|
Shocking to see the results of this survey. If I buy an expensive item I would expect a guarantee for a time period.
In the same token if you provide source code at a price then you should guarantee it. This does not even need to be explicit. If it does not work then you fix it because you wrote it.
How is it ok to charge for broken code and then charge extra to fix it?
If you provided the code for free then the situation is different. Nobody expects a guarantee with free stuff. But, if you have charged, have some pride and fix it, no questions asked.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
~ Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. It's about taking responsibility. There's too little of that nowadays. (Listen to me, sounding like somebody's grandpa.)
|
|
|
|
|
No seriously, think about it. Holding companies responsible for their crappy code sounds great, right? And maybe it is.
But regular people can't afford to be haunted by all their past projects. No one would ever release a pet project again. Too risky. Open source would be in serious trouble - many projects won't be able to survive by relying for development just on the companies that use them. Software would became like hardware: you can tinker in your shed, but almost any actual "product" is produced by a company.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can safely exclude open source projects from this. I mean.. yeah you can give the user a full refund if it doesn't work... like "Hey man, here you have your 0$ back that you paid us for this software" 
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. It would still apply to free open source if fixing is mandatory though. The question didn't really clarify whether the choice implied by the "or" is to made by the developer or by the lawmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Hm. I hadn't thought this way. From
Quote: If our code breaks should we be legally liable to provide a repair, a replacement or a refund
I understood that the developer is just liable to provide either of those three. It could, however, also mean that the user is the one to choose what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
I read it as warranty for 'sold code' as in source code. So answered no.
But for actual 'finished' software (not that I've seen a finished software product yet), then yes they should come with warranties.
|
|
|
|
|
One user complained that her PC/application was no longer working as before.
I swapped out the monitor first. Issues persisted.
I swapped out the graphics card. The issue persisted.
I swapped out the PC, carefully copying all her applications to the hard disk of the new PC. The issue persisted.
Turned out that the idiot had downloaded and installed the Aquarium screensaver; you know, the one where the little fishies swim around on your screen.
It was a TSR (terminate and stay resident) program that caused the havoc.
Took three days to resolve and three roundtrips from my site to user site.
If I had known that at the beginning, I would have bought the twat a real aquarium at K-Mart for $20 and saved myself a lot of aggravation.
NO FRIKKING WAY!
|
|
|
|
|
Why is that an argument for "No"?
It's a software problem with the screen saver...
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
It was viewed by the user as a problem with the ERP software.
It was not.
I was required to fix it.
I spent my time and energy fixing a problem that I didn't cause.
Who is going to sue the provider of the free Aquarium screensaver to compensate me for my efforts?
|
|
|
|
|
If your software doesn't do what I asked it to do, fix it or pay me back. Period. No excuses.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn right!
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Because the development cost would be far too high to develop anything.
2. It is nearly impossible decently calculate the risk, developers are not "material" that can have a measured strength or reliability. (hence #1)
3. Many suppliers already do deliver some sort of warranty, based on a a certain amount of free "bugfixing", guaranteed passing of test scenarios, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Strangely enough, those are pretty much exactly the arguments given by both the British car industry, and the British motorcycle industry shortly before their Japanese equivalents arrived on these shores and the subsequent disappearance of the native manufacturers as going concerns...
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
As we all know that nobody is perfect, and deadlines are always a b, If I had the time to finish my project without any pressure i would have said yes, but I have to say know 
|
|
|
|
|
As a hobbyist(all my bugs are in software I developed and I am the only consumer of) , I would have thought the results would be on the yes side of the question.
I find this split in opinion interesting.
David
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not at all surprised. It reflects the openness of the question.
A warranty is usually offered on something with a narrow set of use cases. The warranty is void if you deviate. But, in those cases deviation is concrete and clear. With software it's more broad and abstract. For instance, who's bug is it if two application drivers conflict?
My vote is yes, because a limited warranty is still a warranty. You may not be able to offer a warranty to be completely compatible with every system configuration for the next year, but you certainly can for security issues.
|
|
|
|
|
David C# Hobbyist. wrote: I find this split in opinion interesting.
I believe the 'Yes' side had a slight lead yesterday, but now the votes shifted to a slight lead on the 'No' side. It is still a close race.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
They should provide warranties as long as they can test the code in the expected environment - For example, a programmer who wrote a firmware for one type of hardware should offer a warranty.
Web Developers for example may offer a warranty, too - But only in the environment they have tested the App in (Otherwise we'd have hamsters keeping CP Netscape Navigator-compatible).
You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colon."
|
|
|
|
|
Bostik have the right idea. They say they have no control over how the user uses their product. Software is a bit like glue in that respect.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
Why Software Developers should offer code warranty. As long as they meet the requirement, why they be questioned. Off course any pure software development should go the whole processing of SDLC[^]. Other than this why they be liable for their code. When they deliver the product someone(project manager/product manager along with the stake holders approved it. This is the way it goes IMHO.
Please leave the Coders
|
|
|
|
|
Developers should offer warranties, for a price. This should encourage better code from the developer because they understand they will be required to fix the code. The warranty should only cover the fixing of the code and not be liable for its use in an unknown/untested environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes a warrantee is a good idea. it also helps define bug vs desired feature and opinion.
The company I work for offers a 1 year warranty.
Any bugs after a year they may still fix, but its a painless way to not have to say if they wanted a feature they should have asked for it a year ago.
|
|
|
|
|
...holding a company directly financially liable for a buggy product is (IMHO) the only sure-fire way to ensure that management gives due importance to the effort required to properly build and test software. Software products often tend to be rushed out the door in order to meet the requirement that the company establish market share early. And all too often, this happens at the expense of quality.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. The only reason most software out there is of such poor quality is that no-one is liable for it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
