[lug] can't make this stuff up, folks...

[Stephen Queen]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:

> LOL good point on the specifications.  Much of the problem in those
> specs is the budget.  Businesspeople really still don't "get it" that
> rolling software versions ten times to get features that could have been
> put into version 1 with FAR less time invested, is the smarter way to
> play...
>
> As far as "no one is dying", yeah, kinda... but computers are running a
> lot of stuff these days.
>
> Watching the vulnerability lists is pretty depressing if you're the
> optimist I am (seriously!) that software will some day be built in such
> a way that's worthy of handling things like bank accounts, insurance,
> stock brokerages...
>
> Oh, wait...
>
> :-)
>
> The only thing it would really take is codification (laws) regarding
> coding.  There's a million ways to put up a bridge too, and many of the
> early ones DID fall down... the public said, "Government go get
> involved", and Civil Engineering as we know it today including personal
> liability for screw-ups...
>
> But, the coding world doesn't want to behave like other Engineering
> disciplines.  They just want the title without that level of effort.
>
> I mean seriously -- when OS vendors (ostensibly the best and brightest
> of the coders?  Pshaw... maybe not...) have weekly vulnerability lists
> and patches to the point where every well-patched machine has to be
> bounced weekly, something's very wrong in the way we approach
> "professional" computing, don't you think?  Way down deep... serious
> misconceptions about computers and how they work.
>
> I keep wondering if we can ferret those out and get spotlights on them.
> Like, "Computers need to be upgraded every year"... not if you had
> software that wasn't buggy on them to start with...
>
> You know, stuff like that.  They don't swap out the flight management
> computers in airliners every year... (well, at least they DIDN'T... that
> may be changing too as this all-pervasive idea that software change is
> good, when it's really just swapping old bugs for new bugs)... ya know?
>
> --
>  Nate Duehr
>  nate at natetech.com
>
>
>
Sorry for this late reply, I've been out in the sage brush sea (Nevada) and
had no connections.

If an automobile breaks down on a bridge causing a two to four hour traffic
jam, it is not considered a failure of the design.

If an untrained driver, drives off the side of the bridge, it is not
considered a failure of the design.

If some one purposely damages the bridge (vulnerability) it is not
considered a failure of the design.

Just my thoughts,
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20091026/6f07ad01/attachment.html>