Jan Lühr wrote: > > You don't. Tough luck, of course, but that's the price for running > > affordable, off-the-shelf software (free or proprietary). > > well, this might be a reason for using computers in situations we use 'em > today.
Probably yes. If the costs for software production were one or two magnitudes higher because only error rates in the range of one error per 10 KSLOCS were tolerated by the market, it's unlikely that anybody would use free software for its technical merits. 8-) > I'm just feeling like a helpless person, threadening by a serious > disease, who is going to be informened about it, when a cure exists. > Trust me, that doesn't feel right. Your analogy is quite instructive. At least in Germany, you don't lightheartedly test people Huntington's disease. Chorea Huntington can be reliably predicted using genetic tests -- but you better make sure that someone can deal with the knowledge that he or she will inevitably fall victim to the disease in a few years. Large institutions tend to react quite irrational if they are confronted with possibly far-reaching defects. It doesn't matter if a fix is available, it's often very expensive to deploy. The security announcement alone can cause significant costs and service disruption. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]