From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-26 00:52:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:06:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082965942 12711365 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7502 Date: 2004-04-26T10:06:16+02:00 List-Id: On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:28:52 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Science deals with facts. > >Science traditionally deals with observations, theories, notations and >methods of argumentation. ... based on facts >Modern science deals also with budgets, management, conferences, grants, >degrees and citations. that's scientific bureaucracy >By the way, just curious, did you sell *anything* *on open market* (shareware >or commercial product)? The firm I am working in, sells several commercial products. > I ask you about this because I know too well, that >many very good and skilled programmers never did that, and surprizingly, that >lack of either practical or theoretical experience in the matter do not >detract them proposing radical measures for the software market. You need not to have any experience to see what is going on. Though it is not clear what sort of experience you meant, because there is no true science dealing with market economy. Well, there are many people, who count themselves as scientists. Unfortunately all their theories lack any prediction power. >> Because >> effectively you can only sell something, that cannot be copied with so >> little efforts. It does not work. > >Well, ACT sells support, and this thing can't be copied with so little efforts. Yes, I meant ACT model as an example of how things could work. >> I think that software should be >> considered rather as an insurance against its fault. That should be >> sold, not a stream of bits. > >But the support - if it is real - is a form of insurance, a soft form, of >course (which sounds appropriate for *soft*ware -:). Actually, it is an >anticipation of possible need of support that sometimes pushes a user to buy >the product, and not just copy it from elsewhere. But for that the support >must be real, it should not be restricted to the product itself, it should be >present, however informally, for the product's environment and usage also. I meant only the law, which should treat sold software as an insurance contract rather than a "right to use". At least contract parties should have equal rights. >> This is why I am promoting the idea of liability. > >I think that liability is actually in effect - not legal liability, but market >liability - not in the form of fines, but in the form of losses of income. This does not work. Software market chooses the worst. >Yes, there are innocent parties that suffered from this form of liability >(usual argument of "anti-piracy" propaganda), Not at all. In the "insurance" model, anybody should have a "born" to right to use any software. >but I think that most of those >innocent parties will be simply killed (as participants of the market) by >introducing an effective legal liability. Insurance is one of the most profitable businesses. >Do you really want that New Order? I don't. So I don't want DCMA and Microsoft. >> The navigation system, radio, CD >> player etc, all that will be connected to the field bus. They will >> also have Bluetooth and Internet connections. This will open wide >> possibilities for attacks of all sorts. > >All that is quite obvious, and car vendors personnel (including their >software engineers) are neither preschool kids nor full idiots. After all, >probably they all have cars. There is a overwhelming force of market overriding everything you have mentioned. Add here incompetence in software design. So the result is quite predictable. After all we have examples at hand - how reliable is PC software? >But nevertheless, I think that a free and open-source emulator of generic car >would be a good thing. What are you going to simulate? Again, the hard-/software is expensive. A motor simulator is about $15000. A roller dynamometer is about 5 mio. And, well, who will serve 25 years in jail for cracking proprietary protocols? >And that Ada 2005 would be very appropriate programming >language for this purpose. Ada 95 + SPARK (for some components) would be ideal. But I doubt it will be even considered. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de