Seriously though, the way the UK is going at the moment the only sensible option will soon be to leave. Trouble is I can't think of anywhere better to go to.
Can you point to any instance where Microsoft, or some other comparable company has been held liable for defects in their software? Since when have software producers been liable for anything? As long as EULA's have clauses like the ones below, no user has any comeback for defective software.
"15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
This is just the latest in a long line of moves by the current government to reduce freedom and liberty in the UK, all in the name of security.
Add this to the National Identity Register, ID cards, the Civil Contingencies Act and the Parliament Act and the UK is well on the way to becoming a police state.
And the worst of it is, most people seem to think this is a good thing.
Clearly you share the author's bias.
It's a gross oversimplification to say that "Scott... killed his men because he didn't know what he was doing". The truth us much more complicated than that.
Without getting into a full defense of Scott, something I don't want to do as I don't subscribe to either of the two main camps (bungler or hero) and because it's off topic, Scott made what he though were the right decisons, though not all of them turned out to be so. Scott's inexperience was just one of many factors.
As for taking ponies, well when it gets down to the emergency rations stage, there's more meat on a pony than there is on a dog. And yes there isn;t much grass in antartica, so a lot of fodder was taken.
I suggest you read one or more less biased accounts and perhaps the published (but sadly edited) diary of Captian Scott.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
As long as the rights holders are using restricitve DRM they're essentially judging every potential customer and finding them guilty of theft. Worse still, if customers are continually treated like criminals it will only be a matter of time before even honest ones start acting like criminals.
DRM on purchases is a direct insult against my honesty and integrity.
Re:Quality is coordination.
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've been on various QA/Testing (no, they are not the same, but my team performs them both) teams for the better part of three years now.
Try 15. (In software and in manufacturing)
The most severe downfalls I've seen are when the marketing teams and development teams do not adequately communicate with the QA team.
I have to disagree, the most severe downfalls I've seen are when the ship to customer date isn't allowed to slip but the date for development submitting to test is. Test end up having to do a month's work in a week and there is no time to fix bugs. So it shouldn't be a surprise when the product ships with known, unfixed crtitcal bugs and the customer ends up cancelling the entire contract.
In my experience what you need to produce some sort of "quality" product is a sales team that doesn't over promise, senior management that are aware that you can't just tack on some testing at the end and it'll be alright, clear specs, and enough time to actually do the job.
Oh, and a test team that are commited to the role, not a bunch of wannabe programmers who see it as something to do for 3 months just to get a foot in the door.
Good communication helps, as does a good working relationship between teams but neither is entirely essential.
Having said the above, it's also my belief that the strongest impediment to producing high quality software is the end user license. As long as software producers can disclaim any and all responsibilities, fitness for purpose etc there is no incentive for them to do it right.
Unfortunately, being an exernally visible marker, ISO9001 is largely treated as a marketting tool by the PHBs of the world.
Well that's about all it's really good for.
Having worked for several companies with ISO9001 and the superceeded BS5750, the only thing they all had in common was that my supervisor would come around about a week before the external audit and ensure all missing/incorrect records were "backfilled" so the audit wasn't failed.
And before anyone asks, no, backfilling wasn't one of the official company procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, the way the UK is going at the moment the only sensible option will soon be to leave. Trouble is I can't think of anywhere better to go to.
"15. Disclaimer of Warranty. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
In case you're wondering, here's the source for the above: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Add this to the National Identity Register, ID cards, the Civil Contingencies Act and the Parliament Act and the UK is well on the way to becoming a police state.
And the worst of it is, most people seem to think this is a good thing.
Clearly you share the author's bias. It's a gross oversimplification to say that "Scott ... killed his men because he didn't know what he was doing". The truth us much more complicated than that.
Without getting into a full defense of Scott, something I don't want to do as I don't subscribe to either of the two main camps (bungler or hero) and because it's off topic, Scott made what he though were the right decisons, though not all of them turned out to be so. Scott's inexperience was just one of many factors.
As for taking ponies, well when it gets down to the emergency rations stage, there's more meat on a pony than there is on a dog. And yes there isn;t much grass in antartica, so a lot of fodder was taken.
I suggest you read one or more less biased accounts and perhaps the published (but sadly edited) diary of Captian Scott.
As long as the rights holders are using restricitve DRM they're essentially judging every potential customer and finding them guilty of theft. Worse still, if customers are continually treated like criminals it will only be a matter of time before even honest ones start acting like criminals.
DRM on purchases is a direct insult against my honesty and integrity.
Try 15. (In software and in manufacturing)
The most severe downfalls I've seen are when the marketing teams and development teams do not adequately communicate with the QA team.
I have to disagree, the most severe downfalls I've seen are when the ship to customer date isn't allowed to slip but the date for development submitting to test is. Test end up having to do a month's work in a week and there is no time to fix bugs. So it shouldn't be a surprise when the product ships with known, unfixed crtitcal bugs and the customer ends up cancelling the entire contract.
In my experience what you need to produce some sort of "quality" product is a sales team that doesn't over promise, senior management that are aware that you can't just tack on some testing at the end and it'll be alright, clear specs, and enough time to actually do the job.
Oh, and a test team that are commited to the role, not a bunch of wannabe programmers who see it as something to do for 3 months just to get a foot in the door.
Good communication helps, as does a good working relationship between teams but neither is entirely essential.
Having said the above, it's also my belief that the strongest impediment to producing high quality software is the end user license. As long as software producers can disclaim any and all responsibilities, fitness for purpose etc there is no incentive for them to do it right.
Well that's about all it's really good for.
Having worked for several companies with ISO9001 and the superceeded BS5750, the only thing they all had in common was that my supervisor would come around about a week before the external audit and ensure all missing/incorrect records were "backfilled" so the audit wasn't failed.
And before anyone asks, no, backfilling wasn't one of the official company procedures.