On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:07:52 +0200, "Stefan Kanthak" said: > The "industry" will (typically) not fix any error if the cost for fixing > exceeds the loss (or revenue) that this fix creates, including the vendors > gain/loss of reputation, gain/loss of stock value, loss of money in court > cases or due to compensations, loss of (future) sales due to (dis-)satisfied > customers, ...
Court cases? *Really*? When was the last time you saw a court case about defective COTS software? You see the occasional squabble regarding bespoke one-off developments, but your average shrink-wrapped EULA does a pretty good job of absolving the vendor from all blame, no matter how egregious the error. Oftentimes, they even manage to waive responsibility for the common-law concepts of "merchantability" or "fitness for intended use". > Joe Average can't tell the difference between a program which is designed, > developed, built and maintained according to the state of the art, and some > piece of crap that is not. That's OK. Those of us who do this for a living are *also* often hard-pressed to find any notable difference between "state of the art" and "piece of crap", as they're about as close as the two level of a hyperfine transition of a cesium atom.
pgpeuEX3RjkYX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
