Whose fault is it anyway?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4294388.stm

This is an issue that's been simmering with me for some time.

[AndrewJ]

Microsoft with a bug warranty on IE7.

I would pay too see that!!!!

[danielf]

tough one...

I can see the point, but how do you decide if a fault is caused by the software, the OS, an interaction between the two, or other software. There's just too many possible interactions there, so it's unclear who is to blame.

Originally Posted by danielf

tough one...

I can see the point, but how do you decide if a fault is caused by the software, the OS, an interaction between the two, or other software. There's just too many possible interactions there, so it's unclear who is to blame.

It's the only time we accept such a cop out though...We wouldn't stand for it from any other product whose producers and manufacturers must also have as many conflicting problems.

[Stuart]

The problem is that (AFAIK) no physical product is technically as complicated as most applications or operating systems. Windows has in excess of 2 million lines of code. How many physical products can you think of that have in excess of 2 million parts? OK, Airliners do, but I can't think of any other machines.

Then there are outside influences that may cause the software to fail. These can range from hardware incompatibilities (a friend who works for a game company was told they had worked out there are over 40,000 possible combinations of PC setup), through hardware failiures. Software/configuration problems could also prevent software working.

I am not excusing software companies. Far from it. They should be making every effort to ensure their software is as bug-free as possible. However, it is impossible to ensure it is totally bug free.

And, as stated above, it's also impossible to guarantee that even bug-free software won't be affected by a badly configured PC or software incompatibility.

[Ramrod]

I can foresee what would happen if software companies were forced to produce 'bug free' software...........they would decide who's machines to exclusively write software for -lets say DELL- and then very quickly DELL's market share would become a near monopoly and the guarantee would become invalid if we were to upgrade our own hardware.......is that a situation we want?
__________________

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The problem is that (AFAIK) no physical product is technically as complicated as most applications or operating systems. Windows has in excess of 2 million lines of code. How many physical products can you think of that have in excess of 2 million parts? OK, Airliners do

......and airliners don't have to try to be compatable with all sorts of other cr*p that anyone wants to subject them to............

[Millay]

I can think of one big problem.. software is user changable in whatever way you look at it.. if you were to give a warrenty then the software would have to be seriously degraded to stop a user from breaking it..

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Millay

I can think of one big problem.. software is user changable in whatever way you look at it.. if you were to give a warrenty then the software would have to be seriously degraded to stop a user from breaking it..

Look at Firefox.. I mention firefox as the article does refer to it.

If you download firefox, then add an extension which cause firefox to malfunction. It possibly also opens a security hole. However, without extensive bug testing, it is not clear that the fault is with the extension. Who do you go to? Mozilla, or the Extension author?

[patrickp]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Look at Firefox.. I mention firefox as the article does refer to it.

If you download firefox, then add an extension which cause firefox to malfunction. It possibly also opens a security hole. However, without extensive bug testing, it is not clear that the fault is with the extension. Who do you go to? Mozilla, or the Extension author?

Well, you don't pay for Firefox: the producer of any free software simply has to say that people use it at their own risk, and I don't find that unreasonable.

IE is a different matter. True, you can get it entirely for free, but on the other hand you get it as part of Windows, which you pay for, and it's an essential part of the operating system.

For myself, I would rather not have IE on my PCs, but I have to. Additionally, M$ insist that I use it for updating my Windows software - which I have paid for - and I believe that the reason for this is that they're using the least secure aspects of it, which other browser manufacturers prefer to leave out, to check my software and run the updates. I'm referring to ActiveX, of course.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by patrickp

Well, you don't pay for Firefox: the producer of any free software simply has to say that people use it at their own risk, and I don't find that unreasonable.

IE is a different matter. True, you can get it entirely for free, but on the other hand you get it as part of Windows, which you pay for, and it's an essential part of the operating system.

For myself, I would rather not have IE on my PCs, but I have to. Additionally, M$ insist that I use it for updating my Windows software - which I have paid for - and I believe that the reason for this is that they're using the least secure aspects of it, which other browser manufacturers prefer to leave out, to check my software and run the updates. I'm referring to ActiveX, of course.

My post wasn't intended to be an attack on Firefox. As I stated, I mentioned it because the article did. My point still stands. It is impossible for Microsoft (or any software company) to guarantee that their product will work 100% of the time on everyone's PCs. All they can do is guarantee that they will fix any known problems within a reasonable amount of time.