North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
- From: Per Heldal
- Date: Wed Dec 28 04:58:13 2005
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:06:20 -0800, "Owen DeLong" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I agree it would be nice to set some standards. I think what is needed
> is a consortium of software security experts to set some minimum "safety
> standards" that can be used as a legal basis.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Mediocre product quality is just one of many symptoms of a lack of
competition. The real problem is that we've got monopolies backed by a
draconian patent regime. Imagine a situation where there are drop-in
replacements for most proprietary technologies with little or no barrier
to entry (financial or technical). A serious flaw in product X could
easily cause mass customer defection to competing products. Maybe some
of the profits of today would have to be invested in quality assurance
to prevent that.
How would a brand of household-appliances hold up to the competition if
their products were riddled with flaws that had no solution, just
workarounds using expensive add-ons? Should the market accept that MS
enter the market of "anti-products" instead of solving the problem
within their products? Keep in mind that such products are parasites
which represent no customer value.
Why have the monopolies we normally despise become the norm in the
software industry? Or rather, why did we let them dictate a legislation
that give them legroom for such behaviour.