Whew - what a thread this morning. But before my blood pressure spikes I'd like to add my two cents worth on this topic:
Someone in this thread, perhaps several, have mentioned that people want CHEAP software. Not GOOD software. CHEAP is KING! I've been writing custom solutions for thirty years now and I have stood behind every solution that I ever provided. My reward? 80% of my business has gone to India or Russia and the remaining 20% has been taken away by the federal regulators with their Patriot Act arbitrarily interpreted and enforced rules.
As others have mentioned, a GOOD software designer/developer is more artist than engineer (or was that engineer than artist). Either way, he/she strives (I would hope) to produce something that 1) meets or exceeds the desire of the customer; and 2) does so with as little or no chance of introducing errors. But we all know that users can introduce combinations of things (keystrokes, data, anything)that would not have been anticipated now matter how aware the developer was or how large the design/spec committee was or how thorough the QA/review team was. The important thing is that when such an issue occurs the developer is willing and able to react to it quickly and competently to correct the error, maybe repair the data effect and provide assurance that that particular situation will not (hopefully) cause a hiccup again.
Should this type of correction be performed free of charge? It depends on the sales agreement. If warranted for a period of time: yes. If covered by a maintenance agreement: yes. If its a good paying customer: yes. If its CHEAP software, wait for the next version (M$).
Now, as far as being liable for such errors. As a professional developer I would only agree IF and WHEN our elected and appointed government officials were held criminally liable for their own actions be them broken promises, misappropriations, ethics violations or any other thing(s) that any one else in the general population would most likely end up in the pokey for!!!!! Then and only then could I ever agree.
Thanks for listening (well, reading).
Slashdot Mirror
Whew - what a thread this morning. But before my blood pressure spikes I'd like to add my two cents worth on this topic:
Someone in this thread, perhaps several, have mentioned that people want CHEAP software. Not GOOD software. CHEAP is KING! I've been writing custom solutions for thirty years now and I have stood behind every solution that I ever provided. My reward? 80% of my business has gone to India or Russia and the remaining 20% has been taken away by the federal regulators with their Patriot Act arbitrarily interpreted and enforced rules.
As others have mentioned, a GOOD software designer/developer is more artist than engineer (or was that engineer than artist). Either way, he/she strives (I would hope) to produce something that 1) meets or exceeds the desire of the customer; and 2) does so with as little or no chance of introducing errors. But we all know that users can introduce combinations of things (keystrokes, data, anything)that would not have been anticipated now matter how aware the developer was or how large the design/spec committee was or how thorough the QA/review team was. The important thing is that when such an issue occurs the developer is willing and able to react to it quickly and competently to correct the error, maybe repair the data effect and provide assurance that that particular situation will not (hopefully) cause a hiccup again.
Should this type of correction be performed free of charge? It depends on the sales agreement. If warranted for a period of time: yes. If covered by a maintenance agreement: yes. If its a good paying customer: yes. If its CHEAP software, wait for the next version (M$).
Now, as far as being liable for such errors. As a professional developer I would only agree IF and WHEN our elected and appointed government officials were held criminally liable for their own actions be them broken promises, misappropriations, ethics violations or any other thing(s) that any one else in the general population would most likely end up in the pokey for!!!!! Then and only then could I ever agree.
Thanks for listening (well, reading).