power, corruption and lies (was RE: Re[2]: pissed off)

["Steve Wray" <steve.wray () paradise net nz>]

Phew... I'm just saying that in most normal areas
of business theres some sense of liability; that if
you do a shit job and sell it to someone and it turns
to custard on them, theres some legal fallback. Therefore
theres *some* disincentive to sell shit. Powertools for
example. Companies that make and distribute powertools that
are shit (dangerous and unreliable) stand to lose out
big time! 

Companies that make and distribute software
that is shit (dangerous and unreliable) stand to make
a fortune with absolutely *no* risk (except to reputation
but who cares about reputation when they are taking a dump
on a 24 carat toilet? I sure wouldn't).

The software industry seems to have nicely circumvented
this risk apparently with the (IMO lame) excuse that since
its 'impossible' to guarantee its correctness and reliability
in the first place the software vendor shouldn't have to
shoulder any burden if  it turns out to in fact be incorrect
and/or unreliable.

This has effectively doomed (almost) the entire IT industry
to corruption. Yes, all the way from software to hardware,
from sales to support, the IT industry is corrupt.

Because if you can get away with selling shit
and if you can make selling shit profitable,
then sell shit!
Thats the IT business model in a nutshell.

Heck I could print that (and only that) on every page 
of a 500 page book entitled "IT Industry for dummies" 
and sell it for $100 a copy and make a fortune...
:)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Melvyn Sopacua
> Sent: Monday, 28 April 2003 10:23 a.m.
> To: Steve Wray
> Cc: 'J G'; full-disclosure () netsys com
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Full-disclosure] pissed off
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Steve Wray wrote:
>
> SW>>> And the fact that software companies can get away with
> SW>>> claiming to have no liability for the fitness of their products
> SW>>> means that they can continue to produce and sell and 
> make millions
> SW>>> out of their defective products.
>
> So this only applies to sold software? You mean, if a 
> defective program,
> burns my CPU's it didn't cost me anything?
> Or with respect to Open Source (or even a paid source license):
> the fact that the source is available to the end-user, implies the
> end-user 'could have known' that this would happen?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html