Re: Ada is getting more popular!

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:33:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> And a manager who buys black-box software is simply making a
> mistake, the size of which is commensurate to how much the business
> depends on that software.

He has no choice, there are other parameters more important than
availability of sources.

Even if he had, that is not the point. Which is whether open source could
contribute to software quality. It could not.

> Thomas learned from that past mistake and you
> would be well-advised to listen to him.

No, I wouldn't. I don't care about the sources of the car ignition system's
software. I don't care about ones of the TV set and so on and so forth.
Even a professional software developer cannot maintain all software he buys
directly or indirectly. What about the rest 99% customers? This model
cannot work.
 
>>> With black box software you simply never know.
>>
>> This is normal. I go to the shop and see that the product I used to
>> buy is no more available. Bad luck. Software update is a product as
>> any other.
> 
> This may be normal but it is stupid to allow your business to depend on
> something you don't know, without a practical or economical way out if
> things don't evolve as you wish.

You cannot be in control of everything. You have to outsource. If a piece
of software is so vital to your business, just don't buy it, or else make
the vendor liable. As simple as that. The problem is that vendors have too
much power over customers. The only solution I see, is a law enforcing
liability to sold software. Open or free source will never solve it.

> If I were running a business, if a vendor refused to give me their
> sources then I would refuse to give them my money.

That is your right, but in reality you drive a car, you watch TV, you own a
mobile phone, a watch, a freezer etc. In 20 years electric bulbs will have
software. There is no return.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de