jdow wrote:
> From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> jdow wrote:
>>> From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> A better idea - hold the company that produced the defective
>>>> software that allows this to happen. After all, they spent how much
>>>> convincing people that all you need to do is "point and click" to
>>>> administer a Windows box... (OK - with what they can spend on
>>>> lawyers and their political clout, you couldn't win in the U.S.)
>>>
>>> Oh really? Linux boxes get hacked, too. Who gets sued?
>>>
>> Well, if a Linux distribution ignored standard standard security
>> practices the way MS has, the distributor should get sued. If you
>> have someone running a system with a version of the software that
>> has known and patched bugs, the person running the system. In ether
>> case, the person that cracked the system should get sued as well.
>>
>> Think of it this way, if a doctor loses a patient because he did
>> sloppy work, you sure the doctor.
>>
>> If an engineer designs a bridge wrong, and it collapses, he gets
>> sued. (Or worse.) But if the contractor used substandard material
>> and that caused the bridge to collapse, you sue the contractor. If a
>> plane crashes into the bridge, you have an interesting time
>> assigning the blame.
>>
>> If you overdose or die from the medicine you took because of bad
>> quality control, as opposed to you not following the prescribed
>> dosage, who is at fault?
>
> FreeBSD is supposed to be more secure than Linux. (And based on security
> bug reports that "seems" to be the case.) Apple's OS-X is built on
> FreeBSD, an old one to be sure, though. They just released 17 patches....
>
> Microsoft has the bankroll to survive the suits. Red Hat doesn't. Be
> careful what you wish for.
> {^_-}
>
There are different levels of liberality. Try this example:
You buy a car with break lines that are not designed to handle the
pressure surge when you do panic breaking, that is a design flaw.
You do a panic stop and the line breaks.
You buy a car with a break line that has a hairline crack that
causes it to break when you do a panic stop. That is not a design
flaw in the car.
You buy a car that is part of a batch that ended up with bad break
lines because of a supplier mistake. The break lines were recalled.
You ignore the recall. the line breaks when you make a panic stop.
All three result in a broken break line, and very likely a crash.
but who is responsible is different in each case.
Now, I can see why, as a programmer, you would not want to be held
liable for damage cause by a mistake in programming. After all, who
has time to get all the bugs out. but there is a BIG difference
between a bug in a program, and a program that is poorly designed in
the first place.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
