power, corruption and lies (was RE: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off)

From: Steve Wray (steve.wray_at_paradise.net.nz)
Date: 04/28/03

  • Next message: Jason Coombs: "[Full-Disclosure] RE: power, corruption and lies" 
    To: <full-disclosure@netsys.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:35:58 +1200

    Phew... I'm just saying that in most normal areas
    of business theres some sense of liability; that if
    you do a *** job and sell it to someone and it turns
    to custard on them, theres some legal fallback. Therefore
    theres *some* disincentive to sell ***. Powertools for
    example. Companies that make and distribute powertools that
    are *** (dangerous and unreliable) stand to lose out
    big time!

    Companies that make and distribute software
    that is *** (dangerous and unreliable) stand to make
    a fortune with absolutely *no* risk (except to reputation
    but who cares about reputation when they are taking a dump
    on a 24 carat toilet? I sure wouldn't).

    The software industry seems to have nicely circumvented
    this risk apparently with the (IMO lame) excuse that since
    its 'impossible' to guarantee its correctness and reliability
    in the first place the software vendor shouldn't have to
    shoulder any burden if it turns out to in fact be incorrect
    and/or unreliable.

    This has effectively doomed (almost) the entire IT industry
    to corruption. Yes, all the way from software to hardware,
    from sales to support, the IT industry is corrupt.

    Because if you can get away with selling ***
    and if you can make selling *** profitable,
    then sell ***!
    Thats the IT business model in a nutshell.

    Heck I could print that (and only that) on every page
    of a 500 page book entitled "IT Industry for dummies"
    and sell it for $100 a copy and make a fortune...
    :)

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com
    > [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of
    > Melvyn Sopacua
    > Sent: Monday, 28 April 2003 10:23 a.m.
    > To: Steve Wray
    > Cc: 'J G'; full-disclosure@netsys.com
    > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Steve Wray wrote:
    >
    > SW>>> And the fact that software companies can get away with
    > SW>>> claiming to have no liability for the fitness of their products
    > SW>>> means that they can continue to produce and sell and
    > make millions
    > SW>>> out of their defective products.
    >
    > So this only applies to sold software? You mean, if a
    > defective program,
    > burns my CPU's it didn't cost me anything?
    > Or with respect to Open Source (or even a paid source license):
    > the fact that the source is available to the end-user, implies the
    > end-user 'could have known' that this would happen?

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Jason Coombs: "[Full-Disclosure] RE: power, corruption and lies"