Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf!altger!doitcr!de.intel.com!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: a better analogy for the warranty discussion?
Keywords: cars, books
Message-ID: <1991Mar21.054633.10472@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 21 Mar 91 05:46:33 GMT
References: <1991Mar15.233200.14168@ico.isc.com> <8273@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <3X4AKI@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 21

In article <3X4AKI@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>And what would happen if you took your old Datsun or your K&R1 back and
>demanded your money back because you weren't satisfied?

That would depend on why you weren't satisfied and whether your state
has a lemon law or not.  In 1983 my wife had a year-old Datsun that
the dealer was unable to fix so it wouldn't stall during the first
10 minutes of running.  The dealer traded for a new one for about
$1000 (and that one is still running). Since then, the laws have
changed. I think now the dealer would have to have given a full refund
or replace it with one that worked (but we no longer live in Wisconsin).

I liked the book anology but it kind of misses the funtional aspect
of software.  I'd compare a buggy program to something like an
engineering or medical reference where mistakes are more than an
inconvienience.  Is there a precedent for handling mistakes in a
published work where errors cause actual damage to occur?

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us