
October 24th, 2003, 04:17 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 626
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
Quote:
Originally posted by Loser:
Software will always have bugs, always. Requiring that a company put anything more than their reputation on the line is just unfair. Add to that the strange and eldritch ways that certain pieces of software work fine separately but clash together and you're putting Atlas' burden on anyone who wants to make any piece of software. You don't want to take the risk, you don't install the software. Yeah, it's expensive, but the law doesn't guarantee cheap computer services, and I don't think it should.
|
So... people shouldn't be allowed to post lawsuits against faulty mechanical construction. All mechanical devices will have some faultiness in them i]always[/i]. So if we require say... automobile companies and tire manufacturing companies to put more on the line than just their reputations that would be unfair.
Of course we do. If something goes wrong with your car you can take legal action against those responsible, against either the people that put it in incorrectly or manufactured it in a faulty manner, regardless of your permission to install it you have a right to expect that once installed it will work as advertised without conflicting with something else that you already have, and if it does then you should be informed and asked if you still want to go through with it.
In software it just so happens that the people that "manufacture" it and install it are one in the same in most cases. Does that mean that they shouldn't be held responsible?
No you could argue that in auto and most other mechanical industries a persons physical well being and life could be put at risk so they have to be held to higher standards. However with a computer a persons economic well being can be put at risk. Is this any less important than their physical well being? By holding a company responsible for far more than just its reputation you help to ensure that it will at the very least attempt to prevent these harmfull defects. Will some still get through? Of course. Will as many? NO.
This is the difference between the software industry and automotive and other industries. We don't let them get away with foisting a poorly made product on us and telling us that we are responsible for it. Oh... the engine needs to be replaced one week after you bought it... you can deal with it, it is your problem.
Ok... so patches... we have patches. They can fix many problems that exist when it is released. Imagine that business model with anything else. What? The door doesn't work? Oh ok... we will just pop on a new one that a week later we will learn doesn't let the windows roll down and then we will replace that which will of course cause the windshield wipers to fail...
I wonder how much unreported economic damage is caused due to this BS? I can talk to close friends in multiple different industries and hear stories of thousand, hundred thousand, and even million and multi million dollar business decisions, legal cases, deals, etc failing or almost failing due to software glitches that the companies that produced are not held responsible for.
So Microsofts reputation is hurt... they have a monopoly or near monopoly on several areas. What is your alternative? A secondary software product which your fellows don't support on their system? OH yah... a real alternative. Or maybe a freeware product with no support? That isn't an improvement.
Quite simply the companies due need to be held responsible for their products and not just based on their reputation, just like every other industry that currently exists in the world. If your bank screws up it is their responsibility. If your computer hardware screws up it is their responsibility. If your car screws up it is their responsibility. Not always. After all we make mistakes as well, but so do they and they need to be held accountable for theirs just like we are for ours.
You hit another persons car in an accident and no on is hurt but the cars are totalled. The person you hit has no other means of transportation and can no longer reach their place of work or run other necessary chores, but you are not responsible except for your reputation as a bad driver? No. You and everyone else must be held responsible for their actions and damages that result from them.
Is the computer a different and complicated medium? Yes. Will the rules need to be changed a little? Yes. Must we all be held accountable for our actions in this new medium? Yes.
BC3000AD released totally unworking. The designer (whatever other faults he may have) told the company it wasn't ready to be released. They released it anyways. A lawsuit ensues between the designer and the company for ownership rights with the company just wanting to call it a flop and the designer wanting to get it to work.
Imagine this in any other industry? The car company releases a car that doesn't just work badly it doesn't work at all and they just want to call it a flop and move on with all the people who purchased it left stranded? BS.
Price you say? So we move down to say a video game system. Release one of those and it doesn't work and you still have a *bleep* storm and pubklic accountability. Modern software can cost less than the $150 for a video game system. But it can also cost MORE! So why don't they have the same accountability? Why shouldn't they?
PS: Sorry for the bit of rant in there.
__________________
Oh hush, or I'm not going to let you alter social structures on a planetary scale with me anymore. -Doggy!
|