower around whimpering about- it needs to be worked out. Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all- I am sure there are scandals about UL abuses _somewhere_, or something is unjustifiably penalized, or some big company gets a break, but when did you last see an extension cord catch fire? A toaster explode?
I'm sorry: I for one am not at all impressed by pseudo-libertarian ranting and desperation to spare the software industry any accountability. Grow up! And the software industry has got to GROW UP too. There is no excuse for the current merry band of pirates. I'm not talking about warezpuppies- I'm talking about the VENDORS. Lay down some rules- have everybody straighten out. I can tell you that this would very likely curtail some abuses Apple's been responsible for, producing good stuff and then betraying it and axing it to the detriment of developers and consumers. It would put a damper on Microsoft. It would chill out those game developers risking systems, violating privacy etc: the point is, you want rules? Fine- _we_ come up with what needs to be covered, we already know many troubling areas to be aware of. You want no rules? That may not be your privilege.
Posted by d106ene5:
The market rewards the first-to-market. No one is going to give up market share in order to meet Level 5 of the CMM.
First-to-market is more important than quality to software businesses. Any company that ignores this and pursues the moral high-ground of quality is going to find themselves out of business. Sorry, thats just the way it is.
There is a section of this article that explains how an industry should not need regulation. The author then goes on to explain how the customers (the gamers, the analysts, the office workers, the fifth grader doing a book report, etc.) are important and must be protected through government regulation of industry. I don't buy it. Why not simply not endorse (through financial or social means of promotion) the "crap?"
Examples of "successful" regulation include governments controlling companies that control either scarce natural resources like oil or the very limited space and existing infrastructure of urban utilities (pole space for cable television, power lines, telephone service). Software, being simply the abstract ordering of a bunch of bits, isn't scarce. One can make as many copies of those bits as one wants, and at virtually zero cost.
The barrier to entry for competition in the software development industry is a $400 PC and a CD with GCC on it.
Some logic that seems to work for me: Red Hat makes money selling Linux distributions and support. People do pay Red Hat for its products. Red Hat continues to grow. Microsoft continues to "recognize" Linux as... something. Microsoft doesn't recognize grass in my lawn because it's not any threat to their revenue stream (at least not yet). They recognize Novell, Sun, Be, Apple, Red Hat, etc. as threats to their revenue stream--people who support Red Hat have made Microsoft recognize this.
It can be a bore now and then. However, considering that slashdot readers probably use computers quite a bit, that Microsoft is quite dominant in that arena, and that Microsoft has some very buggy software, I can easily understand this outlet of frustration.
You may want to request that people restain themselves, if you so wish, but given the latter sentence in your remark >>I guess none of you have any other thoughts in your clueless fragile minds then "We hate Microsoft - We fuck Penguins" I would assume that you merely needed an outlet yourself, so it is quite understandable.
Have you read my journal today?
While this may be a completely political argument, I think that regulation always is. And I'll tell you straight out, I, for one, am against it.
Regulating others so you gain is a very lazy way of getting things done. The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument? Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Enough of that. Now, let us imagine that such a regulatory commision came into place, and had such authority as would be needed. Now a company has some really fantastic software, but does not have the resources to test it properly, or even ensure it, due to how large it is. For example, let us imagine that a start-up company comes out with this radically new operating system, that millions of people are dying to get their hands on. However, due to the complexity of the system, and the lack of a world-wide testing base, the company does not have the funds to back it up. So they decide that due to the demand they'll release it as "not suitable for any purpose" and hopefully fix it as they get reports and a cash flow. Would a regulatory committee be helpful here?
Such a comittee could not have one test for all software to pass. It is a very large industry. In fact, each piece of specialized software would have to have its very own specialized test. So who decides what the test is and what it needs to pass? Will a company be able to distribute beta software? Whose to stop companies from charging for beta software and never making a "final" release?
I think a completely different approach must be taken. That is, if it is you that want this committee then it is you that must form it. And the companies do not have to join unless they want to. Or have something similar Consumer's Reports magazine. Just create a group that will buy and test software for those who care to read the magazine. This way, supply and demand would run the show, not some frustrated individual who wants to force his own ideas upon others.
Have you read my journal today?
My problem with this sort of thing is that, once again, it presupposes that the average consumer is too stupid to spend his money wisely and requires some sort of Big Brother to tell him (for a "small" administrative fee) what he can and cannot buy.
If consumers were really concerned about software reliability, they wouldn't buy the software that they do (I am not talking about operating systems which are largely imposed on the consumer, I am talking about applications). The fact is that consumers are relatively happy with what they are getting and regard it as reasonable value for the price. We as developers are upset about software unreliability because we know what is possible but no one else really cares.
For about a year now I have had a one year guarantee on the software I write. It says that if the consumer finds a bug during that period I will fix it for free. Guess how many people saw that guarantee and went Wow! Now that is the sort of guarantee I want! ? NONE!
Go ahead, ask any end user which they would rather have: the software they've got that crashes every once in a while or software that is guaranteed to never crash for twice the price with half the features. I have a full year's worth of empirical data that says they would rather have the cheap software (and no, my software is not twice the price and I will include any feature that does not compromise reliability).
One last thing, the reason that electrical items are required to have a UL sticker is because a faulty electrical item will kill you. A faulty game or word processor is just annoying.
Enforcing this sort of thing by law is difficult. In the past some progress has been made by putting requirements in bidding conditions for government sales. This is why almost every OS under the sun has a Posix compatibility layer. Not that the NT layer is much use. You can't use it at the same time as the normal API and if you want to be secure you have to remove it.
(Btw. this seminar, which I saw on the Heise newsticker has a few other pearls, like the fact that most firewalls can't tell the difference between a virus and a Windows NT service pack. Nor can I :-)
When my company releases a new version of our software, it inevitably has some problems in it, due to (a)our customers demanding new features fast and (b)limited testing resources. We do take responsibility for all bugs that *we* introduce, naturally, and fix them ASAP.
However.
Sometimes M$ will release a new version of DirectX which causes our application to stop working (pretty much every release has done this). Whose bug is this? Is it M$'s bug? As much as I'd like to blame them, they *do* have the right to change the API. And generally, newer versions of DX have sucked less than the previous versions. Is it ours? Our code was 100% compliant with DX(n-1).
This is the kind of situation that bothers me the most, quite frankly. Our software runs right, but because the user has changed/has never upgraded/is experimenting with/has poured water on their computer, our software ceases to function. We work to fix these bugs, but I refuse to believe that some *fine* of some kind would help. Better customer communication is all it really takes...
What if a body were to certify the software's EULA?
A stamp of approval would only appear on packages which do not contain false advertising, have decent return policies, and are gauranteed to work.
If an end-user buys a game with ridiculously low system requirements, finds it unplayable, calls the company and is told "Sorry sir, you've opened the cellophane.", the End-user could call up the certificaiton body and tell them that they have been stiffed by a member.
Sort of a BBB for software.
I could imagine heaps of cash wasted on stupid people returning software because they can't read a manual, but that's the norm these days.
Just a thought.
I don't know much about US law, being Swedish, but if a company advertises features that a product hasn't got then that's illegal in Sweden. It's called false marketing. Surely you must have similar laws over there.. There a lawsuit in the US against Origin re: Ultima Online promising without delivering, was that something similar?
/El Niño
Why not just push for shareware-like licenses:
while(software)
{
Get();
for(day=0;day=maxdays;day++)
Test();
if (anygood)
{
pay();
keep();
}
else throwaway();
}
FRA: STFU GTFO
- fit for it's given purpose. This is not trivial; you would have to say what you want to use it for and have the seller affirm that it is suitable. If you buy a package you want to run under NT and it only runs under 95, you only have recourse to the seller if you stated your needs at the time of purchase. If you walked in and bought the package without saying anything, there is no legal requirement for the store to accept the return of the item.
- of merchantable quality
The latter point is most pertinant in this case. If the software is not "of merchantable quality", you have a right to some recourse from the seller (ie, the shop you bought it from). They in turn can go to the publisher and sue them for supplying them with shoddy goods (this has a slightly different legal standing, but that's another point). In any case, the consumer is protected. However, proving or disproving "merchantable quality" is not the easiest of tasks.I'm assuming most countries have similar legislation in place.
--
be prepared to pay the higer costs associated with quality.
Now before all of you start getting your underwear in a wad let me explain.
The reason I think we see all of this poorly written software is two-fold.
First although there are many developers out there few of them can grasp the complexity of the development PROCESS. This often leads to bad estimates, rushed schedules, and a chaotic process. All in all you end up with a "get it out the door" attitude, so we can keep our jobs, or in more dire situations keep our company.
Secondly for the developers that do understand the development process life becomes increasingly difficult. Those developers have to deal with explaining to managers, customers, ceo's why it's going to cost so much money to write that piece of software. This is difficult to explain and in my experience always a losing proposition. I'll use an analogy to illustrate. Anyone involved in the Construction of a High Rise building (15 or more floors) can tell you that it is a process which involves hundreds of people (bricklayers, steel workers, earth movers, pile personnel, contractors, structural and consulting engineers). The individual contractors are all guided by the General Contractor which normally answers to the Structural or Project Engineer. The structural or Project Engineer requires the services of other specialized engineers for geotechnical advice and quality assurance. During the whole construction process the set of blueprints the Structural Engineer put together are used to complete and verify the work. During each phase of work the consulting engineers come in and verify that each contractor is fulfilling the specification given in the blueprints.
Software design is very much like that if not almost identical, yet ask a developer about the lifecycle of the software process, the CMM, software size estimation, code reviews and you'll often get very misguided answers if you get any at all. All of the elements in the software process are engineering disciplines in and of themselves yet I meet Project Managers who have no training or knowledge in this area, even self taught.
So if you asked a bunch of people who don't know how to create the blueprints for a high rise, to calculate the loads on the foundation and determine the proper number of piles. To determine the strength (psi) of the concrete to utilize for the slabs. To determine what amount of reinforcement steel (re-bar sizes, tie off separation, and quantity) should be placed in the load bearing sections of the wall. To calculate the loads on the structural steel, the required torque at each joint in the frame, the type of bolt (ANSI XXX), washer and nut to use. You would see a lot more buildings falling down and those that did not would be so grossly overbuilt (Empire State) that only a handful would be able to afford them. This IMHO is the current state of the software industry.
This question of regulation goes hand in hand with professional regulation and when that happens the price of software will go up as it should. Also the cost of entry into the software field will be much steeper. When it happens I think we will all be much better off but the number of people entering the software field will be diminished significantly.
"My Opinion is My Opinion and Another person has not easily a right to it" F. Nietzsche
I could go on and on about the evils of government regulation, but I won't. Suffice it to say that it's appropriate in only a few very limited circumstances, and this is definitely not one of them. What is needed here, if anything, is a consumer organization, or perhaps several of them, to give software companies and products a seal of approval. No government intervention, no official bodies. Each consumer groups sets its own criteria. Each individual decides whether or not to put any faith into any particular consumer group's seal of approval. No, it's not perfect. It relies on the vigilance of the consumer. But it would be at least as effective as government regulation, and with fewer problems.
And to be honest, I don't think anything is necessary here. I don't buy computer products, software or hardware, until I've done a little research on them. I don't buy a game on impulse because it has a flashy, cool-looking box. I buy only after reading reviews and talking to others that have played the game. This way, I never end up with crappy software. The people that do are the ones that just walk into the store and pick up the coolest-looking box. Honestly, I don't care if they get screwed, because it's their own fault. As the old saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute. There's no way to prevent suckers from getting suckered, so don't make life hard on the rest of us by trying.
Regulation is for utilities, phone companies, etc, where there is a so-called "natural monopoly" which has to ask the public ("government") for permission to do lots of things, like raise prices and change service.
The problems he cites with licenses could be solved by a simple law preventing those kind of bogus licenses.
The example he has of some regulatory body fining a company 11 weeks profits is far beyond anything any current regulatory body does.
--
Infuriate left and right
The UK may be stable (or not, I have no idea) with their laws, but the US tends to pile half-assed law on top of law to gloss over a problem. This has proven time and time again to be a Bad Thing for us. Zack was right on the money with the EULA statement. They are asking us to buy on blind faith with no consequence. In most cases, due to an employer's or client's requests, I do so. Then I have to explain how "this...uhhh...happens with this product...sorry :/" But think about it, if you buy a swampland property and there is a clause of "if it sinks into the slime, screw ya" clause, who is the real sucker? :)
The UL concept of voluntary compliance is a damn good idea in my opinion. I wouldnt say the UL model is the one to follow, but the basic concept works for me. I _DEFINITELY_ say no government agency should be involved. If anyone has a good model to follow, can implement it for a voluntary compliance of reliability and functionality, and can make money in the process, go for it. I personally cannot, so I'll shut my trap for now
Take care.
The True Dork
I have a knee-jerk reaction against government regulation, I admit it, but I still see this being a lot more problematic than the article writer seems to think it would be.
Firstly, how are you going to get this legislation passed? That in and of itself seems like it would require big bucks for lobbying in all the various countries. Plus, all the laws would be different if it did get passed.
Secondly, how would you ensure that the government bureau policing software has a clue? Or that they don't develop a political agenda that they pursue above and beyond objective good science? Or that they don't just get bought off? The nasty thing about these kind of government bureaus is that after they're in place their decisions have the force of law, but they're not accountable to anyone. You can't vote them out, no matter how bad a job they do.
Lastly, it's only reactive: the shitty games still hit the market, and the bureau only penalizes the companies after the consumer has already gotten shafted. That's IF the company is still around and in the black.
Instead, and for a fraction of the cost, you could set up an Underwriter's Laboratory type of indie regulation agency, where they would test the stuff and if it met some criteria, give it the Sacred Fist of Judgement Seal of Decency. If it was a well-known and sought after seal, like the UL seal is for electrical appliances, it would have the desired effect: people would look for it when shopping. If enough people surfed the regulation agency's website, they might even make enough money off ads to defray some of the costs. They could also charge game companies to review their products for them, but that would only be feasible if they were already established as a standard.
This type of system works pretty well when Sony certifies games for the playstation. It's fairly rare to even find a significant bug. Of course, Sony has a complete lock on this sales channel, because you can't put a playstation logo on the game without their okay, which an indie agency would not have.
Anyway, these are my thoughts.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
If a game a game won't run properly when the hardware requirements sticker
on the box matches your system, go back to the shop and demand a refund. If a game is a real dog, use the Net to organise en masse to ask for refunds. If enough people complain long and loud enough (and have good reason) retailers will take notice - and will breathe down the neck of game publishers who release under-tested games.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
All we need is a simple principle:
You can't sell software without warranty period.
Those who code for free won't be affected (their projects will die automaticly if of poor quality), those who make money unfairly by exploiting powers of monopoly or just sell plainly crap product will rightfully suffer.
The situation where all products and services have warranty (which ensures quality) except software is not acceptable. Legally it should not be allowed to sell DISCLAIMED software (again unless it's free). Have you seen a car without warranty? And software is responsible for safe flights and running nuclear plants.
AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
If the consumer cannot return a product that is thoroughly useless for a refund, it says that consumer protection laws are woefully inadequate. Rather than using some stupid beaurocracy to take care of this, governments worldwide should enact consumer laws that entitle consumers to return nonfunctional products. Indeed, most countries already have such laws, and at least in Australia and the US, I have never had trouble returning nonfunctional priducts ( INCLUDING software ) for a prompt refund.
IMO, the "right" way to deal with this issue is to allow users a refund for nonfunctional software. This puts the power back into the hands of consumers. Personally, I have been succesful returning nonfunctional software ( and other products ).
But giving consumers the right to a refund when they purchase a POS is essential. If consumers are having difficulty getting refunds on defective products, then this is the problem, and it should be addressed directly , by giving consumers due recourse. A pseudo-government acting on behalf of the consumers is an unnecessary layer between the customer and the seller, annd does little to empower buyers.
Nobody is forced into making software. They do it through choice. They do it because they want to. And they're making it for us. So when we talk of an official body to regulate the industry, we have to look at it from our own selfish angle - will it make things better for us? If it will then that's all that counts. If it makes things more difficult for developers or publishers then that's unfortunate, but it's not our problem. If they behaved properly then nobody would be suggesting regulation in the first place.
In other words: if I'm not happy, I'm going to screw you over, and your rights/needs are irrelevant. This article displays an incredible level of arrogance, and an incredible lack of understanding of the way regulation works. For example:
The industry's regulator could look at the situation and decide that from the time the game was released, until the time it should have been released, was a total of eleven weeks. So they calculate how much profit was made during that time and that's the fine they impose. In other words, they completely nullify any benefit for software being rushed out the door.
As anyone who's ever worked on a software project knows, there are always more bugs. You can nail the big ones, but if you try to nail every single bug before releasing a piece of software, it literally will never get released, unless you drastically limit your feature set. Nor is it clear what constitutes a "bug."
So this guy is talking about giving some beaurocrat the power to decide when a piece of software "should" be released. I'll bet money this beaurocrat isn't gonna be a software engineer. So the chances of hiim making good decisions is close to zero.
Beyond that, it's not even clear that waiting is a good thing. In some cases, consumers benefit from recieving buggy software six months early. If it is a game, for example, and the rendering engine doesn't look quite right, who cares? If we force companies to add several months to their debugging cycle, you simply lengthen the wait for new products. This hardly denefits consumers.
Although I think you are a moron, I do agree with you on one score: there is nothing special about the software industry. Just as the software industry should not be regulated, neither should any other. The free market combined with fraud and liability laws can keep product quality up in any industry, be it software, medicines, airplanes, etc. The reason that computers are not as stable as they could be is that consumers are demanding new features. That's what people want. If you need to back things up, get a real backup system, like tape. Not stupid zip disks.
And no, this is not a "pseudo-libertarian" argument. It is a Libertarian one.
In light of the discussion here about a month ago regarding the failure rate of large software project, I'd be interested in knowing how many of these, if any, were being run by ISO900x-certified entities. I'm curious as to whether or not people thing that ISO900x certification is really a good thing, or if the overall result is really just another layer of bureaucratic red tape that just slows things down.
Quality is unquestionably an important factor in software engineering. But this certification question brings to light some interesting thoughts. Does ISO900x certification eliminate bug-ridden or sloppy code? And will software undergoing a check for compliance be certified only for a given platform, with a given set of components?
This would all seem to have some very interesting implications.
I would like to see a law that eliminated the bogus license agreements that disclaim all warranties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, the trend in the proposed revision to the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code) is in the opposite direction.
The current economic/legal system rewards companies that release a buggy POS now instead of reliable software later. This has to change.
Software reliability can be measured and improved. It takes time, money and training. Here is a quick overview of Software Reliability Engineering by John Musa, who is one of the pioneers in the field.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
One of my largest concerns about this article is that it seems poised to force Publishers into making a certain type of software. Simple, un-complicated, SAFE software. Things that are technically close to perfect yet lacking in content and features. If you wanted to publish a fantastic piece of software, you would have to pay incredible amounts of money in making sure your coders wrote the whole thing, and they can fix everything, and that everything IS fixed. Suddenly anything as spiffy as Quake III Arena or Adobe Photoshop 5 has it's price tripled. And once it's out, forget about customer feedback. They met their requirement, you purchased it, end of story. Right now software publishers and developers have some vested interest in making the customer happy. But if the regulatory comittee is happy, why bother making the customer happy, right? I mean, the regulatory comittee represents the customer doesn't it? I feel like a regulatory would drive a wedge between customer and company that doesn't need to be there.
I have several other problems, but MAN! I have to stew on it more.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
No, I was talking Pintos not Pickups. Exploding Pintos were a fiasco of a long way back - poorly designed gas tanks, Ford knew about it, did nothing, class action law suit, etc...
-josh
To the best of my knowledge these laws already exist. If a company purposefully and knowingly misrepresents the capabilities of a product to a prospective buyer, the company can be held legally liable no matter what contract was signed or implicitly agreed to (in the case of EULAs).
Fraud on the part of the seller invalidates the contract. This applies to exploding Ford Pintos and the software industry equally.
If you want to get into legislating penalties for anything other than fraud or gross negligence I think you will be entering a legal quagmire that will stifle creative and innovation.
As someone else suggested an external testing/verification lab similar to the UL would be a welcome innovation. We have this now to a certain extent in the form of trade mag reviews and test labs - but it would be nice to have that stamp of approval BEFORE the product is released.
-josh
This would be equally devastating to free software.
RedHat, and other commercial distributions, are "selling" free software, and would be held responsible for the quality. Either Red Hat would go out of business, or would have to drastically reduce the amount of software in the distribution, leaving in only what it can support. (This would probably be Kernel 2.0.30something, and a bunch of basic tools.)
Did anyone stop to think that the reason we have 'bugs' are because computers are like people - no two have the EXACT same configuration? There are thousands upon thousands of different hardware configurations. What would you do - write a different version for every single configuration? Get real... I agree that there needs to be clauses in the license that allow you to return software if it does not perform to expectations. If there was a regulatory commission, there is no way in hell that I would keep writing software. Some moron could sue me because he has some messed up configuration and say it's my fault... The entire article is just plain stupid... Change the license - don't take away our freedoms by creating some stupid regulatory commission crap...
I'm dubious about the idea of a regulator to
enfore software quality, if the release of every
game has to be approved (or more likely is
followed by lawsuits from disgruntled customers)
then companies will be encouraged not to innovate
or take risks. I would prefer to accept a
certain proportion of rubbish games, with most
weeded out by reviewers than have every one
produced to the same formulas. If this become
popular then politicians would probably be keen to use it to introduce censorship.
ISO 900x standards of quality ensure a company works in a good way. They do not tell what the company does is of good quality but when you do something well, you have better chances to get something good at the end...
How many computer corps are ISO 900x certified ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
I agree with you but not on the last point.
;-)
:-)
I am currently working with the quality people in my company (as a computer consultant for them). What I learned of this work is that more and more companies build a quality system. I do not know about computer related companies however. If I do not know figures, it seems to me that the trend is getting stronger and stronger, because :
* they can use cert as a marketing feature
* they get good things back (better internal communication, better failure detection, generally... better organization)
As I already wrote, this does not mean you get a good product at the end, but it definitevely help not to do a bad one
If computer corps did some procedure explaining how to introduce a new feature in a software, and how to test it, I think lots of bugs would be catched long before the product hit the market. But the problem is they just pour new features as soon as competitors introduce them in they own soft... no review, no desgin, few testing... look at M$ and meditate
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Perhaps a start would be a website which serves as a database of bugs and documentation of crashes for all software, with moderators who are USERS, might work to provide an objective analysis of various commercial packages out there.
Yes, everybody says how good it will be to have cert./regulations/insurance so and so, but should we ask ourselves why don't we have that already? Why we still need to put big money on Y2K now? Why don't somebody compensate that? Why do you suddenly get a blue screen after reading this line without M$ apologises to you?
regulations may work partially, but since rules can't change frequently, it's definitely will be a failure when regulatiors can't catch up the technology appeared. Also, be careful for those big companies like M$ that can put money in politics to kill off competition from small company by regulations.
the best way seems to be like the UL mentioned somewhere above. Insurance companies have the incentive to avoid paying claims by avoid having the software clash. So, most properly insurance companies would like to investigate the software under the insurance throughoutly and if they say, yes, we do the business, that piece of software shouldn't be too bad and a set of environment for normal operations are also discovered.
however, why we don't have that good working mechanism now? I would bet, when a system clash happen, it's infeasible to determine which piece of software is the reason. Sometimes, it's the hardware. So, in that case, insurance company have too many way to escape from the compensation, and so insurance can't reduce the risk enough for consumer willing to pay for it.
on the other hand, if even insurance company have the difficulty to determine which software is clash-proof, the market simply cannot exist.
take a look, as there's no case indicate M$ has to compensate for their customers when blue screens appear, and M$ knows that whenever they don't provide the source codes, no insurance company could have adequate risk evaluation, so no business could be done seriously. Other than M$, the market is simply too small for even one insurance company to get in the market (cannot share the risk).
Sure you can have a law that put insurance to every piece of software, but it never work well in that case. The auto-insurance doesn't make the road safer. Indeed, I would believe people drive more aggressively since insurance would cover all damage. Software companies would make worse software if insurance always cover it.
A sig is redundant.
It seems to me that a more practical, and less intrusive approach would be some sort of voluntary industry association.
It would be world wide, and member companies would agree to a set of principles related to usability, refund policy, and so forth. These companies would agree to the association having the power to levy fines up to some limit and in return the companies would be able to put a ``certification mark'' on their software packages.
Failure to live up to the principles would result in fines, and possibly revoking of permission to use the certification mark.
Of course, this would only have significance if customers showed a serious preference for software with the quality certification mark. Some (government/corporate) clients might make certification a requirement for RFPs.
Cost of the association would be covered by membership fees, and fines.
I think a point of contention in such an arrangement would be ensuring that the association was tough enough. If this was all initiated by software vendors, they would likely not want the association taking action except in the most severe circumstances. While the association would want to _appear_ consumer oriented, it would in fact be trying to act on behalf of it's members.
Perhaps the association could require a majority of board members be representatives from consumer organizations rather than industry folks.
This model is used at least somewhat successfully in many industries.
Geospatial Programmer for Rent
If a product is shoddy, it should not be on the shelves in the first place!
I dunno about you, but I should not have to read a review of a product to figure out whether or not it works before I buy it.
Performance "problems"? Ok... maybe I'll give you that. Depends on the problems. If the program is simply slow (or something), that's one thing. When I buy a car, I will talk to knowledgeable people and read reviews (comparaison shop) before I buy one.
But I expect the car to run. I expect it to do what it was designed to do, at a bare minimum. I expect it to perform to specification.
If not, that's false advertising, among other things. Companies that make other types of products are accountable to this. Why the hell not software makers?
If the product works, but poorly, ok. But if it doesn't work to spec, it should not be for sale at all!!!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I notice he seems to be talking about the UK
:)
since he mentions OFTEL and regulation of the
telecoms industry.
[Although, I must admit I always thought
without OFTEL we would have nothing *but*
BT and even more outrageous phone costs
than we currently do. But then that's
tangential]
As I see it the basic problem is that currently
we don't buy software - we buy licenses to use
software.
DISCLAIMER
I'm not a lawyer so caveat emptor on the rest
of this.
If software was a normal good, then (in the UK)
it would be subject to the Sale Of Goods Act.
One provision of this is that any goods sold
*must* be "fit for purpose". This is a basic
consumer right in the UK and can't be overridden
by (say) sticking labels on the thing saying that
if you open the packet then it's OK.
The courts take a dim view of people selling
shoddy goods and even for minor infractions
you can always go to the small claims court.
So I don't know: are there any problems involved
in forcing software to be sold as a normal good?
I can see that the software producers wouldn't
be too keen.
Government regulation is not dumb and unneccessary.
It is easy to find out what kind of quality a software has by reading reviews of it. This is certainly true for games.
Two examples are "Sin" and "Unreal". Both are good games which were probably released a little too early. Their respective bugs and/or performance problems were extensively documented and discussed in on-line reviews within a week of their respective releases.
So what is the problem, other than dumb consumers who don't bother to find out what they are buying? That problem will never be fixed.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
oops should have previewed.
Govt. regulation IS dumb and unneccessary.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
It DOES happen in Netscape 4.6. I tried under Linux and IRIX and it happens for both of them.
`fortune -o`
Company X writes a program that works perfectly according to the OS's APIs but the Customer uses a video card from Comany Y that doesn't work properly when used in a motherboard from yet another company. The bottom line is Company X's software doesn't work in THIS configuration but works fine in other systems.
Who would get the blame? The Program's developer/distributor who didn't do enough testing? The OS maker for "certifying" devices that don't work properly? The video card or mother board maker for not adhering to specs?
Thank you for the explination. I will look into the way my browser handles character sets. I have been really puzzled by the appearance of these "question marks" and I wouldn't have guessed the reason.
Peace.
Who ensures that the regulators issue regulations that do not stifle innovation?
...if the application problems are due to differing versions of an OS?
...if the application problems are due to hardware behaving differently under different versions of an OS?
...if the application problems are due to different hardware on the same OS?
Will these regulations allow only what is regulated?
How will someone determine if the problems are due to the application or operating system?
The litmus test for any proposed regulation of consumer software quality should be SoftRAM 95. Didn't it go out with a "Designed for Windows 95" seal of approval that Microsoft subsequently yanked?
Coincidentally, today's San Jose Mercury News reports that the software industry is campaigning for regulations which would modify the Uniform Commercial Code to codify the terms of EULA's, something that has consumer groups up in arms.
With regard to the contract mentioned...All commercial packages have phrasing that says "by opening this product, you agree to the following terms...". Without ever trying the product, we are committed to the non-negotiable terms.
Also, the article says the company would be fined. Who receives the fine? How do you quantify the time when a product should have really been released?
The people who suffer the most from buggy software are large companies buying site licenses (or large numbers). If the software is buggy, they lose trackable dollars and time. More often than not, large counts of license are negotiated through contracts that supersede those contained in the wrapper. Hence, those who suffer the most from buggy software already have the problem dealt with: custom contracts. Everybody else is out the $50. Bad products=bad PR. Bad PR=poor business in the future.
(To FS/OS folks: According to this guy's fine calculation equation: fine=$$ lost if the s/w were released when it was ready. therefore.... for FS/OS fine=$0. You get what you paid for. Way to go folk! Beat the system again!!!)
If a certain software company, with very deeppockets, gave a lot of money to the next president, and key members of congress for next years election what would happen? How hard would they be checked out? My guess would be just a few face saving fines that they can afford. How hard would thier compitition be hit? Crippling fines! Want an example? Windows 9.X crashes regurally, so M$ gets a 10 million Dollar fine. M$ pays it out of petty cash. Gnome crashes sometimes. They only get a million Dollar fine. Do you think they can come up with that kind of money? How does the public react to this ? You will never get past "But Microsoft was fined 10 times as much money"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
The thing that most users (who haven't looked at a line of code let alone written one) do not seem to understand is the sheer and utter complexity of the SYSTEM on which their games sit. They can't fathom the complexity of the jumble of hardware and software that they call a PC.
;-)
If we were talking about a Pinto exploding - great, it's clear where the fault is. If, however, we're talking about some game or some app, Is it flaky undocumented DirectX bugs, bugs in the API, bugs in OEM specific hardware driver, simple interaction with another (seemingly) unrelated piece of software, or is it the fault of the software that's acting up?
People do not realize that the software that exhibits the symptoms is not necessarily the one causing the problems.
As for what we can do as an industry to make this situation better... We simply can't turn back and kill all of the complexity in the system. We need to support models which separate these different layers of software. We need to support a model which seperates the GUI from the kernel, and which, within the kernel has a modular design. We need to support a model which standardizes interfaces and supports those standards fully. (as opposed to a certain OS that claims to be POSIX but doesn't even have a fork syscall) We need to support a model which deals with things like shared libraries in a rational well-defined manner. Most of all, we need to support a model which allows us to find out what problems are and fix them.
The reality is this. A government appointed regulatory body sitting around trying to point fingers can't do squat to fix the problems existing. A collaborative attempt must be made by computer professionals (and particularly open-source professionals) to define a model for understanding the interactions of different pieces of the system.
K, so that's my gobbledygook for the day
Why should a company be forced to disclose all [of] their trade secrets?
There is a long history of requiring manufactured items to have documented specifications. You don't have to specify how you produce the object, but you do have to specify the item in sufficient detail to allow meaningful competition. A car manufacturer, for instance, can't prevent aftermarket competition for components such as fan belts, oil filters, window glass, even body panels. Or much more, flipping through the aftermarket catalogues for my Jeep...
In the software world, I believe the existing philosophy allows the government (and users) to require file formats be adequately documented to allow third party tools to be used with those files, but it doesn't require that the exact algorithm be documented.
I know that there are some significant legal questions with compelled disclosure of the details of the file format, but I also know that the existing attitudes of some software publishers is nothing short of irresponsible. If I use a software tool to manage the financial books of my company, who owns that information? Some software companies would have you believe that they, and they alone, own that information.
If that's so, does it not follow that the manufacturer of the hard disk also owns the information stored on the disk? Or that the manufacturer of filing cabinets owns the information stored within them?
you remove the basic freedom of innovators to keep trade secrets
In software, your trade secrets lie in your algorithms. You can document the associated file format without providing details of the algorithm that manipulates them, or you could document a public file format and implement a complete import/export utility. (Unlike the import/export utilities commonly provided today.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
This suggests that all software's top priority is stability/security. Sometimes (especially with in house software and open-source), simply getting something out there that works is more important. Why don't we let the companies set their own priorities instead of having the government do it for them?
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
To paraphrase, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, regulate."
This is a total crock. Why is it that the marginal elements in the software industry always want to regulate, control, organize, or otherwise stick their fingers in a pie that they aren't baking?
This is a free market economy (or at least the closest facsimile to one on the planet.) The market will correct for abberrations in quality, customer support, or any other problem that these bureaucrats want to help resolve. There is very little to be gained from this proposal that can't already be handled with existing consumer protections, industry standards, and a little common sense.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
The ISO 900x certs are nothing more than proof a company documents all its internal procedures for manufacturing, and follows them. It specifically does not cover software coding, although it does cover the QA and testing functions.
And I would put the estimate of ISO900x software companies at 25%. Mostly companies who want to sell to governments, banks, telcos, aerospace, and militaries. But for companies selling games, not one.
the AntiCypher
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
This idea has been around since the 1960's, and was a topic of hot debate in the late 70's until the mid-80's (for some reason the debate died down when microso~1 came to dominate :-)
This is another version of putting the IEEE in charge of licensing SW engineers, or forcing warantees on SW to be the same as for any other manufactured good, etc.
His idea of fining the publishers is not the best idea, since they will just force the developers to sign more legal BS and if they get fined pass it on to the developers or their insurers. I get hit with this occasionally, when a client requires professional liability insurance. I triple my rate to cover the costs, often $20000 to $50000 per year per project. Twice my clients didn't blink when I asked them to cover the full insurance costs.
I think if something like this ever happens, it will be like the Underwriters Laboratories seal of approval. The UL mark started as a voluntary thing in the electrical industry, because appliance makers often turned out badly designed products which electrocuted people, burned down houses, or just died after a weeks use. Soon retailers would only offer for sale UL marked appliances. But now UL approval is required by law before you can market or sell any electrical item in the US. The approval process ensured so much quality, that lawmakers were able to hold it up and point to it as a minimum standard.
So beware of this process. A few years ago I would have said it would be inevitable, but with the Free Software/Open Source movements, the point becomes a bit moot. Any software which remains closed or patented may soon find itself regulated by a 'voluntary' certification body.
I think he uses the word 'scary' a little too much in this OpEd piece. Its not that scary to anyone in the FS/OS world, in that you have to have some accountability at some point along the way. FS/OS people can move the accountability from place to place, if the original writer didn't do a good enough job, then the end user can take on the job to fix it, if it is truly important. Closed source products have to disclaim all accountability at all points, since the ability to fix a problem rests with whoever has access to the source.
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
The relation isn't quite the same as buying swampland property, it's more akin to "If you buy any property, and the house represented to be on that property is unlivable, unsafe, or just plain isn't even there, that's your fault for walking up to inspect the site." The problem with the standard EULA is that it is strictly that: standard.
Luckily, most EULA's do have a clause in them stating that if any clause of the EULA violates state or federal laws, that clause is considered null and void with the rest of the contract intact. -- Our job as people then is to make sure our governments have laws on the books allowing us to a reasonable time frame to return an unwanted product for our money back. The problem with this then becomes the illegal copying issue, which is all the more reason to take any software pirates you know and beat them severely about the head and shoulders with a Commodore Pet. (oo.. that's gotta hurt)
So while decent consumer laws aren't the entire answer, a regulatory body just won't work, for most of the reasons listed earlier in this thread:
- Small publishing companies would be put out of business too easily with arbitrary fines
- Large publishing companies would swallow the fines and continue on.
- It still provides no remedies to the consumer who got the crap software.
- A regulatory body is a money sink. Even if it's not actually out fining people, there's still the payroll of those on staff to take calls, and the internal bureaucracy of any governmental agency.
- People with a grudge would cost the regulatory body (and hence us) vast amounts of money on false complaints. (Admit it, even if MS put out something that did work as it was advertised, far-fetched as that may be, wouldn't you complain against them just because it was MS who made it?)
- Software advancement would slow as publishers became even more wary of "new" things than they are now; and
- Software prices and development time would increase dramatically.
KwilJust because it's my opinion doesn't make it better than yours.
It's better because it's the correct opinion.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Doubtless that's because you're a Prisoner of Bill. For the rest of us, it's garbeldy gook, because it's not legal HTML. If you fetch the raw page, and get a nice octal dump, you'll see what I mean.
My point was simply that I felt that when Slashdot points us at a site that requires a special setup to view (for example: you must register; or you must have a valid referring page; or you need Flash installed; or you must have tithed Lord Bill) that this merits special notification of this unpleasantry.
I assure you that I certainly did "check my facts" before posting. Did you?
--tom
Perhaps in much the same way as /. warns about registration required when pointing at the New York Times, it might also be useful if you would include a warning when Microsoft is required for proper viewing of a page you link to.
I am partially in agreement with Barbarian, in that a regulatory body that can't regulate isn't worth much. Also, I would like to know who would control such a regulatory body. Certainly not the government, I would hope. Also, such a body would create an influx of lawsuits regarding tiny programming bugs. It is not the programmer's fault if the developing company is pressuring them to finish a project quickly, and if the developing company gets sued, they will pass on such a loss to the programmers, blaming them for the bugs. In this country, the people tend to pride themselves on their freedom. However, laws don't usually tell people what they CAN do, just what they CANNOT. Developments of regulating committees just feed the bureaucratic war machine of the government.