I'm a bit disappointed. I thought for sure that this post was a troll for comments about our current president's brain activity, or lack thereof. I'm always up for a good trouncing of President Bush and his administration. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.
When Ronald Reagan became president I realized that many people in this country just don't trust intellectuals. They're more concerned, it would seem, about a president doing something evil rather than something stupid. One problem is that we have laws against doing something evil but there aren't any laws against doing something stupid. Stupid, like the new Medicare prescription drug program, you just have to live with.
I first discovered Linux when I purchased the Slackware (SLS) 0.99 version of the distribution. It made DOS look sickly
by comparison with it's well-developed APIs for just about everything including serial devices, windowing system, and file system. There was so much power and utility in a UNIX-like operating system that it seemed like a developer's best choice. Maybe Windows has grown up enough since then to be comparable to UNIX but I wouldn't know since I don't use it.
I DO despise Bill Gates but only because his marketing juggernaut has convinced managers to use Microsoft products based on hype rather than technical appeal. This forced me to use their pathetic operating system when I knew there were better options. If I had never programmed on a UNIX system I probably would have had a happier career.
Economists where put on the planet to make Meteorologists look good. - from a "West Wing" episode
If it weren't for open-source products like Eclipse and Tomcat I wouldn't have a job. This is because:
I couldn't afford to buy the commercial equivalents.
The commercial software I have used are often bloated and buggy and make my life hell.
If I didn't like the commercial equivalents after trying them I can't return them so who wants to take that kind of risk.
Why should I spend money when the free software usually works better.
The problem, apart from basic greed, is that there is nothing really comparable to software. It is critical to the proper operation of our business and government systems and can create massive problems when it fails. It benefits from having many people look at it, improve it, build on it, and learn from it. It becomes more useful when it interoperates with many systems and evolves slowly so people can keep up.
This is at odds with with corporate priorities which boil down to "make money". The markeplace has proven that it isn't a good mechanism to keep the corporations honest for various reasons including short-term thinking, lack of foresight, and general lack of technical understanding. There is a fundamental conflict between the corporate strategies to make more money from software, including strategies like planned obsolesence and vendor lock-in, and the development of software that maximizes its benefit to society.
This is why open-source rocks. It's software that's created by the people who also use it. The software has their name on it and they take pride in making it work right. They generally don't have to listen to sales people who only care about their commission or marketing people who prefer to load up programmers rather than push back on customers unique requirements that can usally be accomplished another, better way with the existing software.
I talk with many people who are very frustrated because they feel they have no choice but to buy Microsoft products. Unfortunately, they are also very frustrated that they can't afford a home or have to pay $3 a gallon for gas and those things overwhelm their concern with what to do about software. When software becomes the top story on the evening news is when
the the generally crappy software issue will get addressed. Then the government will have to do something. God help us then!
--- to err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.
If you read the article and read between the lines you realize that the CIO was really just threatening to move to Linux to get more responsiveness out of his current suppliers. The most powerful use of Linux these days is as a threat to the status quo. If he hadn't of gotten what he wanted he probably would have started moving some non-critical systems to Linux just to back up his threat.
Another slashdotter was correct. I don't think the CIO is a moron or that he ever really intended to wholesale move his systems to Linux.
Being one of those people, I tend to think that your're right. A good engineer tends to ruthlessly work at making a system more efficient and optimal. This doesn't work well in business situations where the big-picture solution is usually sub-optimal for various non-technical reasons, like lack of money or time. The manger, who is technically clueless, either can't really see that it's suboptimal, doesn't feel like they have a choice or just doesn't care. The engineer, on the other hand, can see that it is suboptimal and usually does care.
I've never met an engineer that liked to work on a crappy product but the truth is quality is rarely a companies first priority so every engineer has to compromise. At some point you have to ask yourself: "Can I live with the compromise I'm asked to make?". If the answer is no then it's time to quit. There have been a couple jobs I quit because the answer was clearly no.
I want to be somebody important.....like an actor.
-Cypher
"Help from Microsoft in other areas may have influenced the decision. The company plans to work with Scottish police to develop an electronic document management system to help it comply with requests made under the 2002 Freedom of Information Act, and a document sharing system for police staff, Microsoft said."
Maybe using Microsoft products doesn't cause you a problem because you can play Solitare without calling technical support but some of us who actually have to make complicated systems work have good reason for despising Microsoft. If you think configuring LAMP is a PITA then you are a completely non-technical person who shouldn't even be posting on Slashdot. It's called "News for Nerds" not "News for non-technical people who don't like to be reminded that are supporting a corporation convicted of wrongdoing by the government".
I believe that Douglas Adams had the right idea. We need to put the Windows Programmers and the Phone Sanitizers on the first rocket to another planet. Then they can get the planet ready for the rest of us. I would hate to move to a new planet and not have Windows programs and clean phones at my disposal.
We'll be right behind you in the next rocket!!
There is nothing we give as liberally as advice - duc de la Rochefoucauld
It's harder to kill a lot of people fast without a gun, just like it's harder to get fat if you don't have a spoon to scoop out the ice cream. A gun isn't intrinsically evil but it's a great enabler for evil people.
I have been to East Africa (Kenya and Uganda) and they probably have more reliable electricity than much of Africa, which is to say that it's all fairly bad. I talked with people who have tried to travel with laptops in Africa and it's very frustrating.
If it were me, and I would love to go to West Africa if you're looking for someone, I would take a couple small solar panels and some rechargable batteries. There is usually plenty of sunshine. It shouldn't take long to charge up NiMH type batteries, which is the only type I would bother with unless you have access to more exotic batteries. My kid's GameBoy Advance SP game take 3 hours to charge and runs for 11 hours with the backlight on, according to the spec. Coming from the bad-old NiCad days, I was very impressed with that.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after the orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27
At the risk of getting too metaphysical, should there ever be a limit to what one person should be able to earn in a year?
Before you answer, consider the reality that the CEO is more critical, because there generally is only one per company, but isn't more important than the rest of the employees. I can tell you, from seeing it for myself, that a single employee in almost any part of a company can destroy a company, even if they can't singlehandedly make a company rich. Fortunately, most don't do it on purpose but rather through incompetence and/or apathy.
People who don't believe in teamwork usually fail because the truth is no one can run a corporation by themselves and they need motivated employees, even if it is only out of self-interest. Outrageous CEO salaries reduce most peoples motivation, unless they plan on being a CEO one day. When the company has to increase work hours, reduce pay or other benefits, or otherwise negatively affect the employees while the CEO gets an increase, this doesn't go over well with most people. If companies have to go overseas to find workers maybe it's because workers here are tired of being abused.
To state that corporate ownership is *much* more widely spread is not as meaningful as you might think since the real corporate control is still at the level of the super-rich people, including the fund managers. Rich people are the problem and if you become rich and abuse your position I will blame you too. GET USED TO IT!!!
"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:25)
I believe you're right. I think the whole "Let's go to Mars" idea is just a cover for the current administrations real plans to create the technology necessary to build a weapon platform in space.
Any administration that can say with a straight face "We invaded Iraq to bring freedom to that country" can rationalize just about anything. Their rationale will be something like: "We had to be the first to put a weapon platform in space to protect the world. An evil nation could beat us to it and threaten the globe.". I think we should be concerned. Especially if you get drafted to serve on it. It would be intolerable to other countries to have it there and would be incredibly easy to destroy.
If programming isn't painful then you aren't doing it right. Nothing scares me more than a programmer that still thinks programming is fun. It means they probably either haven't had a customer for their code or they left before their bugs caught up with them.
"The BBC reports that a report by Demos says that the all-consuming passions of geeks and nerds may actually be beneficial for society."
What do they mean "MAY actually be beneficial"? They act as if there was some doubt about it. If Microsoft ends up controlling the World's computers then Hell will look like a viable option.
--- "Yes. Ramming this broomstick up your ass is part of the interview process. We are looking for people who won't say no to anything. This one test works remarkable well at weeding out the undesirables."
Thanks for your confirmation that NMCI is a "Bad Thing"(copyright pending). I've had several people tell me the same thing that you stated in your reply. That EDS owns the Navy's network infrastructure.
Now I assumed they meant "owned" in the sense that Colin Powell meant "owned" when he told President Bush that invading Iraq would mean "If he broke it, he owned it". It would seem probable to me that it is ILLEGAL for the government to literally give the equipment to a contractor for a term longer than the contract. Of the gazillion regulations involving the purchase and sale of government property, I'm sure there has to be one that would try and prevent it.
If someone knows differently I would be interested in hearing about it
I was at a recent all-hands meeting of the Range personnel at a Navy base (Point Mugu) that I work at. The head of the group said that we all have to work more efficiently and he was open to any suggestions about anything except NMCI. This was because the Admiral (don't ask me which one because I don't remember) considers NMCI an incredible success!!
Now anybody that works on a Navy facility that already had PCs and was forced to use NMCI knows that NMCI is an impediment to progress. I'm sure the first suggestion someone was going to make was to get rid of NMCI. The PCs are slow, and crash often because of changes pushed onto them by the network. The service is slow (as in "months to get something done"), and of course, Windows 2000 isn't the solution to every problem.
So the question to anyone out there is "Why would the admirals think it's a success?".
Is some group of people in the Navy actually better off now that NMCI is here?
Is NMCI meeting some special need the Admiral has?
Did they get kick backs from EDS or Microsoft?
Have they been co-opted by foreign nationals or aliens intent on overthrowing the U.S.?
I find it incredible that such a brilliant scientist would delve into the realm of "what makes conciousness". On the other hand, after you discover something as significant as DNA, I guess you're obligated to work on something at least as important for your next assignment.
What makes it incredible for me to believe he would try to explain conciousness is the fact that there are philisophical issues. What if Christians are right and man has an imperishable soul? If it exists it would be the seat of conciousness. Otherwise you wouldn't be you after you're dead. This means that the brain is nothing but a "soul interface" which contains nothing of eternal value. This would make for some very frustrating research!!!
Hopefully we wont have to wait long for Holographic Memory to become commercially available. It looks like the space program is one of the few to actually use Holographic Memory for anything now.
It only took one bomb a piece to take out Nagasaki and Hiroshima so I don't know why you figure it would necessarily take 8-12 nukes to destroy a city. Also, unless you believe that most of the population has bomb shelters they can stay in for 20+ years, it doesn't make sense to ignore the damage from the nuclear fallout. It will certainly pollute the water and the air and kill many more people over the long term. Wait until you see the total damage a little radiation leakage from Chernobyl will cause.
What kind of propaganda have you been listening to?
Since I have been reasearching biodiesel heavily for a while I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
Putting anything but B20 (1 part biodiesel to 4 parts petroleum diesel) in your car will probably violate the warranty. The advantage of biodiesel isn't just that it's renewable, it also adds lubricity and reduces pollution. See http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/biodiesel_basic s/ for more info.
Anyone that makes biodiesel in their backyard is going to violate their car warranty for sure. Making something that works and making something that isn't going to have long-term negative effects on your car are two different things. One of the by-products of making biodiesel is glycerin. If you don't make the biodiesel just right, the glycerin wont be usable for much and needs to be disposed of. See this excellent article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a niche product that helps reduce pollution and dependence on foreign oil. It also can be used in the remediation of petroleum spills and probably has other, undiscovered uses. It is not going to eliminate our dependence on petroleum.
"5 minutes of pain will instruct you better than a week of lectures" - Anonymous
As a System Test Engineer, I especially liked this part of the summary
"Finally, more time and effort spent on testing and integration had a negative effect on overall development time."
One thing most people don't realize is that 99% of the time, only a small percentage of a program actually gets executed. Much of a program is error checking or handling of unusual events and doesn't get executed if the customer uses the program the way the programmer intended. The only reason that most commercial software is usable at all is because of this. So of course, testing and integration has a negative impact on development time.
Most software companies know this and develop software to be "good enough" since being anywhere near bug-free before shipping the first version requires too much time and effort. Software companies are "gambling" that the bugs that are left aren't bad enough to sour their customers on the product. IMHO, American companies are generally much bigger risk takers than foreign companies. This leads to either a spectacular success or a catastrophic failure
I would like to see the U.S. government start to punish software companies that take large risks with investors capital. I believe a lot of companies die because of poor implementation and not necessarily because of a poor idea. I can't think of anything easier to screw up then software development and it has been considered just an ordinary risk of running a business. I worked for a software company that was run by a man that, from what I saw, didn't give a hoot whether the software worked or not. As long as the IPO produced a lot of money he was happy.
There are many ways to reduce the risk of producing a worthless software program, including certifying programmers, code reuse, and more testing. I know most people don't want to invite the government to enact more regulations but the software industry doesn't seem to be regulating itself. There is a huge crisis brewing on the horizon and nothing seems to be getting better. If the millions lost on government computer systems, like the IRS modernization, isn't enough, we have the potential for a Microsoft virus to wipeout millions of users data.
"whenever you gamble, my friend, eventually you'll lose." - Qui-Gon Jinn
Slashdot Mirror
It's "utter" not "udder" and you must like crap because you're here posting. Why don't you just admit you love ranting as much as the next person?
I'm a bit disappointed. I thought for sure that this post was a troll for comments about our current president's brain activity, or lack thereof. I'm always up for a good trouncing of President Bush and his administration. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.
When Ronald Reagan became president I realized that many people in this country just don't trust intellectuals. They're more concerned, it would seem, about a president doing something evil rather than something stupid. One problem is that we have laws against doing something evil but there aren't any laws against doing something stupid. Stupid, like the new Medicare prescription drug program, you just have to live with.
I first discovered Linux when I purchased the Slackware (SLS) 0.99 version of the distribution. It made DOS look sickly by comparison with it's well-developed APIs for just about everything including serial devices, windowing system, and file system. There was so much power and utility in a UNIX-like operating system that it seemed like a developer's best choice. Maybe Windows has grown up enough since then to be comparable to UNIX but I wouldn't know since I don't use it.
I DO despise Bill Gates but only because his marketing juggernaut has convinced managers to use Microsoft products based on hype rather than technical appeal. This forced me to use their pathetic operating system when I knew there were better options. If I had never programmed on a UNIX system I probably would have had a happier career.
If it weren't for open-source products like Eclipse and Tomcat I wouldn't have a job. This is because:
The problem, apart from basic greed, is that there is nothing really comparable to software. It is critical to the proper operation of our business and government systems and can create massive problems when it fails. It benefits from having many people look at it, improve it, build on it, and learn from it. It becomes more useful when it interoperates with many systems and evolves slowly so people can keep up.
This is at odds with with corporate priorities which boil down to "make money". The markeplace has proven that it isn't a good mechanism to keep the corporations honest for various reasons including short-term thinking, lack of foresight, and general lack of technical understanding. There is a fundamental conflict between the corporate strategies to make more money from software, including strategies like planned obsolesence and vendor lock-in, and the development of software that maximizes its benefit to society.
This is why open-source rocks. It's software that's created by the people who also use it. The software has their name on it and they take pride in making it work right. They generally don't have to listen to sales people who only care about their commission or marketing people who prefer to load up programmers rather than push back on customers unique requirements that can usally be accomplished another, better way with the existing software.
I talk with many people who are very frustrated because they feel they have no choice but to buy Microsoft products. Unfortunately, they are also very frustrated that they can't afford a home or have to pay $3 a gallon for gas and those things overwhelm their concern with what to do about software. When software becomes the top story on the evening news is when the the generally crappy software issue will get addressed. Then the government will have to do something. God help us then!
If you read the article and read between the lines you realize that the CIO was really just threatening to move to Linux to get more responsiveness out of his current suppliers. The most powerful use of Linux these days is as a threat to the status quo. If he hadn't of gotten what he wanted he probably would have started moving some non-critical systems to Linux just to back up his threat.
Another slashdotter was correct. I don't think the CIO is a moron or that he ever really intended to wholesale move his systems to Linux.
Isn't capitalism great!!
Being one of those people, I tend to think that your're right. A good engineer tends to ruthlessly work at making a system more efficient and optimal. This doesn't work well in business situations where the big-picture solution is usually sub-optimal for various non-technical reasons, like lack of money or time. The manger, who is technically clueless, either can't really see that it's suboptimal, doesn't feel like they have a choice or just doesn't care. The engineer, on the other hand, can see that it is suboptimal and usually does care.
I've never met an engineer that liked to work on a crappy product but the truth is quality is rarely a companies first priority so every engineer has to compromise. At some point you have to ask yourself: "Can I live with the compromise I'm asked to make?". If the answer is no then it's time to quit. There have been a couple jobs I quit because the answer was clearly no.
Yes, Please RTFA!
from the article:
Maybe using Microsoft products doesn't cause you a problem because you can play Solitare without calling technical support but some of us who actually have to make complicated systems work have good reason for despising Microsoft. If you think configuring LAMP is a PITA then you are a completely non-technical person who shouldn't even be posting on Slashdot. It's called "News for Nerds" not "News for non-technical people who don't like to be reminded that are supporting a corporation convicted of wrongdoing by the government".
I believe that Douglas Adams had the right idea. We need to put the Windows Programmers and the Phone Sanitizers on the first rocket to another planet. Then they can get the planet ready for the rest of us. I would hate to move to a new planet and not have Windows programs and clean phones at my disposal.
We'll be right behind you in the next rocket!!
It's harder to kill a lot of people fast without a gun, just like it's harder to get fat if you don't have a spoon to scoop out the ice cream. A gun isn't intrinsically evil but it's a great enabler for evil people.
Get real! It's not all BULLSHIT! Some of it is just plain lies!
I have been to East Africa (Kenya and Uganda) and they probably have more reliable electricity than much of Africa, which is to say that it's all fairly bad. I talked with people who have tried to travel with laptops in Africa and it's very frustrating.
If it were me, and I would love to go to West Africa if you're looking for someone, I would take a couple small solar panels and some rechargable batteries. There is usually plenty of sunshine. It shouldn't take long to charge up NiMH type batteries, which is the only type I would bother with unless you have access to more exotic batteries. My kid's GameBoy Advance SP game take 3 hours to charge and runs for 11 hours with the backlight on, according to the spec. Coming from the bad-old NiCad days, I was very impressed with that.
You might start with this link: http://www.energyenv.co.uk/Laptop_Chargers.asp
At the risk of getting too metaphysical, should there ever be a limit to what one person should be able to earn in a year?
Before you answer, consider the reality that the CEO is more critical, because there generally is only one per company, but isn't more important than the rest of the employees. I can tell you, from seeing it for myself, that a single employee in almost any part of a company can destroy a company, even if they can't singlehandedly make a company rich. Fortunately, most don't do it on purpose but rather through incompetence and/or apathy.
People who don't believe in teamwork usually fail because the truth is no one can run a corporation by themselves and they need motivated employees, even if it is only out of self-interest. Outrageous CEO salaries reduce most peoples motivation, unless they plan on being a CEO one day. When the company has to increase work hours, reduce pay or other benefits, or otherwise negatively affect the employees while the CEO gets an increase, this doesn't go over well with most people. If companies have to go overseas to find workers maybe it's because workers here are tired of being abused.
To state that corporate ownership is *much* more widely spread is not as meaningful as you might think since the real corporate control is still at the level of the super-rich people, including the fund managers. Rich people are the problem and if you become rich and abuse your position I will blame you too. GET USED TO IT!!!
I believe you're right. I think the whole "Let's go to Mars" idea is just a cover for the current administrations real plans to create the technology necessary to build a weapon platform in space.
Any administration that can say with a straight face "We invaded Iraq to bring freedom to that country" can rationalize just about anything. Their rationale will be something like: "We had to be the first to put a weapon platform in space to protect the world. An evil nation could beat us to it and threaten the globe.". I think we should be concerned. Especially if you get drafted to serve on it. It would be intolerable to other countries to have it there and would be incredibly easy to destroy.
Let's see...
I'm guessing your some sort of virus creator. Should I alert the FBI now or will you be turning yourself in?
Your design document needs to be culturally relevant:
Include a Hindi translation next to the English
Include culturally relevant analogies to help the programmers:
This will help the quality of the code immeasurably
-- What?!?!? I'm not bitter!!!
If programming isn't painful then you aren't doing it right. Nothing scares me more than a programmer that still thinks programming is fun. It means they probably either haven't had a customer for their code or they left before their bugs caught up with them.
What do they mean "MAY actually be beneficial"? They act as if there was some doubt about it. If Microsoft ends up controlling the World's computers then Hell will look like a viable option.
--- "Yes. Ramming this broomstick up your ass is part of the interview process. We are looking for people who won't say no to anything. This one test works remarkable well at weeding out the undesirables."
Thanks for your confirmation that NMCI is a "Bad Thing"(copyright pending). I've had several people tell me the same thing that you stated in your reply. That EDS owns the Navy's network infrastructure.
Now I assumed they meant "owned" in the sense that Colin Powell meant "owned" when he told President Bush that invading Iraq would mean "If he broke it, he owned it". It would seem probable to me that it is ILLEGAL for the government to literally give the equipment to a contractor for a term longer than the contract. Of the gazillion regulations involving the purchase and sale of government property, I'm sure there has to be one that would try and prevent it.
If someone knows differently I would be interested in hearing about it
I was at a recent all-hands meeting of the Range personnel at a Navy base (Point Mugu) that I work at. The head of the group said that we all have to work more efficiently and he was open to any suggestions about anything except NMCI. This was because the Admiral (don't ask me which one because I don't remember) considers NMCI an incredible success!!
Now anybody that works on a Navy facility that already had PCs and was forced to use NMCI knows that NMCI is an impediment to progress. I'm sure the first suggestion someone was going to make was to get rid of NMCI. The PCs are slow, and crash often because of changes pushed onto them by the network. The service is slow (as in "months to get something done"), and of course, Windows 2000 isn't the solution to every problem.
So the question to anyone out there is "Why would the admirals think it's a success?".
Is some group of people in the Navy actually better off now that NMCI is here?
Is NMCI meeting some special need the Admiral has?
Did they get kick backs from EDS or Microsoft?
Have they been co-opted by foreign nationals or aliens intent on overthrowing the U.S.?
Please post a response if you know the answer
I find it incredible that such a brilliant scientist would delve into the realm of "what makes conciousness". On the other hand, after you discover something as significant as DNA, I guess you're obligated to work on something at least as important for your next assignment.
What makes it incredible for me to believe he would try to explain conciousness is the fact that there are philisophical issues. What if Christians are right and man has an imperishable soul? If it exists it would be the seat of conciousness. Otherwise you wouldn't be you after you're dead. This means that the brain is nothing but a "soul interface" which contains nothing of eternal value. This would make for some very frustrating research!!!
Hopefully we wont have to wait long for Holographic Memory to become commercially available. It looks like the space program is one of the few to actually use Holographic Memory for anything now.
It only took one bomb a piece to take out Nagasaki and Hiroshima so I don't know why you figure it would necessarily take 8-12 nukes to destroy a city. Also, unless you believe that most of the population has bomb shelters they can stay in for 20+ years, it doesn't make sense to ignore the damage from the nuclear fallout. It will certainly pollute the water and the air and kill many more people over the long term. Wait until you see the total damage a little radiation leakage from Chernobyl will cause.
What kind of propaganda have you been listening to?
Since I have been reasearching biodiesel heavily for a while I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
Putting anything but B20 (1 part biodiesel to 4 parts petroleum diesel) in your car will probably violate the warranty. The advantage of biodiesel isn't just that it's renewable, it also adds lubricity and reduces pollution. See http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/biodiesel_basic s/ for more info.
Anyone that makes biodiesel in their backyard is going to violate their car warranty for sure. Making something that works and making something that isn't going to have long-term negative effects on your car are two different things. One of the by-products of making biodiesel is glycerin. If you don't make the biodiesel just right, the glycerin wont be usable for much and needs to be disposed of. See this excellent article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a niche product that helps reduce pollution and dependence on foreign oil. It also can be used in the remediation of petroleum spills and probably has other, undiscovered uses. It is not going to eliminate our dependence on petroleum.
"5 minutes of pain will instruct you better than a week of lectures" - AnonymousIncluding all revisions, of course.
As a System Test Engineer, I especially liked this part of the summary
One thing most people don't realize is that 99% of the time, only a small percentage of a program actually gets executed. Much of a program is error checking or handling of unusual events and doesn't get executed if the customer uses the program the way the programmer intended. The only reason that most commercial software is usable at all is because of this. So of course, testing and integration has a negative impact on development time.
Most software companies know this and develop software to be "good enough" since being anywhere near bug-free before shipping the first version requires too much time and effort. Software companies are "gambling" that the bugs that are left aren't bad enough to sour their customers on the product. IMHO, American companies are generally much bigger risk takers than foreign companies. This leads to either a spectacular success or a catastrophic failure
I would like to see the U.S. government start to punish software companies that take large risks with investors capital. I believe a lot of companies die because of poor implementation and not necessarily because of a poor idea. I can't think of anything easier to screw up then software development and it has been considered just an ordinary risk of running a business. I worked for a software company that was run by a man that, from what I saw, didn't give a hoot whether the software worked or not. As long as the IPO produced a lot of money he was happy.
There are many ways to reduce the risk of producing a worthless software program, including certifying programmers, code reuse, and more testing. I know most people don't want to invite the government to enact more regulations but the software industry doesn't seem to be regulating itself. There is a huge crisis brewing on the horizon and nothing seems to be getting better. If the millions lost on government computer systems, like the IRS modernization, isn't enough, we have the potential for a Microsoft virus to wipeout millions of users data.