Berkaitan dg kualitas software yang sedang ramai dibicarakan berikut ini
saya forwardkan artikel di Business Week,
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_49/b3658015.htm
Kalau Business Week pun masih melihat kemungkinan bahwa Open Source itu
juga cocok untuk 'alam bisnis'... bagaimana tanggapan rekan-rekan...??
Silahkan simak terutama yang saya beri garis bawah...8-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Software Hell (int'l edition)
Glitches cost billions of dollars and jeopardize human lives. How can we
kill the
bugs?
June 10 of this year is a day the software industry would love to forget.
Auction site eBay (EBAY) suffered a 22-hour system crash--the longest, but
not last, in a series of crippling software-related outages. The magnitude
of the crash signaled more than just the temporary interruption of Beanie
Baby trading. It stoked concerns across the computer industry that
software, in its current form, may not be a match for the voracious
demands of the information economy.
EBay's crash was traced to a glitch in software from Sun Microsystems
(SUNW), resulting in the corruption of information in an Oracle Corp
(ORCL) database. Sun chairman and CEO Scott McNealy acknowledges that
there was a known bug--as well as a standard fix that eBay failed to make.
But as the auction site managers struggled to keep up with phenomenal
demand for its services, the patch had fallen through the cracks. Given
eBay's explosive growth, ''all of the suppliers would agree that we're all
a little winded,'' McNealy says.
EBay's software struggles resonate loudly across the whole convoluted and
turbulent world of computer software. Regulatory authorities are
investigating thousands of consumer complaints about glitches plaguing
every conceivable type of computer service. But no agency on earth can
quell the havoc being wreaked around the planet by ubiquitous software
that is too slapdash, buggy, complex, or ill-conceived to accomplish the
myriad tasks under its control. The Year 2000 bug has focused attention on
the topic. But Y2K tells only a tiny fragment of this story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With the low points of just the past 24 months, you could build a Software
Hall of Infamy. In a fast-flowing river of woe, software bugs--along with
viruses and security loopholes--have plagued most new releases of
Microsoft Windows and Office products, Netscape Navigator, Intuit's
Quicken, and countless other personal-computer applications. Glitches have
crippled online auctions and trading sites and delayed product shipments
at Hershey (HSY), Whirlpool (WHR), and Handspring, maker of Visor palm
computers. All told, bad software cost U.S. businesses $85 billion in lost
productivity last year, according to Jim Johnson, president of market
researcher The Standish Group in Dennis, Mass.
At U.S. government agencies, bugs are a public disgrace--when they are not
a menace. The Federal Aviation Administration, the Social Security
Administration, the Immigration & Naturalization Service, and the Internal
Revenue Service are all struggling with balky software--at appalling costs
to taxpayers. And more than dollars are at stake. Over the past two
decades, bad software has been implicated in plane crashes, road and rail
accidents, and malfunctions of medical gear that resulted in
death--lending ghoulish new meaning to the term ''killer app.'' Recent
glitches have knocked out AT&T's (T) high-speed phone and data networks
and interrupted emergency service in New York. ''Software easily rates
among the most poorly constructed, unreliable, and least maintainable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
technological artifacts invented by man,'' says Paul Strassmann, a former
chief information officer for Xerox Corp. (XRX) and for the Defense Dept
who now heads a private consulting company. Most software executives share
at least some of this dismay.
To be fair, software also shares credit for the most spellbinding advances
of the 20th century. In today's world, banks, hospitals, and space
missions would be inconceivable without it. The challenge of the next
century will be to exterminate the most pernicious bugs and to bring
software quality to the same level we expect from cars, televisions, and
other relatively dependable hunks of hardware.
MIXED BLESSING. In this, there are glimmers of hope. A movement called
''open source'' draws programmers together around the globe to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
continuously debug major programs. The Internet provides a platform for
such collaboration and an instant feedback channel when things go wrong.
Governments have also joined hands with industry to impose greater rigor
on software development, hoping to transform it from sorcery to science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, none of these developments guarantees quick deliverance for
sufferers in Software Hell. The Net itself is a mixed blessing: Its
business culture values speed over quality in software development. What's
more, on the Net, the world is interconnected. Vulnerabilities to both
bugs and viruses are thus multiplying geometrically, as are the damages
and costs. Peter G. Neumann, a computer scientist at SRI International in
Menlo Park, Calif., says the world is now trapped in a downward spiral
when it comes to software quality and complexity. ''Improvements in some
quarters are followed by increased risks in others,'' he says. ''And new
systems introduce more problems than the systems they replace.''
For most computer users, the horrors of software begin at home. The PC may
be the most versatile home gadget ever developed--but it is also the
buggiest and the most complex. The bugs, in fact, are built into the
business model: Software companies make money on upgrades, so there is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
little incentive to achieve a perfect first release.
Complexity is also built into the system. You see it each time you pop in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a new CD-ROM and the PC asks permission to rewrite helper programs such as
DirectX and QuickTime that are stored on your hard drive. What's the right
answer? It depends. ''Yes'' may prevent you from loading your old CD-ROMs,
while ''No'' keeps you from running the new one.
There are no simple remedies for such absurdities, says Kirk
Kirschenbauer, a director of software development at The Learning Co., an
educational software division of Mattel Inc. (MAT) ''Two months after a
purchase, the number of ways that different device drivers and pieces of
software could be interacting is infinite,'' he says. The Learning Co.
rigorously tests its programs on PCs configured in different ways. But
there is no way it can predict the unique configuration in each home.
Now, the PC software industry is reaching into new domains, such as
cell-phone networks and automobile electronics. Historically, such
products have depended on high-quality, embedded software that the user
never touched or tinkered with. All that could change, however, when cell
phones become portable Web browsers. Soon, phones may be running some of
the same sorts of slapdash applications as a PC--and crashing like one,
too. Cars could be next. Right now, auto electronic systems don't flash
the worst system error--the Blue Screen of Death. But that could change
when off-the-rack applications--from mapping software to speech-activated
Net browsing--are humming on the dashboard, controlled by PC-derived
operating systems.
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS. PC software is just one tier of Software Hell. Step
into the world of business--especially the world of Web-centric
computing--and the software dilemma becomes even more troublesome.
Compared with ordinary consumers, large Web sites such as eBay, E*trade
(EGRP), and Charles Schwab (SCH) require a higher grade of hardware and
software to manage billions of transactions. For this, they turn to the
likes of IBM (IBM), Sun Microsystems, and Hewlett-Packard (HWP) for
systems that won't die at a critical juncture.
The hardware generally performs as billed. But the software is often a
disaster. For example, about 7.5 million investors in the U.S. have
flocked to online brokerages, according to the North American Securities
Administrators Association Inc. (NASAA) in Washington. This year, also,
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission has fielded more than 20,000
investor complaints of outages, errors, fund-transfer delays, and other
mishaps plaguing computer systems at such brokers as Ameritrade (AMTD),
E*trade, Charles Schwab, and other online trading ventures. That's up from
about 1,000 last year. Most of these glitches are linked, in one form or
another, to software issues. The programs involved were designed,
developed, and debugged with ''mission-critical'' enterprise computing in
mind. But that hasn't saved them.
Eileen Allen, 56, learned this the hard way. Earlier this year, the
self-described stay-at-home mom in Maple Valley, Wash., purchased 13
shares of Amazon.com (AMZN) through online broker Ameritrade at 186, its
all-time high at that time. As Allen tells it, a glitch in Ameritrade's
computer system then converted her order into 186 shares at 190. She
quickly tried to unwind the trade but couldn't get through to Ameritrade
by e-mail or phone. Over the next 10 days, Amazon nosedived to 104.
Ameritrade says the problem was a user error, not a glitch. Either way,
Allen and her husband had to cash in an IRA, liquidate other savings, and
sell the Amazon stock--for a net loss of more than $15,000.
Whichever side is right, online crashes are no anomaly. The most fail-safe
computer systems turn unreliable when they are thrown into untested
combinations. Even when individual office-software products aren't buggy,
corporate computing environments are so complex that they are inherently
unreliable. Typically, these systems are unholy agglomerations of
mainframes and minicomputers, PCs, Macs, and workstations, in thousands of
unique configurations, running dozens of different operating systems that
were neither designed to cooperate with one another nor tested in
combination. Atop these juggernauts run thousands of different software
applications, coexisting in countless versions and combinations.
To stitch it all together, most big companies depend on layer upon layer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of hand-built, poorly documented computer code, which may conceal a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
variety of ticking time bombs--Y2K being just the most famous. According
to the U.S. Defense Dept. and the Software Engineering Institute at
Carnegie Mellon University, there are typically 5 to 15 flaws in every
1,000 lines of code--the cryptic software instructions that make sense
only to computers and programmers. Just tracking down each bug eats up
about 75 minutes, according to a five-year Pentagon study. And fixing them
takes two to nine hours each. On the outside, that's 150 hours, or roughly
$30,000, to cleanse every 1,000 lines.
Integrated enterprise software from SAP (SAP), BAAN (BAANF), PeopleSoft
(PSFT), and other suppliers may remedy some aspects of the problem--if
only because they tie operations together in one standard and heavily
tested suite. But such programs don't guarantee a smooth sail, as recent
mishaps in the enterprise computing arena demonstrate. A year ago in
August, defunct drug distributor FoxMeyer Corp. sued SAP for $500 million,
claiming the company's R/3 software could not cope with FoxMeyer's high
volume of orders. No ruling has been made in the case. This fall,
Whirlpool held SAP partly to blame for delays in appliance shipments to
distributors and retailers. And SAP software glitches impaired Hershey
Foods Corp.'s ability to meet Halloween commitments with distributors and
retailers.
CEO Kevin McKay, who heads SAP's American operations, blames complexity.
Each customer, he says, has a different culture and a different approach
to installing software. ''You can't possibly replicate the myriad of ways
in which companies will start to use the software,'' he says. ''No testing
is comprehensive enough to get at this.''
FAST AND DIRTY. The situation hasn't always been so dire. There was a
time, in the 1970s, when companies could rely on nearly bulletproof
software, supplied by mainframe computer companies such as IBM and Sperry.
Not only was the code dependable, but the hardware environment was
relatively homogeneous. Less complexity meant fewer glitches. Then came
computer ''downsizing'' and the so-called client-server revolution, in
which thousands of businesses shifted operations from mainframes to
distributed networks of workstations and PCs. This model spelled the
demise of insulated, bug-free software and left corporations exposed to
the fast-and-dirty culture of PC software.
Despite the patches that Microsoft (MSFT) diligently posts on its Web
site, quality issues in the PC world are so disturbing that some managers
seek to isolate their key systems from Windows code. A peek into the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
computer room at the New York Clearing House (NYCH) in midtown Manhattan
explains why. About $1.2 trillion in electronic interbank payments are
cleared each day by two Unisys Corp. (UIS) mainframes. If one of these
systems is down for a day, banks consider it a major international
incident. The software was developed for operations that must not fail.
The code is virtually bug-free and fully insulated from the messy world
outside. For the past seven years, NYCH has clocked just 0.01% downtime.
NYCH also has some PC servers running Microsoft's Windows NT, which it
uses mostly for simple communications programs. These systems are another
story. They crash on a regular basis, says George F. Thomas, director of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
information systems. That's why Thomas was alarmed, 18 months ago, when
Unisys began building some NT functions into its latest mainframe
operating system. Eventually that system will touch NYCH's critical
electronic transactions--exposing them to the threat of a crash. ''We have
extreme concerns,'' Thomas says. ''We want to know where each of these NT
components is going.''
In its noncritical systems running NT, NYCH is particularly dismayed by
the paucity of tools for diagnosing and fixing problems. When an NT box
goes down, ''it's hard to tell what went wrong,'' says NYCH technical
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
services vice-president Albert G. Wood. Microsoft's service culture makes
it worse, he says. Unless you are a very big Microsoft account or pay for
a pricey maintenance contract, don't expect a quick response, even in a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
catastrophic crash, he warns. ''You have to prove you're using the
software properly, then go through all these gyrations just to get them to
look at it,'' says Wood.
Microsoft doesn't deny that it has relied on customers to help debug its
PC products. Chief Operating Officer Robert Herbold lays the blame on a
broader market phenomenon. Intense competition forces vendors to rush
products out quickly and is also responsible for the increasing size and
intricacy of almost all software. ''Our challenge is to make [software]
simpler,'' he says.
COLOSSUS. That could help with home applications. But analysts think
future bugs lurk in Microsoft's pipeline. The next iteration of Windows
NT, due next year, is a colossus called Windows 2000 with an unprecedented
30 million lines of code. The bigger the program, the greater the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
likelihood of bugs. But Jim Allchin, head of Windows development and
marketing, says the program's core is no larger than a Unix operating
system. Microsoft has spent 500 people-years to make the code reliable.
''We're still not perfect,'' says Allchin. ''But I hope customers will
appreciate it.''
Microsoft, in any case, is not the source of all bugs. Most giant
infrastructure projects continuously battle complexity, and they sometimes
lose. AT&T was bloodied in April, 1998, when a Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO)
switch on the phone giant's high-speed fiber network suddenly flooded
other nodes with error messages. These propagated across dozens of other
switches, knocking out thousands of bank ATMs and credit-card readers in
stores. Cisco accepted the blame, and the problem was fixed. But nobody
can promise there won't be similar events. ''You can do all the analysis
you want,'' says Daniel Sheinbein, vice-president for network architecture
and development at AT&T. ''But there's always a case of something arising
that you didn't anticipate.''
Bad software jeopardizes staggering sums of money. A drawn-out overhaul of
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's computer systems cost Americans about
$4 billion. Bad software has hobbled several of NASA's most expensive
missions. The U.S. auto industry loses about $1 billion a year because of
software incompatibilities, according to the National Institute of
Standards.
The most alarming facet of software in the 21st century, however, is the
interconnectedness of complex systems. Over the Net, software now links
computers that were once insulated from one another, stacking up
additional layers of complexity that breed software bugs.
Telecommunications and bank trading networks are both global and
cross-connected, as are the myriad traffic and commerce subsystems that
rely on them. Even the computer backbones of utility grids, military
bases, and weapons laboratories--once isolated islands of fail-safe
mainframes--are exposed to the global Internet at countless interconnects.
And everywhere across this electronic infrastructure there are weak links
in the form of personal computers running software that was rushed to
market without adequate testing or debugging.
The recent rash of virus attacks further highlights the dangers of an
interconnected world: When the Internet holds sway, vulnerability to
hackers is tantamount to a bug. A door was opened to some of the worst
viruses when Microsoft began integrating Internet capability directly into
its Office suite of products. The goal was to make its Windows and Office
programs more convenient for users. But integration also made the hacker's
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
job easier. Last Easter, the Melissa virus exploited the doors that
integration left open. All the virus accomplished, in the end, was to
generate chains of phony e-mail, clogging servers and pulling down some
office networks. But in the hands of a different criminal, those e-mails
could have been fake financial reports, generated on your computer, signed
by you, and shipped from your e-mail address.
Melissa, a new virus called Bubble Boy, and numerous recent Web-site hacks
and break-ins show that hackers are exploiting weaknesses in intertwined
software products. ''It's really a crisis, and as a community, we have no
idea how to solve it,'' says Bruce Schneier, chief technical officer of
Counterpane Internet Security Inc. in San Jose, Calif., and author of
Applied Cryptography.
Because buggy software is a global headache, engineers around the world
are mounting coordinated efforts to find remedies. And some of the results
show promise. Many programmers are encouraged by the successes of the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
''open-source'' movement--a sprawling, global confederation of software
developers whose crowning achievement is the popular Linux operating
system. With thousands of programmers pooling their skills to build and
test such programs, bugs are discovered early ''and the fixes are obvious
to somebody,'' says open-source visionary Eric Raymond. ''Given enough
eyeballs,'' he contends, ''all bugs are shallow.''
In an ideal world, however, bugs would be rare and the energy now spent on
fixing software could be channeled in more productive directions. The
problem, according to many experts, is that writing software is mainly a
shoot-from-the-hip affair. ''It's like trying to build a bridge without an
architectural plan,'' says Stephen E. Cross, director of Carnegie Mellon's
Software Engineering Institute.
Today, engineers can design and test something as complex as a Boeing 777
in cyberspace. But paradoxically, that's not possible with big software
programs. The physical laws governing how metal behaves when shaped into a
plane and hurled through the air are well known. For software, there is no
such body of basic science.
The National Science Foundation wants to take what is now a dark art and
turn it into a structured discipline. In terms of both the challenges and
the potential impact, this is the software equivalent of deciphering the
human genome. The goal is to provide software engineers with the
''genetic'' information to create accurate models of various organs, or
modules, that could be used over and over to assemble all kinds of
systems. Sprinkle on some artificial intelligence in the form of software
agents, and complex software might even write itself.
Imagine a library of debugged modules, each with its own smart agent. To
produce a program, an engineer would simply specify the software's job,
then the agents would coordinate among themselves to figure out how to
patch together the desired result. ''I'm optimistic that agents can make a
significant difference,'' says T.W. Cook, director of software research at
Microelectronics & Computer Technology Corp., an R&D consortium in Austin.
MILITARY VICTORIES. The U.S. Defense Dept. is also eager to codify
software's basic laws. That's because its weapons require frequent
software upgrades in order to stay in service for decades. To trim these
costs, the government wants to capture the essence of its weapons in
software models so simulations can determine what changes are needed and
how best to implement them. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
is funding work at some 50 research labs under a four-year-old project
called Evolutionary Design of Complex Software--and it is starting to rack
up victories.
For example, Xerox Corp.'s Palo Alto Research Center recently produced a
mathematical model for ''constraint-based scheduling.'' This deals with
regulating the sequence of operations inside a copier or a jet plane.
''Historically, this has always been an extremely complex part of the
code--and extremely hard to get right,'' says Gregor J. Kiczales, a senior
scientist at PARC. ''Now we can generate this code automatically.''
Perhaps the toughest challenge in fixing software will be reducing
vulnerability to viruses and other malicious attacks. One promising
approach is to treat complex computer systems as rapidly evolving
organisms and arm them with immune systems that can fight intrusions. At
the University of New Mexico and the Santa Fe Institute, computer-science
professor Stephanie Forrest is developing a model for one such system.
She's crafting computer code that spots unusual activity in a software
system, identifies it as an attack, and slows the suspect activity down to
the point where it is benign. ''Trying to respond to break-ins manually
will no longer work,'' she says. ''Each computer needs to take care of
itself.''
It may be a long time, however, before these and other research approaches
trickle into the commercial software market. Meanwhile, software companies
have shown little inclination to grapple with the factors that drag
quality down. Indeed, the drift may be in the opposite direction. For
months, software publishers have quietly been lobbying for legislation
known as the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, or UCITA. Its
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
impact would be to strip from consumers the means to take legal action
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
when software failed to meet reasonable expectations for quality. ''In the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
service of protecting the worst of the publishers, UCITA will change the
economics of defective products for the field as a whole,'' says Cem
Kaner, a Silicon Valley-based attorney specializing in software quality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly, the pressures that lead to poor software quality are likely to
persist. And users bear part of the responsibility. ''The customer wants
new features,'' says Intuit's Scott Cook. Bugs, he says, ''are the dark
side of rapid innovation and entrepreneurship.'' The last thing the
software industry needs, however, is a blame game. It must find the fixes
that will bring software back into the light.
By Neil Gross, Marcia Stepanek, and Otis Port in New York, with John Carey
in Washington and bureau reports
* Gunadarma Mailing List -----------------------------------------------
* Archives : http://milis-archives.gunadarma.ac.id
* Langganan : Kirim Email kosong ke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Berhenti : Kirim Email kosong ke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
