Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: A Cynic's Guide, part 1
Message-ID: <5018@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 88 02:54:49 GMT
References: <2541@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Distribution: na
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 42

In article <2541@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> neff@Shasta.UUCP (Randall Neff) writes:
>
>State-of-the-practice in Software:
>"THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED "AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
>OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 
>MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO
>THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE PROGRAM
>PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU (AND NOT IBM OR AN AUTHORIZED PERSONAL COMPUTER DEALER)
>ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION"
>one paragraph from IBM program Licence Agreement (shrink wrap).

	This is actually state of the art in litigation.  You'll
	find the same wording in limited warranty disclaimers for
	lots of non-computing products because it's clearly defined
	in law.  You're right though that software goes MUCH farther
	than anything else I can think of in invoking the law's
	CYA shelters.  I personally dislike these disclaimers intensely.
>
>All software is known by version number, both for bug fixes and enhancements:
>Turbo C 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, etc.   An Ada compiler 5.0, 5.1, 5.41, 5.5, etc.

	... as is hardware.  I've tailored software to suit boards
	up to Revision M.  If hardware makes it anywhere near that
	level of revision it's almost certainly obsolete and will
	be replaced soon by a new board at Rev A.  I'd LOVE to be
	able to use the same approach with lots of software.

	Economics favors upgrading hardware as technology enables
	producing a new product which can be manufactured for
	less cost than an old product.  The conventional "wisdom"
	is that software should be reused to the hilt to hold down
	costs.  This works for some software, but causes BIG trouble
	when reused components are a poor fit for new requirements.

	Software management seems to be much more aware of the NIH
	(Not Invented Here) syndrome than of the risk of the UWE
	(Use Whatever Exists) syndrome.


---------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu