backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 75 comment(s) - last by scrapsma54.. on May 23 at 6:31 PM

  (Source: Thomas Saur)
Microsoft, Linux Foundation finally getting along with one another

It doesn't happen often, but Microsoft and the Linux Foundation have issued a joint letter voicing their displeasure over the American Law Institute (ALI)'s latest effort to create an implied warranty stating that all shipped software have no material hidden defects.

The ALI is largely made up of judges and attorneys who are assigned the task of dealing with protocols related to software sales and warranties.  Due to serious flaws and other issues, more consumers are interested in having politicians and others deal with defective software, as it can be sometimes difficult to get the companies behind the software to take responsibility.

"Parties should be able to choose the rules that best suit their needs, as they have the most knowledge about their particular transaction," according to the joint letter.  "That is not to say that certain protections -- for example, in the business-to-consumer context -- are not warranted. But even in today's common law approach to software contracts, there is no great failure in terms of substandard quality or unmet expectations that would justify imposition of new mandatory rules, particularly given existing remedies under misrepresentation and consumer protection law."

Both the Linux Foundation and Microsoft especially don't like the following statement written into the ALI's Principles of the Law of Software Contracts:  "A transferor that receives money or a right to payment of a monetary obligation in exchange for the software warrants to any party in the normal chain of distribution that the software contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer.  This warranty may not be excluded."

Specifically, Microsoft and Linux Foundation officials want the ALI to clarify that statement, as they believe it's a bit too vague, while also wanting their attorneys to read over the published principles.

The ALI is meeting this week, and a final vote by all participating members will take place on the proposed draft.  For clarification, the ALI is not a legislative body that can create laws, though the group's writings are popular reference points for attorneys and judges.

The fallout is far from over, and it should be interesting to hear future statements regarding the implied warranty from both sides in the future.  For example, Microsoft and the Linux Foundation will likely square off with the European Union, as EU legislators recently created a proposal aimed at better protecting consumers.

Microsoft and the open source community have butted heads numerous times in the past, so the realization that there is an issue serious enough to have them combine forces is impressive, IT analysts said.  

"The mere fact that the Linux Foundation and Microsoft are joining forces may be viewed by some as remarkable," according to Microsoft general counsel Horacio Gutierrez.  "But there is a wide range of issues that affect all software developers alike."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Quite the non-conundrum.
By MrPeabody on 5/19/2009 3:28:36 PM , Rating: 4
Hm. Developing a computer program is a complex, error-prone process. On the other hand, if a customer pays a business for a product, the business should be held accountable for the product it delivers.

If I ran such a business, I would have a policy such that, if my customers found a bona-fide bug in my program, I would patch the bug for free. That way, I could continue to innovate, and my customers would have a degree of confidence in my product.

Everyone's a winner!

Wait . . . what? Virtually every serious software development enterprise does that already? Oh. Never mind, then.




RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By Alpha4 on 5/19/2009 3:44:12 PM , Rating: 4
That doesn't address the statement: " ...it can be sometimes difficult to get the companies behind the software to take responsibility. ".
The problem is not all companies provide proper channels for feedback. Others may do so but not act on the consumer's input.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By afkrotch on 5/19/2009 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly when does it stop being their fault? If they tell you to completely reload the OS, install zero drivers, and install just their program, then it works. Is that done? Are they no longer responsible?


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:43:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, again providing there is no bug in the application which makes it break under existing standards at the time of sale. WHY is this so hard for you to grasp? Assign fault where it actually lies. If a driver breaks something it is the source of that driver to blame.

We have standards for a reason. Those who do not follow them or have faults are to blame. It is not a hard concept to accept, that you seem to be confused on the issue is probably because you are not the one with working knowledge of the aspects of every part of the driver, application, hardware and OS which are suspect, but those responsible for each portion DO have working knowledge of the portion they are responsible for.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By foolsgambit11 on 5/19/2009 7:02:18 PM , Rating: 5
But that's not even what the clause says. The clause makes the software manufacturer responsible for product bugs that it knows about at the time of shipping. Although it does beg the question of what constitutes a defect - if the OS doesn't play nice with a program, as long as you don't claim the program works on the OS, then it's not a design flaw. Instead, the issue would be with the program, which claimed it worked on a specific OS but didn't.

Of course, the clause as written can be interpreted broadly or narrowly, and I can understand software designers wanting the exact limits of their culpability to be better defined. But in practice, it seems like the current wording allows plenty of potential to wiggle out of responsibility.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By Zoomer on 5/20/2009 7:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
The program doesn't work on Win 3.1! And you knew about it right from the start! Sue! Class action!


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By sinful on 5/20/2009 12:09:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
We have standards for a reason. Those who do not follow them or have faults are to blame. It is not a hard concept to accept, that you seem to be confused on the issue is probably because you are not the one with working knowledge of the aspects of every part of the driver, application, hardware and OS which are suspect, but those responsible for each portion DO have working knowledge of the portion they are responsible for.


If only it were that simple to assign fault to these kind of problems.

Let's say I gave a house, and there's dodgy wiring installed, a fuse box that the prior owner stuck pennies in, animals have chewed through some wires, and there's a lighting storm taking place, and I've got 21 amps worth of equipment on a 20 amp circuit.

Then, I plug in a space heater into a surge protector sitting in a puddle of water and the whole thing explodes into a giant fireball.

Who's fault is it?

Is it the space heater's fault for not detecting that the circuit was overloaded?
The surge protector's fault for not working properly while in a puddle of water?
The fuse box manufacturer for letting someone stick pennies in instead of fuses?
The fault of the prior owner who stuck the pennies in the fuse box?
The manufacturer of the wire because the wires got chewed on?
The electrician that installed the wires?
The animals, because they chewed through the wires?
The electric company for not having lightning surge suppressors?

When the whole system is hacked together, it's very, very difficult to assign fault to any particular party.

The fuse box might have worked perfectly right out of the box. It kept on working after someone stuck pennies in it instead of fuses. It was only the combination of other issues that caused it to be a problem.

Should it have been engineered to prevent all the stupidity that took place afterwards?

Not only that, when the whole house burns down and destroys any evidence of the whole situation, who do you blame?

And finally, even if you can pinpoint blame, to what extent are they responsible? Let's say you go "Yes, with 100% certainty the fuse box shouldn't have let the user stick pennies in instead of fuses", how much are they at fault?
Is it their duty to replace the fuse box? The house? The electronics ruined by the lightning storm?

Computer hardware, software, and user interaction are potentially much more complicated than the above scenario.

It seems to me that trying enforce some sort of regulation or assign blame is just going to turn into a disaster of impossible requirements. "This software only works with XP SP3 with hotfix KB34895093 with SQL 2005 1.4.54 and is only compatible with HP1100 Printers with driver version 4.4.56, which in turn is only compatible with XP SP3 but only if KB34895093 is NOT installed, and is only valid after a software inspector from Adobe has verified your system setup.......


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By sinful on 5/20/2009 12:17:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yes, again providing there is no bug in the application which makes it break under existing standards at the time of sale. WHY is this so hard for you to grasp? Assign fault where it actually lies. If a driver breaks something it is the source of that driver to blame.


Oh, and let me add this:
What you propose would effectively turn any sort of standard into a legal-style document.

Any sort of standard that comes out would first be written by engineers, then vetted and rewritten by lawyers, turning a 10 page standard into a 100 page document filled with legal jargon and mumbo jumbo.

Seriously, you see text like
""A transferor that receives money or a right to payment of a monetary obligation in exchange for the software warrants to any party in the normal chain of distribution that the software contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer. This warranty may not be excluded."

Now imagine a highly complicated document written in that fashion.

Good idea, or bad idea?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/20/2009 7:11:33 AM , Rating: 3
Extremely bad idea. Frankly we can do without the lawyering anymore than we already have to deal with. Lawyers and many of these idiotic laws need to be curtailed to assist with productivity.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By JakLee on 5/19/2009 7:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
When I read this
quote:
by afkrotch on May 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Exactly when does it stop being their fault? If they tell you to completely reload the OS, install zero drivers, and install just their program, then it works. Is that done? Are they no longer responsible?

I imediately thought of Windows ME - fresh perfectly clean installation was wonderful.... as soon as you add ANYTHING it began have issues, lol


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By xrodney on 5/20/2009 8:28:47 AM , Rating: 1
I don't even remember how many times i was f***d up after paying for some software that either didn't work on my system and or was not even able install due stupid message type %OS% is not supported or was not tested etc => installer exit.
I can name few games like Doom3, GTA4 that just refuse to install but if you manage hack installer limitations they work fine. But if you try return them they just don't want give you back money because they allways say "it was tested on Windows XP (eventually on our system) and its working fine" or "its your fault that you didn't tested if its run on your (exact) configuration".
You usually end up selling sw that don't work for you on ebay loosing part of your money (and they even complain again that they loose sales because of 2nd hand sw).

Stuff like this really makes me see red sometime.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By Locutus465 on 5/20/2009 9:56:42 AM , Rating: 4
It's essentually impossible to release a software product which is totally bug free. So the problem I have with this new proposed law, as a professional software developer is what exactly does this mean to my companies business model?

We develop a RIS software prodcut as well as a PACs product, basically all the software your Radiology Lab needs in order to operate. As is common in our industry there is a fee to purchase the product initally, and then a service contract fee on going from then on. We do publish software patches as they come up for free, and there is a fee for feature requests. So what does this law mean to our business model?

More over who decides what is a bug and what is a design change? Because I can tell you right now end users and developers have two very different idea's of what this means.

End user:
It didn't do what I expected, it's a bug...

Developer:
Ok, well your expectations were wrong, it functions exactly as speced, it's not a bug or in other words software defect.

So who's going to be right under the terms of this new proposed change? I think this is what scares MS & the Free Software Foundation the most.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By Xavier434 on 5/20/2009 10:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
The only problem I have with your post is this part right here:

"If I ran such a business, I would have a policy such that, if my customers found a bona-fide bug in my program, I would patch the bug for free. That way, I could continue to innovate, and my customers would have a degree of confidence in my product."

I agree that this is how it is supposed to work and I also believe that it is the most realistic solution. However, the reality is that not all companies respond in this manner. Some of them, especially the bigger companies, are much more selective about which reported bugs get fixed. Others take an extraordinarily large amount of time to fix them and that is time which often costs other businesses which rely on their software purchases money.

Taking that even one step further, are the software releases which hardly qualify as even a beta release and the bugs just never seem to end to the point where the purchase is no different than buying an expensive car or computer where most of parts are defective. Even though there might be a warranty policy on that car and computer, there comes a point where a full replacement and/or refund is the most realistic and fair solution. Such policies and protections do yet exist for consumers and I believe they should. The hard part is figuring out where the line should be appropriately drawn so that those protections do not get abused. It's a tough call and one that most likely should differ from case to case. Without judges and lawyers out there who are very familiar with software and its development cycles it will be very difficult for them to draw those lines effectively.


RE: Quite the non-conundrum.
By scrapsma54 on 5/23/2009 6:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
You realize they are talking about being held accountable for the hardware, not the software, they said material, not virtual.


everything is beta!!
By Screwballl on 5/19/2009 3:59:47 PM , Rating: 3
If this ever get enacted, everything will be released and stay in permanent "beta status" so no software will ever be released as a "final" version again, and therefore excluded from this type of bullsh*t law.
Windows 7 Service Pack 2 beta
Nero 12 Express beta
Photoshop CS4 beta
Ubuntu 10.04 beta

I am already sick of certain things being in what seems a permanent "beta" status (Gmail anyone), so this will just make things so much worse.

Plus add in the possibility of the problems being related directly to their OS, hardware or incompatible software, there will be almost no way for any person to technically PROVE that the software caused the problems.




RE: everything is beta!!
By Starcub on 5/19/2009 5:14:13 PM , Rating: 3
That's fine so long as they accept payment from Visa beta.

Actually, anyone who has ever coded programs in college will tell you that it isn't all that hard to debug your program to get it to work as you intend it to, it just takes time. The problem is that there are multiple developers involved and time is money. There are standards that exist to code to that should be followed and tested against, so it is inconcieveable that show stopping bugs can exist that would cause a program not to work. Yet such is often the case.

Developers don't want to provide products that live up to their advertisement. I bought a phone that I can't find all the device drivers for, and neither the bluetooth manufacturer or the phone maker provides the proper drivers. I also bought a software DVD archiving program that was advertised to work with the programs I already owned, but the program does not work at all with some of these programs and the manufacturer just makes excuses. Games are another area where programs are often released were you can't finish the game you started due to a bug until it is resolved in a later patch.

Since retailers do not take returns on software, the consumer is left out in the cold if they purchase buggy software. Therefore stronger consumer protections appear to be necessary.


RE: everything is beta!!
By Chaotic42 on 5/19/2009 10:47:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Actually, anyone who has ever coded programs in college will tell you that it isn't all that hard to debug your program to get it to work as you intend it to, it just takes time.


I don't know where you went to college, but I feel pretty certain that you didn't write anything as versatile and/or large as Windows, Creative Suite, Office, or Vegas in college. Maybe you did.

I don't work on software (I do a little "hacking" here and there as it has been called by our developer), but I do work with large product deliveries. The only way to insure a relatively bug-free release (100% defect-free production is a pipe dream) is to have proper ISO procedures in place, have a large, motivated QC staff, and no concrete deadline.

I cannot imagine how complex something like Windows, Photoshop, etc. is. If Microsoft were liable for every bug, Windows would either cease to exist, or cost thousands of dollars.

Somehow we've managed to make it this far.


RE: everything is beta!!
By sinful on 5/20/2009 12:49:19 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Actually, anyone who has ever coded programs in college will tell you that it isn't all that hard to debug your program to get it to work as you intend it to, it just takes time. The problem is that there are multiple developers involved and time is money. There are standards that exist to code to that should be followed and tested against, so it is inconcieveable that show stopping bugs can exist that would cause a program not to work. Yet such is often the case.


I agree with a previous poster that said you must have only taken very, very basic computer classes.

I can only imagine working on a project with millions of lines of code, numerous developers, over a period of years, with people leaving taking their knowledge of their code with them, and having to deal with deadlines to boot.

Such a task is not even remotely comparable to a 10 page program written by 1 person in a 7 day period.

It's like saying "Yeah, I remember taking a spanish class in highschool.... so it's not that hard to be a translator and learn 21 languages...."


RE: everything is beta!!
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is a clear, logical, scientific method to prove software defects. The catch is that in some cases with closed source code if you don't have a preponderance of the evidence then a court would have to order release of the source code for examination, and the money spent to have sufficiently capable people examine the code.


RE: everything is beta!!
By RagingDragon on 5/20/2009 4:36:03 AM , Rating: 3
Well since the software is closed source the examiners would have to be under NDA. And since the NDA'd code might implement some patents and is definetly copyrighted, the examiners should never work on similar code afterwards. And to be credible the examiners couldn't be employees of parties to the case.

So anyone with sufficient experience to compenetently examine would never be able to contribute to an open source project nor work for a software company - after the they'd have to work as academics and/or professional examiners. Good luck finding competent examiners.


Why
By AnnihilatorX on 5/19/2009 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"A transferor that receives money or a right to payment of a monetary obligation in exchange for the software warrants to any party in the normal chain of distribution that the software contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer. This warranty may not be excluded."


Why is every English sentence related to law written so horridly convoluted that I have to read them 3 times to understand it fully?




RE: Why
By TomZ on 5/19/2009 3:43:46 PM , Rating: 4
Lawyer job security.


RE: Why
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 5/19/2009 5:40:24 PM , Rating: 5
Probably because we're all used to assuming things through context, but to create an enforceable law, you don't want ambiguities or leave room for interpretation. That's why the language is so difficult to read. It tries to spell out everything and avoid misinterpretation. Doesn't mean they're always successful at it.


RE: Why
By jvillaro on 5/19/2009 7:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
Not only in english.


Define Defect. Define Hidden Defect
By ProModeler on 5/19/2009 4:08:11 PM , Rating: 3
I would say most defects are the result of the user trying to do what the software wasn't meant to do, and the developer does not have the time nor is omniscient enough to write code to prevent every contingency. For example, an automobile isn't meant to be driven into oncoming traffic, but would we say it is a defect in the automobile that it didn't prevent the operator from doing so?

As for "hidden" defect, what if the development team brainstormed such outlyhing situations, but didn't bother to prevent the user from doing such said things, since it was outside of the typical usage of the software or overly restictive. Using the same example, car manufacturers know that the car can be driven over a cliff, but don't bother to prevent it for obvious reasons. It that a "hidden" defect in the automobile?




RE: Define Defect. Define Hidden Defect
By mmntech on 5/19/2009 5:12:19 PM , Rating: 1
It's fairly easy to define. Say I buy a car and the company discovers that car has a faulty engine gasket that can lead to failure of the engine regardless of how well I maintain it. That's a defect. Now say the manufacturer tries to hide the fact that the gaskets are faulty. That's a hidden defect. User abuse/misuse doesn't factor into this kind of warranty. It only refers to flaws that are in the actual code of the software.

I cannot buy the excuse that a computer operating system is too complex and such warranties are unfair. An airplane is just as complex and we know what happens when they fail due to design flaws. You absolutely HAVE to consider every contingency. If you don't, you're incompetent and negligent. Large corporations have millions of dollars worth of data and most certainly they should be compensated if a known defect in the OS caused data loss or massive downtime. If anything, it would force software manufacturers to better test their software before releasing it to the public.


By surt on 5/19/2009 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 3
A significant failure in aircraft design typically results in death, whereas failure of consumer software typically results in minor inconvenience. Should the same warranty requirements apply to both?

If you want a computer OS that warrants against data loss, just buy from a vendor that will provide those guarantees, rather than try to force such guarantees down the throats of every vendor. Yes, you may need to pay 10, 100, or 1000 times as much to get those guarantees, but if you aren't willing to make those payments, why should some company be forced to cover those guarantees?


By RagingDragon on 5/20/2009 4:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
Since liability killed the general (i.e. personal) aviation market, the only new airplanes for sale are commerical aircraft costing millions to hundreds of millions of dollars each. Are you willing to pay that much for your home PC?


By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
In your example, the manufacturer or selling never advertised driving into oncoming traffic as a feature, nor was it ever implied. Automobiles are implied to be driven on public roads while obeying the laws. When it becomes legal to drive into oncoming traffic then we'd have to take another look at fitness in doing so.

Most defects are not the result of the user trying to do what the software isn't advertised as capable of. There is a very clear line in the sand. A product needs be fit for the purpose in which it is marketed and sold for profit, for any features listed to work as they are a term of sale.

A defect is not having those features working. Anything not claimed isn't a term of sale so there was no expectation nor requirement.


That's $#%^ing retarded.
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 3:11:46 PM , Rating: 3
Another proposal by people who don't know dick about the topic at hand.

Only an utter and complete asshat would ever suggest such a thing. Get the tar and feathers.




RE: That's $#%^ing retarded.
By TomZ on 5/19/2009 3:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
And that's exactly the reason that this proposal might be popular with politicians, lawyers, and the general public.


RE: That's $#%^ing retarded.
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 6:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
<smacks self in head>

Oh, that's right.

<grabs pitchfork and torch>

Yarr! Pardon Spiro Agnew!

<rapes and pillages along with everyone else>


To the uneducated...
By VelociRapture on 5/19/2009 8:13:40 PM , Rating: 5
I have been on Dailytech for a long long time, but I felt compelled to create an account so that I could post this, my first public statement. Obviously I feel a tad strong about this.

I want to use certain words for some people, but I don't want the post deleted, so I will try to be... subtle.

While there should be some reasonable expectation to get your money's worth, we all gamble every day on many of the products we buy, from software to automobiles, etc.

Now... the big picture some people are missing... the country is going down the tubes. As we all know mom & pop shops are practically a historical footnote, and if converse with many an unemployed skilled person (plumber, etc) it is essentially impossible for them to start small businesses and compete due to the cost of insurance policies, etc etc.

One of the last realms where an individual may still put something together he or she can sell with little start up costs is software. I believe the current CEO's of some rather large corporations can tell you all about working from their garages.

If stuff like this becomes a law, ONLY big large corporations stand a chance of developing software that can be sold for profit, as no one else will be able to do so. Oh... wait a minute... that's in the USA. I suppose that all other software will have to come from places like India or China for the average person to now afford them under the new rules. Yep, great idea people. This country doesn't have enough lawyers working to keep themselves in business. If you or your kid can no longer write a piece of code and sell it on the internet, I don't want to hear you crying about it later. Maybe they will need software insurance.




it's like the government running car companies
By dwjs on 5/19/2009 4:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is a foolish thing they are trying to do. A car company does not cover, nor should they have to cover a third party item added to their vehicle. In some cases it makes the warranty invalid.

What about all the hackers that will find a way if they try hard enough to get into a persons computer? Is Microsoft going to be responsible because it's not secure enough because someone with nothing better to do found a way to take control of your machine?

This will make software more expensive, and in the end it will hurt the consumer.




By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are implying it should cover 3rd party changes as if that is the only possible problem. It is not, the suggestion is for each party, including that 3rd party, to take responsibility for their own bugs.

What about all the hackers? Yes if MS adds a feature, opens a port, gives a program the ability to be taken over externally it is clearly a bug they should fix. It is amazing you want to claim it will hurt the consumer, when what hurts the consumer is allowing the very situation you posed, that someone can hack into and bring down or control your property, the computer.


Wow, look at them go!
By Ozziedogg on 5/20/2009 1:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
Look at all these Microsoft engineers that haunt DT try to justify why they cant write bug-free code, or why software shouldnt be held accountable to deliver what it is supposed to.

God, I love this website.




RE: Wow, look at them go!
By RagingDragon on 5/20/2009 4:52:03 AM , Rating: 3
As opposed to the copious quanties of bug free software from where?


New software requirements
By ZachDontScare on 5/19/2009 5:09:41 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if software companies will just get around this by making their requirements more strict. ie, "Supported platform: Windows XP SP2, running on a Dell 420, with no other non-MS applications installed on it, no internet connection, and no attached devices. Screen Size must be set to 640x480. All other platforms are run-at-your-own-risk".

"Well, we know he reported the problem... but he has a printer attached, so thats an unsupported platform."




Ridiculous
By BailoutBenny on 5/19/2009 7:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
.




We don't need this.
By CU on 5/20/2009 9:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
OS's and most programs for that matter cannot be 100% bug free with number of hardware configurations we have today. The testing time would be longer than the life of the program or the testers for that matter. For this to happen say could by to PC's as we no them. Advances would come almost to a halt due to the time required for testing.

As for just test against the standard. There are more than one standard in some cases. What if the standard changes and breaks backwards compatibility. Standards or open to interpretation just like laws. They are not just numbers like manufacturing tolerances used in making car parts. Standards have bugs.




By Donkeyshins on 5/19/2009 5:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
Then expect software costs to rise exponentially and innovation to slow way down. Your average operating system or application is far more complex than 99% of material goods built.




Also in the news...
By Bender 123 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Also in the news...
By bobsmith1492 on 5/19/2009 3:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
A computer is a general purpose "do-everything" machine. If it is intended to do anything and everything, how can anyone expect absolutely everything imaginable to work? A warranty is unreasonable.


RE: Also in the news...
By Bender 123 on 5/19/2009 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A computer is a general purpose "do-everything" machine. If it is intended to do anything and everything, how can anyone expect absolutely everything imaginable to work?


Nobody wants it to do anything and everything, just deliver on your promises and back up the claim. Of course, the examples of other software mucking things up are their own issue, but why is it so unreasonable to expect that, if Microsoft says Widget Maker 2009 will accurately manage your widget making systems, and it crashes hard and fails, why shouldn't the consumer expect some level of assurance?


RE: Also in the news...
By afkrotch on 5/19/2009 4:04:30 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is, what is causing the issue? Maybe a driver for a specific nic is causing it. Maybe an Nvidia driver. Maybe Firefox changed Widget Maker 2009 files and causes the crash. Maybe your computer is just overheating. Maybe a piece of malware got put on your system. Maybe Securom was added causing the issue.

The problem is, Microsoft cannot assure you that their program will run on every single possible computer configuration. Nor does Microsoft have the ability to make every single possible computer configuration and test it.


RE: Also in the news...
By Bender 123 on 5/19/2009 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"A transferor that receives money or a right to payment of a monetary obligation in exchange for the software warrants to any party in the normal chain of distribution that the software contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer. This warranty may not be excluded."


What is so bad about this? All it is is saying, if you know the problem exists and dont fix it, we have an issue with that...

Of course there will still be errors, but if you send out a product with known flaws or (like Sony's Rootkit) a piece of malware, you are at fault as a producer of the software. Tell me how holding them responsible for a pure failure and deception is bad...


RE: Also in the news...
By ZachDontScare on 5/19/2009 5:03:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What is so bad about this? All it is is saying, if you know the problem exists and dont fix it, we have an issue with that...


Problems can be very 'subjective'. There's a lot of REALLY DUMB pc users out there. What's really a problem, and whats really a user being an idiot, may not be apparent to the idiot customers. And how will it get resolved? With lawsuits! Hurray, more work for lawyers! Meanwhile, small software developers will be driven out of business because they cant afford the legal expenses. It will also kill 'inexpensive' software, because who would want to take a risk of being sued over a $20 program?


RE: Also in the news...
By GaryJohnson on 5/19/2009 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
like Sony's Rootkit


That may be a bad example of why we need software warranties, as they were held responsible without a warranty.

quote:
On January 30, 2007, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with Sony BMG on charges that their CD copy protection had violated Federal Law. The settlement requires Sony BMG to reimburse consumers up to $150 to repair damage that resulted directly from their attempts to remove the software installed without their consent.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:10:39 PM , Rating: 1
They are asking that each software developer take responsibility. That means all features MS puts in, work. That means if Firefox breaks something it is firefox developer responsibility not MS. That means malware authors are responsible if malware causes disfunction.

How is this difficult to understand? You have invented a supposed "problem" that is non-applicable, and confused the issue that yes, MS does need to ensure that their OS and bundled programs will run on any and all systems meeting the cited specifications, that is what specs are for!

If they can't do that then the remedy is simple, a customer refund and if it is lack of specifications or misleading marketing (as judged by court case/experts), a fine is enforced.

There is no need to make every single possible computer configuration and test it. Again this is why we have specs, and standards like ACPI, USB, SATA, PCIe, etc. If they follow all requirements and did not introduce bugs which go against specs, the fault is a bug in the 3rd party hardware or software, not with MS.

Put simply, assign blame where it really is instead of suggesting everyone get a free pass. Often blame is not on MS, but sometimes it is.


RE: Also in the news...
By ExarKun333 on 5/19/2009 5:14:16 PM , Rating: 3
This would only work in a situation like Apple where they make the OS and approve the hardware in specific configurations, then they could guarantee that it would work. This law is FUD, plain and simple.


RE: Also in the news...
By William Gaatjes on 5/19/2009 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
It is not FUD. I you remember correctly we have WHQL microsoft certified drivers. That means that microsoft tested and approved them. And there really are not that much different hardware combinations anymore. For example a cheap ping pang product with a bad driver is not the fault of microsoft. It is the ping pang manfacturer. CPU and chipset's are very similair these says as are the gfx.


RE: Also in the news...
By tmouse on 5/20/2009 7:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
While I can see some points, about the interactions of hardware and other software, there is another side. First as far as most consumer laws go software protects itself by including things like "no warranties are implied for fitness for any purpose" in their shrink wrap license agreements. We all know that more and more software is released with known defects and even selling features that simply do not work, probably pushed by the financials to get something out. It seems more and more software is requiring "service packs" just to enable features that the software uses as selling points. While complexity is part of the issue; another part is a growing sense of "well it's easy to repair after the release so let's release it and start generating revenue". I know several people who work for a few major players and even though the programmers absolutely needed more time to straighten out known defects they were over ruled and it was rtm. I'll concede the point that any law should be carefully vetted by people who understand the complexities of programming but as it stands now the consumer has little protections. Many companies do try to work with their clients to resolve issues (usually the smaller ones) , but as things get tighter I have seen several software packages with "features" that simply do not work until the first service pack; which is released a few months after release. Also if there are known incompatibilities they SHOULD be forced to notify the other party and BOTH should be REQUIRED to post these on their sites in a clearly labeled, easy to find section. That way the consumer has some chance to make an informed decision.


RE: Also in the news...
By RagingDragon on 5/20/2009 4:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Welcome to signed binaries that only run on certified hardware from a handful of OEM's, and forget about being able to install third party software.


RE: Also in the news...
By Bateluer on 5/19/2009 5:26:46 PM , Rating: 1
How is it unreasonable? If you release a piece of software with bugs, you are obligated to support that software to your paying customers, just as GM or Toyota would be shipping a vehicle with a bad part.

Far too often, software developers just shrug and tell the customers to buy the newest version.


RE: Also in the news...
By afkrotch on 5/19/2009 3:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, because we all know looking at over 50 million lines of code is just as easy as checking the parts of a car, which probably doesn't even come close to 1 million.


RE: Also in the news...
By Some1ne on 5/19/2009 3:50:43 PM , Rating: 4
It's even worse than that, actually. While it may be possible to look over your own 50 million lines of code, there are millions and millions more lines of code that have been written by third parties, and which may end up running on the same machine as your code. And if their code doesn't behave nicely, it may cause your code to break, and the user will think it's a bug. And to a certain extent it is, but it's not one that could have realistically been caught.

Even with a QA budget the size of Microsoft's, it's simpy not possible to test and verify every possible hardware and software permutation to ensure that a program works correctly in all cases. The expectation that software makers should warrant such a thing is ridiculous, and belies a poor understanding of both software engineering and computing in general.


RE: Also in the news...
By afkrotch on 5/19/2009 3:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that code that Microsoft would know for programs that were built for their OS is no longer allowed to be bundled together in Europe.

But I know what you're talking about. It's like telling Ford that they must provide a warranty for every single part that can be slapped onto their cars. Like windshields, tires, windshield wipers, turbos, superchargers, etc. If someone pulled the engine out a Dodge Ram and put it in a Ford F-150, you wouldn't expect Ford to provide a warranty for it.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's not at all like that. It's like Ford selling you a new car with power windows and seats, and you claiming it's ok if the power seats don't work because the power windows do.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Also in the news...
By William Gaatjes on 5/19/2009 5:48:21 PM , Rating: 1
Thats why we have standards. If microsoft issues standards how to write a program and the 3rd party developer does not follow those standards it's not microsoft's error. In the past microsoft did a lot of effort to keep compatibility , that means badly written program's would still run on the next os version. Very nice for the customers in the short term but in the long term microsoft had to maintain so much exceptions to the rules that it becomes impossible to keep track and maintain all of those exceptions. They even patched windows for their own flaws. Because of allowing bad behaviour with respect to software writing to gain a large peace of the market, microsoft undermined there own platform.

But if the standards microsoft set's are not up to par and open for different interpretations then it is the fault of microsoft. Standards are there to be followed. If people comply, then everything is exchangable. If they do not we get havoc.

quote:
Even with a QA budget the size of Microsoft's, it's simpy not possible to test and verify every possible hardware and software permutation to ensure that a program works correctly in all cases.


Microsoft do not have to test every possible hardware combination. If they test the most common hardware platforms which they already do then it is not really an issue. They can provide a list with known working platforms. We, the customers and computer geeks will fill in the blanks with the use of forums as it always have been.
Every hardware manufacturer can be held responsible for flaw's of the products they supply. It is time the same rules apply for the software manufacturers. Their software, their responsibility.

quote:
The expectation that software makers should warrant such a thing is ridiculous, and belies a poor understanding of both software engineering and computing in general.


If you can not write quality code then do not go in the software business please.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
1) If they can't manage that much code, do not use that much code. Do not put in features known to be buggy, that is what beta version testing is for.

2) Checking parts on a car is only hard for someone not in the business of auto repair. Similarly MS is in the business of software development so they darn well better be able to fix problems. Similarly if you pay money for the new car, or for repair, you won't accept it malfunctioning. It is required that listed features work. The same standard should be applied to software and OS, it is time the industry not be exempt from standards of quality other industries are held to.

Maybe it will take a lot of man hours and cost some money. Maybe considering that millions and millions of people absolutely depend on their computers for modern productivity and life better than decades ago, and that these people PAY FOR THIS WITH MONEY, those being paid should simply be required to uphold their end of an implied contract, that they deliver what they claimed they were selling. The laws were always clear enough on this but we became so fascinated by the evolution of computing technology that we let a lot of things slip through the cracks.

Today we have a different situation than 20 years ago, we have basic needs met with computing and are far more able to let new features remain in a beta stage until fully debugged. No more slipups like When WHS corrupted all your data by simply using the core features advertised.


RE: Also in the news...
By dragonbif on 5/19/2009 3:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Things change all the time in software; what you want it to do, what you install, viruses and so on. If you made changes to a car most likly the warranty would not cover it because of what you install onto the car.
From what this looks like it is saying if Microsoft comes out with Windows 7 and later on finds something bad in it and they continue to sell the same version they have done something bad. They should also provide fixes in a timely manner but this is a little off and I do not know what ALI is trying to say here.


RE: Also in the news...
By kattanna on 5/19/2009 3:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess the easiest way to solve this problem for devs is to stop overpromising and deliver on the promises you make...


the problem there is that "devs" rarely make overzealous claims.. marketing departments or even outside marketing/sales companies do.


RE: Also in the news...
By Zshazz on 5/19/2009 3:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
We can tell you've never coded a single program in your life :-p

It's utterly impossible to get every single bug & every single insecurity from a program, let alone an OS. Given unlimited time and unlimited resources, perhaps one could afford a warranty such as this... but even for Microsoft, the situation doesn't exist.

If you'd like to see the difficulty involved in programming, I suggest you take some classes at college when you get out of highschool.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell that you've never coded very well! I was programming long before windows arrived and did in fact produce programs with no bugs or insecurities. How is it possible? Simple really, you don't add any feature you can't fully test in a final version, or at the very least you do not advertise a feature as a marketing, selling point.

If they can't support the feature, don't put it out there as an enticement to purchase the product.

Consider an automobile. If they didn't claim it would have an emergency roadside kit in the trunk and you hadn't expected one, then when you buy a new car and find that in the trunk there is an emergency roadside kit but the flashlight is damaged, you're not going to have a case claiming it should be replaced or you receive a refund because it was not part of the contractual deal that you paid for.

It does not take unlimited time and resources, but practically speaking it will require a commitment to a higher quality standard than in the past. It need not be a hard line in the sand inforcing such legislation, remember that people have already demonstrated quite a bit of patience but on the other hand there is still the important concept of due diligence.


RE: Also in the news...
By tech4tac on 5/19/2009 10:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Most programs in the age prior to Windows were written in C, Pascal, and even BASIC. Most, if not all, the standard libraries at that time didn't have (or only in limited way) buffer overflow or bonds checking in their I/O routines. Just linking to them during the build process exposed your program to insecurities and possibly bugs. This is still true, though to a lessor extent, for modern language compilers. Assuming your program logic was perfect, the most you can say is your logic didn't have any flaws.

If you've ever taken advance courses in Computer Science (like the one's you have to take for a Masters or Doctorates program), you've problem written a few mathematical proofs on the logic of your program--the only way to to substantiate the validity of your logic. You probably know that it's virtually impossible to write such proofs for something as complex as a modern OS.

quote:
The great thing about standards is there are so many to chose from.


RE: Also in the news...
By Voo on 5/20/2009 10:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Someone who clames to have written a completely bugfree and secure program has probably never written anything with more than some thousand lines of code and that probably alone.

It's completly impossible to get a software with several million lines of code completely bugfree - at least I've never seen any.

So all the supporters out there, please show me just one softwareproject with lets say more than 10 million lines of code with no flaws - can't be that hard, if even guys who wrote only some projects in colleage can do it, right?


RE: Also in the news...
By Smilin on 5/19/2009 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
-1 for the stupid fvcking car analogy. Formulate your thoughts already.


RE: Also in the news...
By encryptkeeper on 5/19/2009 4:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
if I bought a car with a crippled braking system, and the manufacturer offered me "Brakes Service Pack 1" for install within the next 6 months, I might be less than satisfied, but software devs never deal with this line of thinking

Apples to oranges. When a car crash happens, people are injured or killed, and personal property is damaged, sometimes beyond repair. When a computer crash happens, the worst that happens is data is lost, and sometimes components have to be replaced. But that's why backups are essential and make this kind of warranty excessive on programmers. Imagine if you could have a spare car, and a spare copy of yourself and your loved ones, complete with all your memories just by sticking a removable HD into a drive and hitting "backup". Even if you get into a car crash and die, You have a backup of yourselves (and your car!) so there's no worry. But we all know it doesn't work like that.


RE: Also in the news...
By Bender 123 on 5/19/2009 5:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Or, if there is a known flaw in the software (we are not just talking OS's here...) allows somebody to access your PC and steal your personal info, how is this not bad?

Lets assume the recent data hostage situation, regarding stolen medical records, was due to a known security flaw or known mistake in the code...Image how your life would be wrecked if somebody released your personal financial info, psych records, VD testing, social history, medical procedures, etc...Darn tootin' it the responsibility of the ones that knew the problem existed and did nothing to fix it.


RE: Also in the news...
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 5:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not apples to oranges at all. If a new car has a malfunctional radio knob that is certainly not going to injure or kill anyone but it is also required to work because it is an advertised feature implied with the line-item stereo feature, they are REQUIRED to fix it within the warranty period, certainly when it is defective at the time of sale.


RE: Also in the news...
By William Gaatjes on 5/19/2009 6:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to read up with respect of the windows EULA.
It states that microsoft does not carry any responsibility.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

quote:
16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.


quote:
17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.


Basically it states : We are not responsible for anything that can happen to you because of a flaw in our software.

I wonder if life saving machines used in hospitals or flight control computers would run windows ?


RE: Also in the news...
By rudy on 5/20/2009 12:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
All companies say that try reading the EULA/TOS on anything. Basically legally every company tries to write those things so they are completely void of any responsibility. This is why reputation is so important because what they say in the legal disclaimer and what they do can be very different.


RE: Also in the news...
By William Gaatjes on 5/20/2009 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
I did. I agree with you. And that is why i feel something have to change. I feel free software is as is. But software you pay for has to have not only a warranty but also a guarantee that it works properly. And if not, i feel that every part of software must be patent free and royalty free. And the software api's should be open standards. In that case anybody can write software (this means an OS too) for a common platform. Then the free market principle can take over and will allow multiple suppliers of a common os platform.


RE: Also in the news...
By Alexstarfire on 5/19/2009 5:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
True, but not nearly the same. It's fucking impossible to help a piece of software like an OS be free from all defects, just fucking impossible. You can not anticipate the way everyone is going to use their products. There are literally billions upon billions of different configurations. I don't even think saying trillions is out of the question. Cause it's not just hardware that can fuck something up but software as well. And any old person can write a piece of software that runs on an OS.

I do agree that software devs need to stop releasing buggy shit, but this is just going to stop them from making anything period.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki