Re: Re: product liability (was: Virus Update)
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
it is not enough to say that people don't have time to read and/or patch their systems.
that is like saying that there is no time to train school bus drivers, just send them out to pick up our kids.
However, if the bus were designed so that it was possible for a passing driver to honk his horn in a certain way and cause the wheels to fall off, and there was a switch under the dash to turn that behavior off, *AND* the company that makes the bus ships them with the switched turn ON and no big sign on the dash that says "warning; turn this switch off before you drive this thing", we'd sue the bejeezus out of them. You're talking about a product sold under the advertising promise that little to no training is necessary, and with default behavior that makes it TRIVIAL to write crap like this. Not just possible; not even easy, but TRIVIAL. Any high school kid with a couple of "Idiots Guide to Visual Basic in 21 Days for Dummies" books under his belt could have written this, and if he'd had a class on programming he'd have written better code than this piece of crap. If he'd tried to write something similar for a Unix system, he'd have done a little damage to a couple of systems, max. Most of those hit would have at worst lost the files of a single user. But as it is, even large companies that don't use Outlook had expensive damage, because of Microsoft shipping complex unmanageable cruft-accumulated bloatware that can't be locked down very well even by the top experts in the field without removing functionality that Microsoft proclaims to the world that you need to go Where You Want To Go Today. Where I want to go today is to work without having to recover 1,300 files damaged by two idiots double-clicking something they shouldn't have. Ask CBS' network folks where they want to go today. They'll probably tell you "to Redmond, with AK-47s".
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 05:44:57PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
You're talking about a product sold under the advertising promise that little to no training is necessary, and with default behavior that makes it TRIVIAL to write crap like this.
i guess this is the gist of my argument. companies should not be buying into solutions that require "little or no training". computer networks/applications are getting more and more complicated. if they think they can save money on salaries by getting software that doesn't require a knowledgeable person to set it up, well, then they get what they pay for.
But as it is, even large companies that don't use Outlook had expensive damage, because of Microsoft shipping complex unmanageable cruft-accumulated bloatware that can't be locked down very well even by the top experts in the field without removing functionality that Microsoft proclaims to the world that you need to go Where You Want To Go Today.
crappy software is a fact of life.
Where I want to go today is to work without having to recover 1,300 files damaged by two idiots double-clicking something they shouldn't have.
Ask CBS' network folks where they want to go today. They'll probably tell you "to Redmond, with AK-47s".
probably best to take those AK-47s and go after the bonehead who made the decision to use the crappy software. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +1 416 506-0654 ] [ Reptilian Research -- Longer Life through Colder Blood ] [ Don't be fooled by cheap Finnish imitations; BSD is the One True Code. ]
I guess that they've fullfilled theor promise now, don't you? There is very little training time necessary to write such code for Windoze. <grin>
Shawn McMahon: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 2:45 PM
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jim Mercer wrote:
it is not enough to say that people don't have time to read and/or patch their systems.
that is like saying that there is no time to train school bus drivers, just send them out to pick up our kids.
You're talking about a product sold under the advertising promise that little to no training is necessary, and with default behavior that makes it TRIVIAL to write crap like this.
Not just possible; not even easy, but TRIVIAL. Any high school kid with a couple of "Idiots Guide to Visual Basic in 21 Days for Dummies" books under his belt could have written this, and if he'd had a class on programming he'd have written better code than this piece of crap.
participants (3)
-
Jim Mercer
-
Roeland Meyer (E-mail)
-
Shawn McMahon